The government are attacking civil society and free speech (and this blog)

15th August, 2013 12:04 pm

The government’s hastily drafted “Lobbying and Transparency” Bill was published just before recess. Due to entirely political considerations, the bill is being rushed through the Commons as soon as MPs return in September.

Whilst much of the focus so far has been on the lobbying part of the bill (which arguably makes the industry less transparent) and the nakedly, crassly political attack on the unions – a far more chilling effect is hidden within the bill.

It’s an outright attack on Civil Society and free speech. And it could mean every majority charity, community group and campaigning organisation in the country could be restricted in how they campaign.

Essentially, any campaigning that takes place in an election year – which costs more than £32,000 and is considered “political” – will be subject to strict spending limits, increased bureaucracy (including submitting weekly accounts) and – potentially – being forced to secure permission from a political party to be allowed to run a campaign if it is deemed to be too close in it’s aims to a policy advocated by that party. And what is political is broadly defined as any attempt to engage with the policy of any political party, have a view on any aspect of any policy of any party or attempt – in any way – to influence the policy of any party.

So that’s the actions of pretty much every major charity of the country restricted for starters.

This is the politics of the repressive regime. This is deeply illiberal. This is not meant to be how we do things in Britain.

Worse – staff time spent campaigning will count towards the spending limit for all charity and third sector groups (a restriction that doesn’t apply to political parties). That means a large civil society group shoots through the spending limits imposed on them with ease, effectively meaning they’d need to grind to a halt and stop having a view on the charitable aims they exist to serve.

The farcical nature of this legislation can also be seen in how it would affect, for example, this blog. As we write predominantly about the politics of the Labour Party, and are supportive (but not uncritical) of the party, if we spend over £32,000 during election year, we would need – under the law – to ask the permission of the Labour Party to continue operating. Why’s that? Because above that level we’d be considered, under this new legislation, as part of the Labour Party’s election spending. The same principle would also apply to the likes of ConservativeHome and LibDemVoice too.

We only have one member of staff (me) but add on server costs and other necessities for maintaining a blog of LabourList’s size and we’d cross that threshold with ease.

But if the government honestly think they can force me to go and ask permission from Ed Miliband to carry on blogging in election year – or for other bloggers to do likewise – they can get lost. I’d rather break electoral law and get arrested than surrender the independence of this blog, thank you very much.

This whole bill is a brutal attack on free speech and the ability of any group that isn’t a political party to campaign. It utterly destroys any argument that Cameron truly wants to see a Big Society – and it’ll crush those who want to see a real political debate about issues that matter at election time.

This bill is a mess. It needs to be stopped, starting with the Labour Party standing alongside Civil Society to defend free speech.

Update: The Cabinet Office have been in touch with LabourList today in response to this post. A Cabinet Office spokesperson said:

“The intention of the Bill is to bring greater transparency where third parties campaign in a way which supports a particular political party or its candidates, by requiring expenditure on those campaigns to be fully recorded and disclosed. This Bill does not include campaigning by third parties – charities or other organisations – that are not intended to promote the electoral success of any particular party. So a third party campaigning only on policy issues would be exempt.”

Except LabourList – as well as numerous other blogs, charities and campaigning groups – have received legal advice that argues this legislation will do exactly what I spelled out above. Furthermore, the Labour front bench appear to take the same view of the legislation that I do, based on the responses I have received publicly online (and in person) from senior Labour figures. In addition, the Electoral Commission’s position appears to be different to that of the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet office are arguing that I’m wrong and that there’s nothing to see here – the legal advice I’ve received says otherwise.

  • Monkey_Bach

    The Liberal Democrats won’t go along with this, surely? Eeek.

    • RogerMcC

      If they are going to desperately try and differentiate themselves from the Tories and argue that they have had a real moderating effect this would indeed be the place to start.

      But given that the bill as a whole is massively more damaging to Labour than the Tories or Lib Dems I wouldn’t hold my breath.

      • Monkey_Bach

        The measures suggested are plainly unworkable. How the heck can income accrued by an independent blogger, say, be considered as part of a political party’s electoral spending when some of that income might have come, for example, from advertising posted on the site? And having to submitting weekly accounts? Are they kidding? Who the heck gets paid to write these bills? I really don’t believe that the Liberal Democrats will be able to bring themselves to support a piece of bad law of this magnitude and would be within their rights to refuse to do so because, at least as far as I know, this particular piece of foetid crap was not made mention of in the Coalition agreement both parties the signed up to in 2010.

        Eeek.

    • aracataca

      I am astonished Monkey that you are putting your faith in a bunch of double dealing two faced shysters like the Fib Dems.
      Have you learnt nothing in the past 3 and a bit years?

  • thewash

    I don’t know about this Bill but in the last couple of weeks I have tried to contribute to several threads on this blog and none have appeared, probably this one won’t either. I am a member of the Labour Party and have registered here to receive emails when they are sent out but none of that seems to count for much.

    I have tried before to ask why I am not allowed to have contributions included here but had no answer.

    • reformist lickspittle

      It has appeared.

      I also often have to wait several days to see my stuff appear, however. Whilst certain braying Tory trolls get their rubbish up almost instantly.

      Sort it out please, Mark – it spoils an otherwise excellent site :)

      • Rosie2

        Jumping on the passing bandwagon here but – Me To!

    • Harry

      Maybe you were writing rubbish mon ami….

  • RogerMcC

    So one presumes that the bill has a massive hole in it to exclude newspapers and broadcast media?

    Although I am perversely attracted by the idea of the Daily Mail having to ask permission to slander the Labour Party and being refused…..

  • Mike B

    When the Tories say “jump” the Lib Dem’s reply “How high?”

  • quotes

    I don’t personally see all that much wrong with organisations which seek to influence the political process being subject to transparency requirements.

    My personal leanings oppose regulation of almost all forms but I can’t see why, if political parties (funded entirely by voluntary contributions) must waste their time on compliance and reporting, other organisations should be exempt. If they were, surely political parties of a more nefarious bent would just use them to “hide” campaign spending.

    I’m not going to pretend I’m well acquainted with the details of the proposed Bill but have followed the lobbying debate with interest and am firmly of the belief that rules should apply to everyone.

    Take this blog, for example. You obviously would suffer from the costs involved and it would probably impact your credibility if you were operating with the express permission of the party, but it’s clearly the case that your activity in an election year will focus on supporting the party and responding to its critics – activity which Labour would probably have to pay people to undertake for itself.

    Would you be OK with Lord Ashcroft giving millions to ConservativeHome to investigate Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP candidates or to produce research promoting government policies?

    Very good post though and something which deserves additional attention.

  • Pingback: UK government quashes free speech…again | Freedomwatch()

  • shobha srivastava

    Many Charities would not know about this bill and get caught out

  • faustiesblog

    Very good article. Thanks.

    Labour should veto this bill. Such action would have widespread support – even amongst conservatives – provided that Labour makes the public aware of its pernicious aspects regarding free speech and blogs.

  • Pingback: How the Lobbying Bill may accidentally nail down political bloggers » Spectator Blogs()

Latest

  • Comment 10 reasons to be wary of assisted dying

    10 reasons to be wary of assisted dying

    1. Assisted suicide is almost certainly not as popular as its supporters claim. Dignity In Dying claim that 82% of British people support assisted suicide, based on an online survey by the polling organisation Populus. This oft-repeated figure is a very bold claim, and so deserves to be subjected to some severe critical scrutiny (and even if it is accurate, it would not clinch the argument: sometimes we need to protect minorities regardless of majority feeling). So should we trust […]

    Read more →
  • News Is Ed Miliband going to rule out a return to frontline politics?

    Is Ed Miliband going to rule out a return to frontline politics?

    Ed Miliband could publicly rule out a return to frontline politics next week, according to this morning’s Times. The move would mean ruling himself out of a Shadow Cabinet position under Labour’s new leader. The paper reports that Miliband wants a break after spending five years as Leader of the Opposition. It is common for Labour leaders to step back from the frontbenches after leaving the role, with most never returning to a prominent role in the Commons. However, Miliband’s relative […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Clement Attlee chosen as Labour’s greatest ever leader

    Clement Attlee chosen as Labour’s greatest ever leader

    The Spirit of ’45 lives on – Clement Attlee was the Labour Party’s greatest ever leader, according to LabourList readers. In our survey this week, which also found that readers feel they have most to fear from an Osborne-led Tory Party, we asked those who took part to pick who they thought was Labour’s best leader from history. People could only pick one, and the list does not include acting leaders (sorry Margaret Beckett and Harriet Harman). Unsurprisingly, Clement Attlee […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News George Osborne as Tory leader would pose the biggest threat to Labour, say LabourList readers

    George Osborne as Tory leader would pose the biggest threat to Labour, say LabourList readers

    Last week Jeremy Corbyn argued that the House of Lords should be replaced with a proportionately-represented elected second chamber. We asked LabourList readers what they thought about this. The vast majority of people are in favour of Corbyn’s proposals; 70% said yes while about 25% said weren’t in favour of this particular idea but wants the Lords reformed in some way. Only 4% said no and 1% opted for ‘don’t know’. Although all eyes are focussed on the Labour leadership […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Why I introduced the Assisted Dying Bill

    Why I introduced the Assisted Dying Bill

    My main reason for introducing the Assisted Dying Bill is simple. It’s a straightforward question of choice and dignity: with appropriate, strong safeguards, terminally ill adults of sound mind should be legally allowed to choose to have assistance to end their own lives. I value life, and I do understand that some people believe very deeply that ending one’s own life is always wrong. Nevertheless, the depth and sincerity of their belief should not mean that they deny choice to […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit