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

August 15, 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 Polling Scotland New Scotland poll shows Labour trailing SNP by 29 points

    New Scotland poll shows Labour trailing SNP by 29 points

    Labour would face an electoral massacre in Scotland if the general election was held tomorrow, according to a new poll. Tracking the voting intention for Westminster seats among the Scottish public, the poll indicates that support for Labour is 19% points lower than it was at the 2010 election – meaning our support has roughly halved. The poll, carried out by Ipsos-MORI for STV, found support stands at: SNP 52%, Labour 23%, Tories 10%, Lib Dems 6%, Greens 6%, UKIP […]

    Read more →
  • News Blair: We should not chase after UKIP on immigration

    Blair: We should not chase after UKIP on immigration

    Tony Blair has warned the Labour Party not to give in to UKIP’s arguments on immigration, saying that the party has a “nasty core of prejudice”. In an interview with Progress, Blair says Labour should be take the line that UKIP are wrong: “Let’s be clear: We don’t think that UKIP’s right, not on immigration and not on Europe – so the first thing you’ve got to be really careful of doing is … saying things that suggest that they’re kind […]

    Read more →
  • News Scotland Murphy makes unity candidate pitch as Unite prepare to endorse Findlay

    Murphy makes unity candidate pitch as Unite prepare to endorse Findlay

    There are two interviews with Scottish Labour leader candidates in this morning’s papers. Jim Murphy launches his campaign by talking to the Daily Record (the same paper Johann Lamont did her resignation interview with last week), while Neil Findlay has a short conversation with the Morning Star. Murphy builds on the statement he made last night (“I’m applying for the job of First Minister”) by claiming he wants “to bring the country back together after the referendum.” He said: “I […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Brand or bland? Are these really my choices?

    Brand or bland? Are these really my choices?

    Russell Brand has a book out and a great publicist. His diagnosis of our current malaise is pretty spot on. His solutions however are woolly headed at best and inconsistent at worst. But Russell Brand is being taken seriously. He’s never off Newsnight nor out of the pages of the Guardian. People are flocking to follow him in their thousands. He is Che Guevara for the scripted reality generation. The established left simply don’t know what to make of this. […]

    Read more →
  • Comment If politicians can’t enact the policies people actually want, the system is broken

    If politicians can’t enact the policies people actually want, the system is broken

    This week, Class released a new poll on the theme of fairness and inequality, which will nicely coincide with the debates at our conference this Saturday. Speaking of which, you should totally book a ticket for that as we’re down to the last few. Anyway, I find our polling particularly interesting (I mean, you’d hope I would) because its aim is to gauge public opinion on long-term issues, rather than responding to a given news story. Class polls provide a […]

    Read more →