Labour wants taxpayers 'to foot the bill for party's cash shortfall'

[AtW]

Labour wants taxpayers 'to foot the bill for party's cash shortfall'
By Greg Hurst and Rajeev Syal

LABOUR wants taxpayers to plug a gaping hole in the party’s finances caused by a collapse in donations after the cash-for-peerages allegations.

Hazel Blears, the party chairman, told The Times yesterday that Labour, as the party of government, should get more public money to support political work.

The proposals will prompt accusations that the voters are being asked to bail out political parties after the police investigation into allegations that peerages were offered in return for secret loans.

Ms Blears’s proposals were put forward as police interviewed a man under caution as part of inquiries into a prominent Labour lender.

The man, thought to be a Labour official, was being questioned over e-mails that mention Sir Christopher Evans, the biotechnology entrepreneur who lent Labour £1 million last year.

The investigation is continuing apace after disclosures in The Times that Sir Christopher had been arrested.

Ms Blears’s proposed rule change would give Labour MPs and ministers access to public funds to support parliamentary activities. The funds were introduced in 1975 to support the work of opposition parties in Parliament but were increased threefold by Labour after it took office in 1997.

Ms Blears is pressing for the funds to be extended to the governing party, even though ministers can already call on civil servants and special advisers for advice and support.

She also wants all parties to receive funds to support political work to engage with disillusioned voters in the community. Her proposals, to be put to the Labour conference next week after approval from its National Executive Committee, will be submitted to the review of party funding being conducted by Sir Hayden Phillips. Sir Hayden, who was appointed by Tony Blair, called yesterday for tougher powers for the Electoral Commission, which oversees party finances.

He claimed that a more “proactive” and “nimble” commission with powers to intervene earlier might have prevented the loans issue escalating into a political controversy.

Sir Hayden said that he understood that the commission had got wind of the parties’ decision to accept large loans — which, unlike donations, did not have to be declared — before last May’s election, but was unable to take action.

Ms Blears also urged ministers, MPs and party members not to be distracted from the task of finding modern solutions to new policy challenges.

More: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...369794,00.html

------------

Sounds fair to me...

[Andyw]

Suprised we dont already ! although we fund every other activity of theirs !

[xoggoth]

I personally have no problem at all about funding parties consistent with their worth to society. Let's see, I had a bit of loose change here somewhere.

[Andyw]

I personally have no problem at all about funding parties consistent with their worth to society. Let's see, I had a bit of loose change here somewhere.

Wouldnt you feel better donating that to a charity ?

[AtW]

I have a better idea - during General Election people who vote will also have opportunity to put some cash into a box for any party they fancy, most likely the party they voted for. This money will be the only funds available to that party until next election.

[Andyw]

I have a better idea - during General Election people who vote will also have opportunity to put some cash into a box for any party they fancy, most likely the party they voted for. This money will be the only funds available to that party until next election.

couldnt win an election on that !!!!! c'mon ! it takes at least 40 million to fund an election campaign !

[AtW]

If people who vote for the party are not prepared to support it financially then tough - that party is not fit for Govt.

[AlfredJPruffock]

I have long argued that the UK political system is outmoded and in need of regieme change.

The current policical partys ie Labour Conservative etc should be abolished and replaced by the major Banks, so one would vote for Barclays TSB Royal Bank of Scotland etc

Each banks manifesto would be identical save slight differences in macro economic policy ie setting of interest rates etc

The funding of the banks naturally comes from their vast operating profits and if need be,customer accounts.

Thus we would have a genuine secular moneteraist soceity, the Bankers would be the new high priests and their flock the consumers whom have the democratic freedom of electing ulimtately the same cartel of fianancers to rule over them all under the illusion of democracy.

[Andyw]

regime

[xoggoth]

And if a national emergency arose on Saturday afternoon it would have to wait until 9PM Monday