Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest_ringledman_*

Labour on the verge of Bankruptcy

Recommended Posts

Ran their finances as the nation's.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/19/john-prescott-labour-close-to-bankruptcy

John Prescott: Labour 'on the verge of bankruptcy'

Former deputy prime minister is campaigning to be elected treasurer of the Labour party, which he says is £20m in debt

John Prescott: Labour verge of bankruptcy John Prescottt says Labour only had £10m to spend on this year's election. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

John Prescott today warns the Labour party that it is £20m in debt, "on the verge of bankruptcy" and must learn to campaign in smarter and more cost-effective ways if it is ever to restore its battered finances and take on the cash-rich Conservatives again.

Crucial to this reform is the need to boost the role of the party treasurer, "not only to hold the leadership to account in unnecessarily spending money we don't have, but to make sure we have the campaign capacity to deliver", says the newly ennobled Lord Prescott, who is the underdog candidate for the post at the age of 72.

Though implicitly critical of Tony Blair's way of handling Labour's three traditional sources of funds – trade unions, small donations and wealthy supporters such as Lord Sainsbury – which ended in the cash-for-honours investigation, Prescott also takes a sideswipe at Gordon Brown's "election that never was" in October 2007.

Brown's dithering over whether to call a snap election cost the party £1.5m, which could have been spent on the "disastrous" EU and local election campaign in 2008, Prescott writes for guardian.co.uk.

The result of the contest for the position of party treasurer will be announced with other elections to the ruling national executive – and that for party leader – at Labour's annual conference in Manchester next month. Prescott, deputy prime minister under Blair, finds himself in the unusual position for a veteran trade union politician of being the underdog against Diane Holland, a senior officer in the Unite union who is widely tipped to triumph with the help of the trade union block votes, though she is trailing in constituency party support.

In his article Prescott complains that Labour only had £10m to spend on this year's general election – a third of the Tory budget. "We are only kept alive by the herculean work of party staff and volunteers, trade union contributions, high-value donations and the goodwill of the Co-op bank," he writes. "And under the NEC's deficit reduction plan in 2008, we will clear our debts by 2016, but at the expense of campaigning for next year's Scottish, Welsh and local elections and the 2015 general election."

Matters will get worse as the Tory-Lib Dem coalition "looks to tackle party funding to our disadvantage", he says. The party will thus need to campaign "in a smarter and more cost-effective way".

Prescott's slimmed-down battlebus – a Ford Transit van – travelled 5,000 campaign miles at a cost of £50,000, all of it self-funded. A similar exercise in 1997 cost three times that amount, he says — part of his credentials for getting the job held until recently by Jack Dromey, now an MP.

Prescott says he stood as Labour's deputy leader "because I wanted to make it a campaigning role". He adds: "Now I want to make the role of treasurer truly count." The treasurer, Prescott says, should be "strong enough to stand up to future leaders and make the case for campaigning within our means".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been the case for a while. They can always rely on their Sugar Daddy Unions to bail 'em out time and time again. Maybe with a big policy lurch to the left this time, even better..

Labour simply does not understand money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a joke.

Getting Prescott to sort the finances out would be like getting Harold Shipman to sort out the NHS.

It could be worse, they could ask Brown to run their finances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's rumours that the BNP are going tits up as well..

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/industry/government-news/marmite-brings-british-national-party-to-its-knees/3016002.article

The far-right British National Party is reportedly facing financial ruin after agreeing to pay up to £170,000 in compensation after infringing Marmite’s copyright. Unilever launched Hight Court proceedings after the BNP launched an election broadcast that ripped off the Marmite brand’s ‘Love it or hate it’ strapline.

The TV stunt featured party leader Nick Griffin next to a huge jar of Marmite with a strap line reading “Love Britain Vote BNP”. Griffin defended the election broadcast by saying it was meant as a humorous response to a Marmite campaign that allegedly mocked the BNP. The far-right party claims Marmite’s online and TV ads, featuring a ‘Love Party’ and an opposing ‘Hate Party’, overtly based the leader of the Hate Party on Griffin.

Insiders report the BNP have agreed to pay Unilever between £70,000 and £170,000 after settling out of court. Unilever confirms a settlement has been agreed but will not reveal the terms of the confidential agreement. It is believed the large settlement could spell financial ruin for the controversial party after former national organiser Eddy Butler revealed the BNP is “on the brink of bankruptcy”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He said: "The treasurer has got to say to the central body, you cannot keep on spending, we haven't got it.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is, I suppose, no worthwhile response to postings like this, other than to note that it is a typically misguided celebration of the country slipping closer toward a one party (Murdoch) state. Sadly, however, Blair achieved this some time ago (probably when he persudaed those few socialists still in the party to ditch clause 4), thus completing the Thatcher project of having two competing parties of the rich.

Those who believe either party, Nu Lab or Tory, would have done things differently can entertain themselves with the notion that what you vote for or think therse days makes the smallest s#it of a difference. Meanwhile those same people might get a surprise come the late autumn Tory round of quantitive easing.

What is annoying is that this pointless partisan onanism, like almost all such political postings on this site, misses the point. As someone said yesterday, looking at the political party is "looking at the gun" rather than "those who pull the trigger". So go ahead, spank that monkey telling youself how bad Gordon was whilst the same folk do the same stuff with their hands up inside Cameron and Osbourne instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is, I suppose, no worthwhile response to postings like this, other than to note that it is a typically misguided celebration of the country slipping closer toward a one party (Murdoch) state. Sadly, however, Blair achieved this some time ago (probably when he persudaed those few socialists still in the party to ditch clause 4), thus completing the Thatcher project of having two competing parties of the rich.

Those who believe either party, Nu Lab or Tory, would have done things differently can entertain themselves with the notion that what you vote for or think therse days makes the smallest s#it of a difference. Meanwhile those same people might get a surprise come the late autumn Tory round of quantitive easing.

What is annoying is that this pointless partisan onanism, like almost all such political postings on this site, misses the point. As someone said yesterday, looking at the political party is "looking at the gun" rather than "those who pull the trigger". So go ahead, spank that monkey telling youself how bad Gordon was whilst the same folk do the same stuff with their hands up inside Cameron and Osbourne instead.

Are the Tories bankrupt? If not, what's the relevence of this, other than to settle for a zero-all rating?

One party just keeps leaving the country bust. There's a pattern there, and it does suggest a difference, no matter how much you perhaps would like it not to be. I mean, do you actually believe the Tories would have embarked on Gordons spending splurge of the last 10 years without Labour having convinced the country it was the right thing to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blair has made c. £20m entirely off the back of being elected leader of the Labour party.

Brown is about to sell his valuable experience of how to ruin a country in a few short years to anyone who'll listen.

Surely, being the shining Christian examples that they are they will give away their wealth those less fortunate than themselves?

Or perhaps they just don't give a f*Ck.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pity the present and former MPs couldn't share some of the wealth they've creamed off from their Second homes that we paid for.

400 MPs - giving £50k each - hardly that much for anyone who came to power (and property) in 1997 to give back to the Party.

400 x £50k = £20 million. Debt paid off - simples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the article, Prescott '...said membership of the party was falling dramatically and called for limits on political parties' spending.' I bet he did! Was he making similar such calls when Blair's tennis buddy was donating millions to the Labour Party and Mittal and various other sleazy industrialists were paying him off and/or buying peerages from him? Thought not. But now that Labour are out of office and no longer have anything to sell to such characters, they want caps on political donations. I'm equally sure that Prescott intends trade unions to be exempt from his proposed limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is, I suppose, no worthwhile response to postings like this, other than to note that it is a typically misguided celebration of the country slipping closer toward a one party (Murdoch) state. Sadly, however, Blair achieved this some time ago (probably when he persudaed those few socialists still in the party to ditch clause 4), thus completing the Thatcher project of having two competing parties of the rich.

Those who believe either party, Nu Lab or Tory, would have done things differently can entertain themselves with the notion that what you vote for or think therse days makes the smallest s#it of a difference. Meanwhile those same people might get a surprise come the late autumn Tory round of quantitive easing.

What is annoying is that this pointless partisan onanism, like almost all such political postings on this site, misses the point. As someone said yesterday, looking at the political party is "looking at the gun" rather than "those who pull the trigger". So go ahead, spank that monkey telling youself how bad Gordon was whilst the same folk do the same stuff with their hands up inside Cameron and Osbourne instead.

...Brown masqueraded as Nulabour but he was 'old'...Stalinist and nearer to communism....all this talk of parties for the rich and poor are over the top today when we are looking for the leaders to achieve our survival after the the dark inferno of destruction by Labour...and by the way no one was as bad as Gordon.... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they were morally bankrupt a long time ago...

MODs - please delete this thread - slow connection problems -> multiple posts

Edited by pyracantha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely after a decade of fattening themselves, they could all chip in, especially their banker buddies?

Blair?

£20M is peanuts. Can a couple of politicians sell their London homes, that should help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.