[cheeznbreed]

From 'The Times', whatever that is. Can't see the full article. Classic Labour, do they ever learn. They are preparing the ground to 'consolidate all your debts into one easy payment'. There have been rumblings for a while about the state of the Party's coffers, I guess this is more fuel on the fire. I don't think Ed will be able to bank much from the unions..

The disgruntled local officials ought to reflect on being shafted by top-down centralised diktat. Might knock a bit of sense into some of them to see how it is to be on the receiving end of their 'Government knows best' garbage for a change. If Labour treats its own like this, seems a fair assumption that everyone else has no chance. I hope this makes big news tomorrow.

If anyone has the rest of it, it would make a good read.

Of course, if any of these local associations grow a pair and refuse to do it, it might get interesting. Doubt that'll happen though.

Quote

Revolt over Labour’s raid on its local party assets

Labour is forcing local parties to hand over their headquarters buildings, enabling it to shore up its precarious finances, The Times has learnt. The move allows the party, which has a deficit of millions of pounds, to raise loans against the properties. It has caused unrest in constituency offices, which have been told that they will be thrown out of Labour unless they agree to sign over their assets. Several have told The Times of their anger at having to give up ownership of the buildings. They have been told to transfer the deeds of the properties into a company controlled by the national party. Letters sent out to constituencies that oppose the ruling state that complying is a “pre-condition of continued affiliation to the party”. Peter Watt, who served as Labour’s general secretary when the party narrowly avoided bankruptcy, said that it was right that local members helped to sort out its finances. “I think [the party] is doing a terrific job at stabilising the…

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

This post has been edited by cheeznbreed: 18 January 2012 - 10:53 AM

[billybong]

It sounds like a re-run of the Labour Party's much advertised adverse financial circumstances before Blair/Brown gained control and supposedly "reinvented" Labour. Reinvented - farce.

After that everything was suddenly supposed to be financially hunky dory for Labour.

These days I dont believe much if any of such stuff as published. If the politicians will totally lie about cast iron manifesto promises then they will certainly be economical with the truth about their own party's financial circumstances.

If only voters had known then what they know now, "No more boom and bust, prudence, no more housing booms, BoE controlling responsible interest rate policies, no more sleaze etc etc".

That's not to say that the Tory/LibDems (Coalition) are different.

Giving them money is like handing the banks money on a plate.

This post has been edited by billybong: 18 January 2012 - 01:30 AM

[SeeYouNextTuesday]

Money for Nothing

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

There was a story in my local paper a few weeks ago (can't find it online; sorry) to the effect that all the Labour councillors in York were under orders from Central Office to claim every last penny they were eligible to in expenses, mileage, allowances and so on, and then forward all but a tiny fraction of it to the central party's coffers, such was the dire state of their finances. Of course that is why they'll fight tooth and nail to avoid a cap on union donations.

[LetsGetReadyToTumble]

From what I can read on a graphic of the front page, Labour have a deficit of 7.5 million pounds.

[Tiger Woods?]

This tells you everything you ever need to know about the statist left. Maybe a few members will wake up, but I doubt it.

[admann]

Nice to see they run their own finances in the same way as they ran the country!

[fluffy666]

 Tiger Woods?, on 18 January 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

This tells you everything you ever need to know about the statist left. Maybe a few members will wake up, but I doubt it.

It'd be so much better if they just took donations from fraudsters(LD) or the hedge fund industry

http://www.guardian....ested-caribbean

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz1jnLyGBFt

Biggest problem for Labour is their drift rightwards economically. Including their recent statements that they would copy the Conservative spending plans (Yay! Stagnation forever!).

[interestrateripoff]

Excellent, do as we say or your out.

[whoami]

 cheeznbreed, on 18 January 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

Labour Party Finances In Dire Straights?

HPC spelling in dire straits too?

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

After an election, the losing party always has financial problems, as doners are unwilling to donate to a party that doesn't have the power to pass laws reflecting their interests.

Put simply, you only pay bribes to people in power.

[SeeYouNextTuesday]

 whoami, on 18 January 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

HPC spelling in dire straits too?

We're brothers in arms

[cheeznbreed]

 whoami, on 18 January 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

HPC spelling in dire straits too?

Changed, 'soz' and 'fanx'

[cheeznbreed]

 RufflesTheGuineaPig, on 18 January 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

After an election, the losing party always has financial problems, as doners are unwilling to donate to a party that doesn't have the power to pass laws reflecting their interests.

Put simply, you only pay bribes to people in power.

This doesn't quite cut it though, as the problems have been rumbling on for a few years now. I suppose the same applies to a fag-end Government, but the consistent message seems to be that Labour will always spend more than they have, irrespective of the numbers involved.

This post has been edited by cheeznbreed: 18 January 2012 - 10:56 AM

[swissy_fit]

Party funding needs to go on the taxpayers bill, nasty as that may sound.
All other donations banned with severe prison sentences for all who flout the rules.
It's the only way to re-establish democracy to at least a small extent.