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

  • Featured News Unions Len McCluskey hits out at Labour MPs: Stop the sniping and get behind Corbyn

    Len McCluskey hits out at Labour MPs: Stop the sniping and get behind Corbyn

    Unite boss Len McCluskey tonight attacked “disloyal” Labour MPs who oppose Jeremy Corbyn and urged them to focus their fire on the Tory Party. The union General Secretary claimed that Corbyn reflected the views “of most Labour supporters” on many of the 500 occasions on which he broke the party whip. And he said his message for “the plotters” is clear: “stop the sniping, stop the scheming, get behind Jeremy Corbyn and start taking the fight to the Tories.” Speaking […]

    Read more →
  • News Trade Union Action Week Unions Wales Tories ready to offer concessions on Trade Union Bill after Labour fight

    Tories ready to offer concessions on Trade Union Bill after Labour fight

    Labour peers and Welsh Assembly Members could be on course to secure a major victory in the fight against the Tories’ Trade Union Bill, as a leaked ministerial letter reveals there are areas where the Government are preparing to climbdown. The letter, written by Business minister Nick Boles, accepts that elements of the bill “will be defeated”, following cross-party agreement in the House of Lords to curb certain aspects. Boles writes that the thresholds provision, which would see strike action banned if it […]

    Read more →
  • News Former Defence minister hits out at unilateralist “myths” over Trident

    Former Defence minister hits out at unilateralist “myths” over Trident

    Former Defence minister Kevan Jones has taken aim at the “myths” promoted by unilateralists following an acrimonious discussion of Trident among Labour MPs. Jones attacked the claim by Diane Abbott, the Shadow International Development Secretary, that the cost of replacing Trident could fund NHS Accident and Emergency Services for several decades and implies she has trivialised the issue by suggesting disarmament would lead to a £100bn windfall for the Treasury. Writing for LabourList, Jones said: “Diane has cited many of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured The debate around Trident renewal has been dominated by myths for too long

    The debate around Trident renewal has been dominated by myths for too long

    Last week, writing for LabourList, the Shadow International Development Secretary, Diane Abbott, said that the decision on replacing the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent needs debating properly. I couldn’t agree more. For far too long, the debate surrounding the replacement of the four Vanguard-class of submarines that currently provide the UK’s deterrent has been dominated by myths rather than fact. This needs addressing, and I would urge anyone with an interest in nuclear security (and I would say that’s everyone) to […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Labour’s Trident differences could be “impossible to reconcile”, says Burnham

    Labour’s Trident differences could be “impossible to reconcile”, says Burnham

    Labour’s differences on Trident renewal may be “impossible to reconcile”, according to Andy Burnham. The Shadow Home Secretary appeared to suggest that the party may have to settle for not having an official position on the policy, as it finds “some way of accommodating” both nuclear unilateralists and multilateralists. He also dismissed the idea of a “halfway house” compromise. Speaking on the BBC’s Today programme, the former leadership candidate, who made clear that he is a supporter of renewing the […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit