LABOUR MPs have been scratching their heads and wondering aloud why on earth the Justice Secretary Jack Straw has been so insistent on opposing a change to the law that would prevent non-UK residents from donating cash to political parties here.
There is, of course, much resentment at the fact that mulit-millionaire Lord Ashcroft was allowed to buy so many seats for the Tories at the last election, even when the circumstances of his tax arrangements aren’t as clear as most reasonable people might expect (there — that got past the lawyers okay…).
But until now Straw has opposed the change even though there are strong principled as well as political reasons for incorporating it in law.
He’s finally caved in, but why on earth didi it take so long? Much of the cash has already been spent in an attempt t buy David Cameron a majority at the next election, so this change will only have a major impact on the subsequent general election which, under the new rules will have to be fought on a level playing field — an idea fiercely opposed by the Tories.
“Officials’ advice” was written all over Jack’s previous opposition to this change and I’m glad he’s finally rejected it. But this is a change that should have been agreed ten years ago.














Saturday 11 July 2009 at 10:31 am
You seriously expect us to buy this?
The only reason you want to cut off Ashcroft is so that you once again have more money than the Tories and therefore can ‘buy more seats’ than they can! Your funding is assured by the anti-democratic trade unions.
If you want to talk about a level playing field then the Ashcroft money should be cut off AND the amount trade unions donate should be capped; if individuals members want to donate more to the Labour Party then they are obviously free to do so.
If you ask me it should all be banned; trade union money, millionaire donors, all of it. You should all be made to raise small amounts of money from large numbers of people. If anything was going to re-engage politics with the people i put it to you; that would be it!
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 10:32 am
The rumours being that some rather large-pocketed non-doms were being lined up to donate tasty sums to Labour around the time this law would have been put in place…
The cleaning up of politics is looking like taking a little longer yet….
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 10:39 am
I hope when the Tories get into Office, that they severely restrict the ability of the Trade Unions to bankroll Labour. We don’t need militant trade union leaders ‘buying’ votes for Labour.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 11:01 am
Laws passed out of spite and party political advantage are rarely wise.
Until the Labour Party severs its ties with the unions, and ceases to take money from them, it would be well advised to shut up about funding.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 11:18 am
It’ll seem less funny when Cameron uses his massive majority to ban Trades Union funding over £50K and makes the political contribution an opt-in…
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 11:29 am
‘LABOUR MPs have been scratching their heads and wondering aloud why on earth the Justice Secretary Jack Straw has been so insistent on opposing a change to the law that would prevent non-UK residents from donating cash to political parties here.’
I thought you were going to reveal to us why Jack Straw opposed the change, but it was just another snipe at the Tories. Oh well.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 11:36 am
A lot of comments noting that the Tories will simply retaliate during the next Parliament by banning Trade Union funding. And they’re right.
However, a break with Union funding would probably be no bad thing for Labour. Based on what I’ve seen, the actions of the Unions during the recession, particularly the RMT, has shifted the public view of them from “ambiguous” to “outright loathing”. The challenge for Labour in the wilderness will be to find a viable left-of-the-Tories position that isn’t tied to or dependant upon the Trade Union movement.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 11:42 am
@ Alfred
Funding from trade unions is a bit different from funding from Ashcroft. The Tories would still be in the dark if they didn’t have his money.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 11:43 am
Keldorne – for the record, the RMT is not affiliated to the Labour Party.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 12:03 pm
Dont worry Tom it will be ditched after the election.
Just like all these polution targets. You should only be setting targerts for the government of the day not future governments.
Its just so labour setting things like 30% targets for the future and doing nothing themselves today.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 12:03 pm
Tom,
Good try – what about the £10k “communications” budget for sitting MP’s? If that isn’t a way of having home advantage I don’t know what is.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 12:20 pm
That’ll be the 10K communications allowance that’s used (in full) by lots of Tory MPs, including Shadow Cabinet members? Yeah, thought so.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 12:21 pm
The trade union point has been made by others and is correct. You can’t have it both ways.
But you mention the election after next being fought on a “level playing field”. Hopefully that will be the case, with all parties relying on individual donations and the massive imbalance in the size of constituencies that favours Labour so much currently corrected.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 1:08 pm
I wouldn´t worry your pretty head about such things. Labour aren´t likely to win a general election for some generations to come!
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 1:34 pm
Ah, but Tom. I quite agree. I’m not FOR another party. I just think that its hypocritical to whinge about Ashcroft when you have the Unions and all MPs have a £10k budget. So if you are worried about your marginals they still start off with £10k per year ahead of anything anyone else has to find.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 1:47 pm
*Putrefying Corpse of a Government Seeks To Waste Parliamentary Time With Law That Affects One Person.*
Tomorrow’s NOTW headline I believe.
Meanwhile, there’s a country to be run. Though on second thoughts, do carry on *not* running the country.
Things are better that way.
Saturday 11 July 2009 at 8:33 pm
@ Keldorne
“a break with Union funding would probably be no bad thing for Labour”
Actually a break with Union funding would probably kill the Labour party as a national political force.
Labour receive nearly 90% of their funding directly from the unions with a further 3-4% paid directly to party members and local associations.
Without that money they’d be less well funded than the Liberal Democrats…
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 8:14 pm
[...] Tom Harris hails plans which will make it harder for Lord Ashcroft to donate money to Tory campaigns. [...]
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 10:01 pm
Is Mittal’s tax status still shrouded in mystery? You know, the multi-billionaire steel magnate who donates to Labour?
Monday 13 July 2009 at 12:52 am
It says on Wikipedia that he’s an Indian National and a non-resident (and has donated oodles of cash to Labour personally and through his various companies).
I presume the new law banning donations from non-residents will refer to Ashcroft by name…
Monday 13 July 2009 at 12:15 pm
Lord Ashcroft doesn’t donate money directly to the Tory party any more anyway. It all goes through British registered corporates, and thus wouldn’t be caught under the proposed new rules.
I suggest that you follow richard’s advice, and just ban Lord Ashcroft personally, by name, from any involvement in politics…
Leave a comment