Grayling attacks Brown's attempts to switch attention from donations scandal

I agree with Fraser Nelson.  Francis Elliott's piece in this morning's Times, is a perfect summary of the last week's donor scandals that have engulfed Gordon Brown.  I particularly enjoyed this section:

"Behind the scene No 10 aides are furious at the Harman camp’s attempts to pass the blame on to Mr Brown for her involvement in Labour’s donations scandal. Mr Brown had his competence and integrity called into question by David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions over his admission that a controversial property developer used proxies to channel money to Labour. Now, as the cracks begin to show after six days of pummelling over the David Abrahams affair, the Tories can claim that Mr Brown’s administration is not only bungling and sleazy, but divided to boot."

Mr Brown wants to move on from his troubles by proposing reforms to the whole system of political funding.  He wants to use this opportunity to increase state funding of political parties.  The Labour machine is already trying to embroil the Tories in its mess by launching attacks on how the Conservatives receive money.  Lord Ashcroft inevitably and the Midlands Industrial Council are in Labour's mind.

Chris Grayling is having none of it.  He's just issued this statement:

“This morning’s speech is a pretty opportunistic attempt by Gordon Brown to erect a smokescreen around events of the past two days.  David Cameron wrote to him in October urging major reforms to party funding and a cap on donations, Gordon Brown refused because he didn’t want to give up on the multi-million pound financing from the trade unions.  His decision to pick up the issue again today must be more than an attempt to divert attention away from party problems.  The other real concern about this morning’s comments is that it looks like he’s trying to find ways of giving himself greater political advantage.  He wants to cut campaigning by his opponents in marginal seats whilst continuing to use tax payers’ money to give his MPs a communication allowance to spend in those same marginal seats.  It also looks as if he’s set on protecting big trade union donations whilst putting limits on everyone else."

Even if Labour did reform the laws governing party funding, does anyone believe that they are competent or honest enough to abide by them?

Editor's comment: "This is dangerous for Labour.  If the Conservatives choose to oppose extra state funding of political parties (as they should), Labour's attempt to extract even more money from the taxpayer will cause new public fury.  The Tories should be doing much in the meantime to increase the proportion of funding they receive from individuals.  The Canadian Conservatives would be a good example to learn from."

Comments

[Votedave]

"Mr Brown wants to move on from his troubles by proposing reforms to the whole system of political funding."

I thought this was supposed to have been done already?! A fat lot of good that turned out to be!

Good on Chris Grayling - I've seen his understandably angry and justified arguments on a few occasions in the past few days on the news and he's impressive.

[Alan S]

Grayling, Maude and Osborne have all done went against the Labour sleazeballs but Caroline Spelman? She was awful on Any Questions at lunchtime.

[Michael Davidson]

Since Mr. Cameron agrees with state funding, I doubt Labour will have too much trouble getting this through. And if Cameron does reverse his position, Labour will just portray him as a flip-flopper.

[Peter]

Is there any particular reason that Chris Grayling has been our recent representative on almost every media?

[Alan S]

Would you want Caroline Spelman to be our public face Peter? She is sooooo patronising.

[Patriot]

Well done Chris.

Labour's answer to the fact that they broke the rules?

""It's the rules that need changing and it's Labour that will lead the way into the new rosy dawn for Britain.....pledged to a new honesty.....aspiration mutter mutter....fairness opportunity for all mutter mutter....British rules for British politics mumble mumble.....""

[Tony Makara]

I suppose given Labour's decade long history of sleaze and corruption, it was naive of people to think all that would end with the departure of Tony Blair. The Labour party is clearly root-and-branch rotten. Corrupt to its very core. Gordon Brown should go to our people in a snap election and prove that he has the trust of the British people.

[Oberon Houston]

North of the border the wheels are coming off the Labour Party wagon. Even the spin doctors are managing to make a mess.... of their own affairs.

