Does the national party want your CLP office? Sort of…

18th January, 2012 11:54 am

I’m sure many of you will have been as surprised as I was this morning to see a story on the front page of The Times (Britain’s paper of record) about the ownership of CLP offices. According to The Times:

“Labour is forcing local parties to hand over their headquarters buildings, enabling it to shore up its precarious finances, The Timeshas 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”.”

On one hand I think we need to take the story with a pinch of salt. Even a seasoned Labour Party obsessive like me presumes that The Times don’t really find CLP office ownership fascinating, and this story (and its prominence) is probably linked to union affiliation discussions and persistant coverage about Miliband’s leadership. In response to the story, a party spokesperson told me:

“Constituency party delegates voted at Labour Conference to make it a pre-condition of affiliation that CLPs transfer the title of their property to be held in trust by the Labour Party’s trustee holding company.

“This followed a comprehensive consultation and was to ensure that the titles of the property owned by all areas of the Labour Party are kept in good and safe condition. It was based on our exposure to liabilities unknown to the party over properties that were in disrepair. The Labour Party has not used it as an asset to lever loans or other capital. As ownership has effectively been retained by the local parties, the assets have remained on their balance sheets.

“Transferring the title does not adversely affect the present beneficial ownership of the CLP properties and does not alter present beneficial ownership for CLPs who have been given bequests. The holding company manages the property for the CLP. With the ongoing boundary review, it is also expedient for CLPs to do this so that their beneficial ownership can be transferred to the new constituency party name.”

That’s a fair response, and suggests a much more nuanced story than The Times put forward. But  there’s a fundamental principle at stake here.

I understand why such decisions might be made, especially if there’s any risk of the party going bankrupt (we’re far from that at present, but it’s something the party need to guard against) or if after boundary changes there are two offices in one CLP – then it makes sense to have assets that could be sold. However, if the party did need to sell CLP offices for financial reasons (which would presumably mean the national party was extremely cash strapped), I’d want to see local parties still able to operate and campaign, rather than seeing them turfed out of their offices.

Why should CLPs – especially those who have prudently managed their finances for decades – risk being forced to hand over their offices to bail out the national party over the financial decisions of the past? Especially when local CLPs have little or no say over how the national party spends its money.

If anyone comes for my CLP office, I’ll fight them every step of the way. But there’s another, crucial aspect to this that I wouldn’t want to be overlooked – when you get to conference, be careful what you vote for. Often conference votes can seem obtuse or unclear. For that reason – from next year onwards – we’ll be keeping a closer eye on what you’re all voting on too…

Update: The party have argued that “As ownership has effectively been retained by the local parties, the assets have remained on their balance sheets.” I’m quite happy to take them on their word at that. But I’m also keen to determine whether or not these changes make it more or less likely that the national party could sell a CLP out from under a CLP. That doesn’t seem clear cut one way or another, and that’s something we’ll be looking into more closely in the coming weeks.

  • Anonymous

    we have had this before with jack Straw was told to seek an independent revenue  stream, he tried and then came back to this old chestnut. If the property labour owns is worth more then the debt they can borrow more on the assets. Straw also if I remember thought local parties would be able to take less from the central party by mortgaging , which went down like a lead balloon.  Straw also stated he would go to court to force all Unions to pay the  political levy to labour, of course that failed since a Union can associate it’s self with any political party or no political party and of course the Unions political levy can be used for political training or backing MPs from  any number of parties.

    New labour ideals we can live without the Unions in that case good luck, but i think Scotland and Wales labour parties will decide to go it’s own way

    • John Reid

      Spot on Robert, we sold our one ,and Come the last election I asked for 10,000 to spend on the election,  , I worked out at that rate we’d have run out of money in 15 years,

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    I would not trust central office here.  My analogy is quite different.  Roman Catholic chapels and churches at one stage, especially in the US, were owned by local trustees.  Bishops (i.e. centralisers) made huge efforts to gain control of these local premises. Now, such bishops (especially in American city centres) are closing the chapels and churches, and the property is liable, in any case, to financial cases against dioceses.

    Local CLP’s owning property should communicate with each other, and call the centraliser’s bluff, otherwise they will find they are loaded with debt, and without any offices in a few years or a few decades.

    • Anonymous

      Most use pubs or clubs or working men clubs, or the dinning rooms of the secretary

  • Will

    God this is even more boring than when Labour List kept going on about Refounding Labour

  • Missing Link

    Maybe worth asking NEC members who occassionally post reports here how they voted on this? The NEC would have put this rule change forward at conference so would have had to agree it.

  • John Ruddy

    Maybe there are now so few CLPs who actually own their own premises? Remembers there are 650 CLPs and I would be surprised if as many as 100 owned property (rather than renting it).

  • David Hughes

    What complete utter rubbish, Feltham and Heston CLP transfared property to this body in order to protect the assets of the CLP after an attempt of the club social tried to gain control of the property to sell off, we found this to be the best way to protect the property from people not acting in The CLP interest, we work with the trust and hopefully we will develop our property to be self funding and not a drain on the CLP funds.

  • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

    Nuanced? It’s a land grab to try and stop a left-wing party forming with assets owned by former CLP’s

  • Thomasdoc

    The key phrase here is “Labour Confernce voted to” – so what’s Mark’s concern?  Surely if the Party Conference voted to do something the only genuine story would be if the Party ignored the democratic will of the Conference?

Latest

  • Featured News “Early years services will be a priority” – Liz Kendall marks out importance of education and party reform

    “Early years services will be a priority” – Liz Kendall marks out importance of education and party reform

    Liz Kendall made a speech in Leicester today (the city where her constituency is), where she laid out what inspired her to enter politics, why she feels early years services are a priority, and how the Labour Party needs to change. Kendall revealed some of her life story, explaining that she did not have an extraordinary background – and how her background affects the way she sees the barriers faced by children in the UK today. She said: “I’m standing here […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Neither the Tories or the SNP are effectively dealing with FOBTs

    Neither the Tories or the SNP are effectively dealing with FOBTs

    As the last Parliament closed, Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) remained one of the “barnacles” on the Tory boat that they failed to remove in advance of the general election. In the final two weeks before recess Sajid Javid and his junior minister Helen Grant sneaked through a statutory instrument introducing a £50 staking threshold on FOBTs, which they claimed would help players to stay in control and “make better informed decisions about their gambling”. This was despite conflicting evidence […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Uncategorized Five lessons for 2020

    Five lessons for 2020

    I joined our party four and a half years ago, having realised that Labour alone can deliver a government that marries social justice with economic stability, and aspiration with equality of opportunity.   It was unquestionably one of the best decisions I have ever made.   From day one, I was welcomed with open arms, listened to and given opportunities to contribute to our movement.  In that same spirit, I believe it is vital that every member of the Labour […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Unions When trade unions are weakened, the rights of all working people become compromised

    When trade unions are weakened, the rights of all working people become compromised

    Let’s talk about the proposals in Wednesday’s Queen’s speech for trade unions. First there was the proposal to limit strike action. The government is demanding a 50% turnout threshold in a ballot and an additional 40% yes vote requirement in “core public services” (health, education, transport and fire services). This comes hand in hand with new time limitations on ballot mandates, making it easier for employers to tie up strikes in the court. It’s simply disingenuous for the government to […]

    Read more →
  • Europe News LabourList readers back an EU referendum and votes at 16

    LabourList readers back an EU referendum and votes at 16

    The majority of LabourList readers back the party’s new position on supporting EU referendum, and three-quarters say they will definitely vote to stay in the European Union. 70% of those who took part in LabourList’s weekly survey said they believe it is now right for Labour to back an EU referendum, having previously opposed the policy. A sizeable proportion, 24%, remain opposed to the idea of Labour supporting a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.   Eight out […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit