| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| azzuri |
Debt crisis may force Labour to sell HQ......see - http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=453342006Debt crisis may force Labour to sell HQ.... LABOUR is on the verge of selling off its Westminster headquarters in an attempt to head off a financial crisis. Senior party figures are close to agreeing a sale of the party's Old Queen Street building, which could bring in £6 million or more. With the party currently renting office space in Victoria Street, such a move would leave Labour with no real property assets in the capital. But the decision has been forced on Labour because of its huge debts, brought about by expensive election campaigns. The extent of the party's total debt will not become public until June, but it is understood it could be as much as £25 million. Labour leaders thought they had managed the debt by borrowing from rich supporters, but after the "loans for peerages" scandal, many of these loans are being called in, leaving the party desperate for new sources of finance. A Labour spokesman refused to confirm or deny reports it was close to selling its Old Queen Street building, but it is understood the party's National Executive Committee discussed the sale this week. The Scottish Labour Party has already got rid of its property assets in Glasgow, selling its headquarters in Lynedoch Place in 1998. It is now renting space from the Amicus union in the city centre. However, given the Chancellor Gordon Brown's attempts to get the public to save and invest for the long-term, it would be both embarrassing and ironic if Labour had to sell off its last remaining multi-million-pound asset at the same time. The SNP has already gone down this route, selling its headquarters in North Charlotte Street, Edinburgh, for £300,000 to cover debts built up during the 1999 Holyrood election campaign. Labour managers had hoped yesterday's Budget would deflect attention from the "loans for peerages" scandal, but they had to cope with further problems. At least three of the 12 businessmen who have made secret loans to Labour are understood to want the money returned, although one has pushed back the repayment deadline to give the party more time to raise the money. The stockbroker Barry Townsley has agreed not to call in his £1 million loan until 2008 - after an appeal from the party. Meanwhile, Dr Chai Patel, the founder of the Priory clinics who loaned the party more than £1.5 million, said he had no plans to call his loan in immediately. Labour's problems stem from its arrangements to borrow cash from wealthy backers at commercial rates - allowing the funding to be kept out of public records of donations. But yesterday, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, insisted in the Commons that Labour had not broken any rules. He said he was "proud" Labour had the support of successful businessmen and entrepreneurs, and he urged opposition parties to reach a consensus with Labour on party funding. "We've abided by the party loans rules completely," he said, adding that Labour had named the dozen millionaires who bankrolled its 2005 General Election campaign, while the Tories had still to declare the names of their lenders. The Electoral Commission wrote to the treasurers of the main parties this week to say they should make public any loans that were not fully commercial. This has been supported by two millionaire Tory backers, who urged fellow businessmen to come clean about their secret loans to the party. The Tories amassed up to £20 million in loans before the election, but their treasurer, Jonathan Marland, refuses to name those involved. Yesterday, the property developer Roy Richardson, who with twin brother, Don, built a fortune from shopping centres in the Midlands, revealed he had loaned £1 million to the party. He said he had "nothing to hide" and urged others to follow his example. He also revealed he had donated an extra £100,000 two weeks ago to help the Tory leader, David Cameron, "provide strong opposition" to Labour. The spread-betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler, who has donated £5 million, also said the Tories should "strongly encourage" lenders to identify themselves. |
||
| Reluctant Hero |
I think there should be a cap on the amount of spending you are allowed during an election campaign if there isn't already one. This cap shouldn't be set at an excessive amount so that smaller parties are disadvantaged.
Advertising should be free to all political parties standing for at least half the seats in the country they are standing in. Exactly the same advertising opportunites should be available for these parties. Try and get away from buying elections. If we continue down this route, it won't belong until we are like the US Presidential elections where you need a minimum of £XX million to stand. |
||
| Aventinian |
I think any restriction on how much you can spend would be an affront to liberty and democracy. While yes, it does seem weighted in favour of the bigger parties the smaller platforms can have platforms too - they get party political broadcasts on TV, can just as easily make their views known on the internet and it's still free to set up a soap box in the town centre.
I don't quite what you mean when you say 'advertising should be free to all political parties'... are you implying that printers should be forced to print their leaflets for nothing or that billboard space should be cleared? Nothing in this live comes free without physical force. |
||
| SLG |
I totally disagree with your first sentence. If a party can afford to make their message much more visible and use press manipulation to greater effect, then that corrupts that disrupts the playing field. If all parties have a similar fixed amount available to spend (enough to allow them to reach a mass audience), then the electorate are more likely to chose to place their vote based on policy. As for being able to broadcast your message with little cost, fair enough, but different platforms clearly have different levels of impact. Allowing a party to borrow £24 million (is that not the Labour Party debt?) to pay for the most effective tools of communication when other parties are unable to do that strikes me as 'an affront to liberty and democracy'. |
||
| azzuri |
in some ways, pro-business parties could still manipulate this as they could be given extremely cheap advertising by the media who support them. my advice would be a fixed or maximum amount of adverts for each party in each different type of media, with a maximum price paid for each so that each party is not exploited or exploits in different ways. of course there is my other favoured suggestion of getting rid of political parties altogether. |
||
| parkhead_rfb |
rs i think it is the law that the media, the broadcasting kind, are required by law to be impartial during elections alhough the written media is allowed comment through editorials etc.
i agree with pretty much everything reluctant hero said though. |
||
| Cymro |
Should parties be allowed to get into debt? Surely ensuring parties can only spend what they have would be better for all? It seems that not only is Labour spending more than others by having massive donations but by also getting themselves into considerable debt.
Surely it would be better for SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the UK Parties to spend what they have. I must admit I am unsure of a cap on their spending as I would like the thought that if I was very rich, I could donate money to Plaid or one of the Scots Pro Independence Parties in order to push the campaign on. Also with a cap Im sure the parties would get around it. Instead of giving money to 'Labour' or the 'SNP' during an election giving money to some indenpendent campaign which just so happens to be going on in a particular area and which happens to agree with the aims of that party i.e as opposed to donating £'s to the SNP, SSP then donating it to some campaign for 'Scottish Independence' |
||
| Abieuan |
Cymro wrote:
I think you'r right there, new well funded campaign groups that do not stand for election but "mirror" the policies of the parties, would spring up. |
||