Matthew Marr quit earlier this month after calling Alex Salmond a "c***" at a black-tie award bash. His replacement is Gavin Yates. He has been scrutinised because he deleted the contents of his blog he had after accepting the job. Little webdetectives however have used Google Reader to recover it... where (get this).. He heaped praise on, yes, Alex Salmond and slagged off Wendy Alexander.

Now Wendy's brother is of course is Douglas Alexander, right hand man of Gordun, who got close to the big man way back in 1990 trundling around the UK behind him and being generally helpful, writing speeches that dammed markets, Thatcher and attacking privitisation program's. Not that that stopped Gordun frightening poor wee Robin Cook (who liked a flutter) by theatening to privatise the Tote when they were eventually elected.

Who knows where it will all end up - but the Scottish cabel in Glasgow, Edinburgh and No. 10 will, I'm sure, be looking forward to reading the Sunday papers tomorrow.

[Alan S]

Editor: At Cameron's press conference on Monday, you need to ask if he will oppose further taxpayer-funded politics.

Please!

[Votedave]

"Would you want Caroline Spelman to be our public face Peter? She is sooooo patronising."

You think so? I'm personally struggling to think of a nicer MP.

[Teesbridge]

Anyone from the Labour Party speaking on funding reform at the moment has about as much credibility and moral coherence as a dirty old man exposing himself while shouting "Don't look!".

[John Leonard]

Michael Davidson:

And if Cameron does reverse his position, Labour will just portray him as a flip-flopper

They may well do so but what will the average voter think?

Brown: We the Labour Party have messed up again and we think you the public should pay for it.

Cameron: In light of the current events, we've had a rethink and we do not think you the public should be penalised for Labour's cock-up.

I wonder which message people will think more of?

[Tony Makara]

Teesbridge, very true. The thing that annoys me most about this is that for the second time we have the police investigating a British government for corruption. Something that would have been unthinkable until Labour came to power. How they have soiled and stained the reputation of our country around the world.

[Anne Murphy]

Cameron needs to take the initiative over party funding. At the moment the Tories look like they have too many vested interests in what they are proposing. He should counter Brown's sudden conversion with a call for donations to be limited to individuals only - no unions and no companies - with a donor/spending cap. This would have considerable voter appeal. The letter of the law in this area is irrelevant - donations from the Midlands Industrial Council are pretty much indistinguishable in the ordinary voter's eye from donations from friends of David Abrahams. The blunt truth is that voters believe (rightly) that companies and unions alike only give money because they want to buy influence. But Cameron should say our democracy is about one individual one vote; just as bodies corporate shouldn't have the vote to win influence, nor should they be able to gain it by the back door through contributions. It would be a disinterested self denying stance. Moreover, these are possibly the only circumstances in which the public might support some sort of limited matching taxpayer funding for political parties - which would also get Cameron off the fence as far as his stance on that is concerned.

[Anne Murphy]

Cameron needs to take the initiative over party funding. At the moment the Tories look like they have too many vested interests in what they are proposing. He should counter Brown's sudden conversion with a call for donations to be limited to individuals only - no unions and no companies - with a donor/spending cap. This would have considerable voter appeal. The letter of the law in this area is irrelevant - donations from the Midlands Industrial Council are pretty much indistinguishable in the ordinary voter's eye from donations from friends of David Abrahams. The blunt truth is that voters believe (rightly) that companies and unions alike only give money because they want to buy influence. But Cameron should say our democracy is about one individual one vote; just as bodies corporate shouldn't have the vote to win influence, nor should they be able to gain it by the back door through contributions. It would be a disinterested self denying stance. Moreover, these are possibly the only circumstances in which the public might support some sort of limited matching taxpayer funding for political parties - which would also get Cameron off the fence as far as his stance on that is concerned.

[Malcolm Dunn]

There is virtually no one within the Conservative party who is willing to argue the merits of state funding in public. I hope the party turns its face against the Phillips proposals unequivocally. It will be a disaster for Labour and it surely is the right thing to do.

[Iain]

"You think so? I'm personally struggling to think of a nicer MP."

In matters like this you don't want a 'nice' MP, you want someone who will keep the issue focused on Labour, not mess around, and nail them.

Its clear Labour are casting around to drag others into their mess, MP's like Spelman are a liability as they allow Labour off the hook, worse allow them to cast dispersions on the Conservatives, which puts the Conservatives on the back foot, and when the Conservatives should be burying Labour just listing to Spelman’s whining, shrill tones was depressing. Its just fortunate that Mathew Paris was on Any Questions, for he was at least was able to make some telling points, other wise the Conservative party would have limped away from the program just as damaged as Labour, when as I say, they should have buried them.

In this, its still not clear who in the Conservative party organises and puts up these ‘front’ people, for when we get treated to the mumbling , bumbling, Maude, and the shrill, whining, Spelman, you wonder if its not a Labour person doing the selection of Conservative spokes persons!

[anon]

Chris Grayling should have been appointed Party Chairman

[Philip]

Excellent statement from Chris Grayling, and I totally agree with the Ed and everyone who says Mr Cameron should oppose state funding of political parties.

Of course we can speculate where taxpayers' funding of political parties could easily lead: criteria being set that a party must meet to get funding (and therefore be able to exist?) - e.g. must not be racist or anti-Semitic (understandable, but better leave it to voters to not vote for such parties?), and must be sufficiently pro-EU...?

If Mr Cameron does now oppose state funding of parties, Labour may indeed accuse him of flip-flopping, but this could surely be outweighed by the huge advantage of standing up for already hard-pressed taxpayers who would, as a result of Labour’s mess, have to fork out to pay for political parties. Wouldn’t exactly be the most popular use of taxpayers’ money?

[Daily Referendum]

The Government gave £12.8m to the unions (Modernisation Fund). The unions gave £17m in donations to the Labour Party.

That’s money from the TAX PAYER to the GOVERNMENT - from the GOVERNMENT to the UNIONS - and from the UNIONS to the LABOUR PARTY.

That should be criminal.

[Iain]

"Excellent statement from Chris Grayling, and I totally agree with the Ed and everyone who says Mr Cameron should oppose state funding of political parties. "

Yes I agree, Chris Grayling hits all the right points, other than perhaps refraining from hinting at Labour laundering tax payers money through the Unions into their coffers. For if Labour can cast around making dispersions, the Conservatives should make it abundantly clear that they are prepared to fight fire with fire.

[Tony Makara]

"criteria being set that a party must meet to get funding"

Philip, this is the big problem with state funding. Can we expect the taxpayer to fund a crank party or one with a more insidious agenda. Then how would parties garner funding, through a petitioned level of support? That could mean a fundamentalst party getting large amounts of money doled out to run because they can get the signatures? How could independents obtain the funding? Its a more complicated issue than most people imagine.

[John Leonard]

Philip:

From what I can see in the report. The only criteria set for political parties to receive this public funding is that they have 2 representatives in either, The UK Parliament, The European Parliament, Scottish Assembly or Welsh Assembly. No other criteria are specified (anything in PPERA?)

The way it is proposed conveniently ensures that the BNP do not qualify even though they polled significantly more votes than PC (who do qualify) in the last EU election. Whilst I am pleased that the proposals exclude the BNP from such funding it is hardly in the spirit of our democracy.

Of course it is always possible the BNP could qualify at some point. How do people feel about the possibility that their hard earned taxes could be used to subsidise such an offensive party?

[Iain]

"The Government gave £12.8m to the unions (Modernisation Fund). The unions gave £17m in donations to the Labour Party."

Which is what I found so dispiriting about Spelman's performance on Any Questions, for when Geff Hoon started making hints and asking questions about Ashcroft and the Midlands funds, why didn't she hit back with figures like this? Worse, in seeing how the Labour party was playing this, why the hell haven't the Conservative party rebuttal section not got every Tory MP primed with such facts and figures.

Eg, just before the election Brown bottled, Brown gave Unison £2.8 million from the tax payers for communications development, but guess who was likely to make use of this fund it Brown had called an election? Labour!

[Oberon Houston]

Whats heartening is that we are beginning to get spokesmen in front of a camera the second NuLab start spinning the news agenda. This needs to continue and intensify. Mr Coulson seems to be starting to earn his salary.

[Editor]

I've just watched Chris Huhne on BBC 24. He made some good points but he also suggested that voters could have two boxes on their ballot papers at election time - one to vote as normal but another to award, if they chose, say £3 in annual funding to that same party. One of the problems with such an initiative is that it would further entrench incumbency and make it difficult for new parties to challenge the established parties. The problem of incumbency has already been entrenched too much by the allowances enjoyed by MPs.

[Oberon Houston]

Whats heartening is that we are beginning to get spokesmen in front of a camera the second NuLab start spinning the news agenda. This needs to continue and intensify. Mr Coulson seems to be starting to earn his salary.

[Tony Makara]

Oberon Houston, yes, a rapid-response team is vital to counter the way Labour try to invert the news.

Editor, I agree, outside of the existing party structures there is very little opportunity for others to serve in public life. I often feel we are two or three parties short of having a more open democracy.

[Iain]

"Whats heartening is that we are beginning to get spokesmen in front of a camera the second NuLab start spinning the news agenda."

Yes but there only seems to be Chris Grayling out there doing the damage, do none of the other Conservative MP's have any fight, fire in their bellies or the wherewithal to take the fight to Labour?

[John Leonard]

Editor:

One of the problems with such an initiative is that it would further entrench incumbency and make it difficult for new parties to challenge the established parties.

Which is exactly the same as one of the problems that exists with the current proposals and the 2 member minimum criteria.

[Henry Rogers]

Following on from Tony Makara's post, I'd have thought that since the government of the day would inevitably get it's hand's on the decision making process and limit or deny state funding to their opponenents. Sooner or later Brussells would demand, and get, a say; neither outcome looks exactly promising for democracy.

[Mark Fulford]

Gordon Brown is attempting to make it the laws’ fault that Labour couldn’t live within them. There’s nothing so badly wrong with party funding that a state-based solution is the right answer, though hardly surprising that this is the way Gordon would instinctively go.

[BLACKDAY]

THE STRANGE PART OF THIS LATEST NULABOUR SLEAZE EPISODE.IS HAVING FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS OR MORE LISTENED TO MR.BOWN AND COMPANY.DAY IN DAY OUT TELLING US ABOUT THE BILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PUBLIC MONEY THEY HAVE DISPERSED.ALONG COMES £600,000 PLUS THE ODD £5,000.LO AND BEHOLD THEY DO NOT KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM.

[Daily Referendum]

Gordon Brown is trying to take the moral high ground, but he's stood up there surrounded by flies. His people broke the rules. If they hadn't cheated, none of this would be necessary. Instead of changing the rules again to avoid corruption, he should be enforcing the ones we have. He could start by sacking all those involved.

[Dave McBay]

Grayling is such a weak television performer that he really shouldn't be used as much. He's been all over the media this week, on a very easy ticket, looking like a less-thrusting version of IDS but with all the zest of Geoffrey Howe. He really does seem to come from another age and from Planet Dull.

[Tony Makara]

Daily Referendum, correct. If Gordon Brown had any sense of decency or political instinct, he would have fired all those involved and killed the story dead. He has allowed this story to fester like an infected wound and is damaging our county's reputation and the political process itself. What will people who are already disillusioned with politics make of the latest dose of corruption from the government? For many people Labour's corrupt rule has completely ended their interest and trust in politics. They will never vote again. That is sad.

[Alex Swanson]

'"Would you want Caroline Spelman to be our public face Peter? She is sooooo patronising."

You think so? I'm personally struggling to think of a nicer MP.'

Yes, she patronises people very pleasantly. Take it from me, I've been at the receiving end.

[Bruce]

For many people Labour's corrupt rule has completely ended their interest and trust in politics. They will never vote again. That is sad.

Very sad I agree. However, the Conservative party can't shrug off its own responsibility for this situation.

People are fed up and disillusioned with Labour - but why aren't they then switching to voting Conservative? The reason: memories are still fresh of the catastrophic blunders and sleaze of the Major years, where the institutional incompetence on display was at least as bad as that seen in Brown's government today. So many people I knew back then said "I will never vote Conservative again", and some of them had been supporters for decades. If now they are saying "I will never vote Labour again", where can they go?

The Conservative party is changing, for sure, I've seen many positive signs in the last few years. But they clearly aren't doing enough yet to earn the votes of those who have switched off from politics completely due to - as they see it - both parties having messed it up. No point just saying "Labour have been useless, vote for us and we'll be better". Why should anyone believe that? It's pretty much the line Labour used in 97 and hence it's discredited.

[Daily Referendum]

Bruce I agree.

Just before the election in 1997, only 11% of voters said they could still possibly change their minds on which party to vote for.

However, just before the election in 2005, 35% of voters said they could still possibly change their minds.

That means at least a third of voters are floating. In the last couple of months we have won over a great number of these voters. And now we must make sure we continue to appeal to them.

[David Lindsay]

The Midlands Industrial Council sounds like a most admirable body (even if it is daft enough to waste its money on the Tories), just as the trade unions are (even if they are daft enough to waste their money on the Labour Party).

Between, they seem to supply the last clean money left in British politics, which is why Red New Labour wants rid of the former while Red and Blue New Labour alike want rid of the latter.

After all, they are examples of a little thing called civil society, which we cannot allow anywhere near politics.

Can we?

And the shortfall arising from the “transition” to civil society’s exclusion from politics must be made good by the taxpayer.

Mustn’t it?

[John Leonard]

BBC News 24 is reporting a new poll from ICM for the News Of The World

Con 41%
Lab 30%

No LD figures

[Tony Makara]

Bruce, I think its fair to say that Labour have not only broken our health service, education and our society but they have broken the very act of government itself. When the Conservative party returns to office it will be an opportunity to restore faith in the political process again. From speaking to many friends the overwhelming picture I get is that this current government is now utterly despised. Even the people who were one time Labour-apologists have now given up on this government. Gordon Brown's golden dawn proved to be a false dawn and now everyone realises that what our country needs is a complete change.

[Bruce]

All of what you say may be true Tony (though I'm not really sure what "broken the very act of government itself" actually means) but you need to understand that the last Conservative government was also "utterly despised" as you put it, by millions of people - including me. It was widely seen as morally bankrupt, corrupt, clinging to office, arrogant with being used to being in power - as well as utterly incompetent. All the same charges you are laying against Brown's administration today.

So it's not as simple as "time for a change". On that basis, it's the Lib Dems' turn to have a go. You need to come up with a more convincing line.

[Daily Referendum]

Ouch!

Vince Cable puts the boot in while Brown is down from his Mr Bean Jibe.

[Tony Makara]

Bruce, by broken government I mean that the natural trust between government and its people has been broken. The very people we rely on to run our country, to make the decisions that effect our lives in a 1001 ways can no longer be trusted. That is broken government.

I don't feel safe under this Labour government. I'm wondering when the next big mistake will come, will it effect me, my family? I wonder whether the government is telling the truth anymore? It has been caught lying so many times before. I don't believe we actually have a government anymore. All we have instead is a clique of dishonest career politicians milking the trappings of power.

They think they can lie to us and get away with it. Thats why when disgraced they resign to return become disgraced a second time then return to office again as if nothing has happened. This behaviour is disgusting. It holds us in contempt. It shows we can't trust them. Yet again this week a Labour government is being investigated by the police for corruption. This is broken government.

[Bruce]

Well, what turns me off politics is hypocrisy, from all sides. And it's rank hypocrisy to argue that Labour alone is responsible for the decline in trust of politicians.

Tony, you haven't addressed my central point - all those charges against the government today could have been made against most governments in the past, not least the last Tory one - "a clique of dishonest career politicians milking the trappings of power" is a perfect description of the government circa 1993-97. And as for being afraid under this government - I lost my job and friends lost their home under Major, I'm not going to forget those traumas in a hurry.

Thats why when disgraced they resign to return become disgraced a second time then return to office again as if nothing has happened. This behaviour is disgusting.
You'd apply the same criticism to Cecil Parkinson, for example, would you? Was Thatcher wrong to bring him back, or should she apply your rule that a single mistake ends your political career forever?

Yet again this week a Labour government is being investigated by the police for corruption.
Yes they are being investigated for a second time ("Yet again" is rather overstating it) under legislation they themselves brought in to clear up the mess left behind. And Gordon Brown himself effectively called them in at his press conference the other day - I don't recall John Major taking similar steps? It seems to me it would be more useful if the Tory party put aside partisan point scoring and worked with the other parties on this, to improve the system for everyone. To those of us with a memory, and over 35, the Tories are on very shaky ground when attacking Labour for sleaze.

[Moral minority]

Caroline Spelman is the Tories' own "Patronising Patsy" Hewitt. She makes Harman look charismatic. Only an idiot could have appointed her Chairman. At least Brown got rid of Patronising Patsy.

The Midlands Industrial Council is a disgrace. It makes a mockery of any Conservative criticism of Labour on donor transparency. Michael Ashcrofts' virtual ownership of the Party is also fair game. Frankly, Grayling is a hypocrite.

[Tony Makara]

Bruce, when the Labour party is in panic it often reverts to problems that the Conservative party had 15 or 20 years ago. How far are we to go back? Do honestly think the Conservative party hasn't learnt from errors in the past? The thing is the current Labour government hasn't learnt from its errors and is too arrogant to eat humble pie. Can you imagine the current Labour government having the courage to back down from an unpopular policy like the poll tax. It took courage to take that decision. It was a government that listened to its people. The Labour government would never do that.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Of course it is always possible the BNP could qualify at some point. How do people feel about the possibility that their hard earned taxes could be used to subsidise such an offensive party?

Posted by: John Leonard | December 01, 2007 at 16:44

Which offensive party are we talking about? What other offensive party's are there?

[Bruce]

Tony, each answer gets further away from the original point. I am not a spokesman for this Labour government. I am a voter who has at various points over the years supported all three main parties.

I simply point out that many millions of people like me in the 1990s said "I am never voting Conservative again". While I am seriously disillusioned with the current administration and feel inclined to say "I'm never voting Labour again", you need to understand that the latter emotion doesn't necessarily cancel out the former.

The Conservative party needs to do some work to deserve our support again. And your fulminating postings don't do it for me - they just remind me of my own feelings about the Major government 10 years ago, and that depresses me, given Labour's subsequent failures.

To me, Brown does genuinely seem to be doing his best to reform this mess once and for all. The Tories attacking Labour on sleaze, while at the same time refusing to get involved in arriving at a cross-party consensus solution, and with their own skeletons in the closet, strikes me as rank hypocrisy.

[Tony Makara]

Bruce, go onto the Conservative party website and download all the PDFs related to policy reviews and watch the many excellent videos on the site. There is hope for the future. You say you were disillusioned with the party in 1997. This I understand. However to use a cliche 'That was then and this is now' The Conservative party lost in 97,01,05 for a variety of reasons, reasons that it has understood and now addressed. Please try to look beyond my vitriol and your own past experiences. Have a look at the modern Conservative party, try to do so with an open mind.

[Alex Swanson]

"The Conservative party lost in 97,01,05 for a variety of reasons, reasons that it has understood and now addressed."

I'm sorry Tony, but I don't believe that. I think it's true that to some extent they've spotted the blindingly obvious - for example that many people are very unhappy about immigration - and have benefited accordingly; but in general, the same arrogance, stupidity, and sub left wing statism (remember that Osborne has promised to keep taxes high) that has characterised the party since Thatcher's fall still remains. It is true that poll ratings have improved during the last couple of months, but that's due to a combination of a few token right-wing statements and Labour's unbelievable incompetence, not any root-and-branch reform.