Nothing's safe @ No. 10

"Recall the mantra The NHS is safe in our hands?" Arturo asked. But before I could reply, he went on: "That Lansley bloke told us that the NHS would do just fine under his proposed reforms! Look what's happened! Now, this craven Coalition has the sheer gall to tell us that the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill will be good for democracy!!"

I could see Arturo felt strongly! So I decided to investigate. I discovered that Andrew Sparrow had written an article entitled:New lobbying bill will affect charities' ability to campaign on political issues. This was in the Guardian. He wrote:

The Electoral Commission, Britain's elections watchdog, has concluded that government plans to curb political campaigning by charities before a general election are flawed and in part unworkable.

In a private briefing sent to interested parties, the commission says that it has "significant concerns" about the coalition's lobbying bill, that some parts of it may be unenforceable and that it is not at all clear how the new restrictions affecting charities will work.

The strength of the commission's criticisms will embolden campaigners hoping for a government U-turn, although the speed with which the government is planning to push the bill through the Commons has raised fears that ministers are not in the mood for compromise.

It seems this devious bunch of geezers used quite a clever ploy - they published the details of the Bill the day before Parliament broke up for their jolly old summer hols! Neat timing that! Do you read all your correspondence the day before you pack your swimming trunks? I bet you don't. That's just what Lansley, Clegg and pals thought too!

Andrew Sparrow went on to write in his article:

Under the current rules third-party groups such as charities can spend up to £989,000 during this period on material, such as leaflets, that could affect the outcome of the election.

The bill not only slashes this limit to £390,000, but also broadens the definition of what counts as spending – to include overheads and staff costs – and widens the definition of what counts as election-related activity to include work that could affect the outcome, even if that was not its purpose.

The bill limits spending per constituency to £9,750, and lowers to £5,000 the amount charities can spend before they have to register with the Electoral Commission.

Understandably, the charities and other pressure groups are not happy. Sparrow quoted one of them:

John Sauven, executive director at Greenpeace, one of more than 100 charity organisations that have expressed concerns about the bill, said the legislation was "the most pernicious assault on campaign groups in living memory".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/25/lobbying-bill-charities-campaign-election

If this is democracy in action, I'll eat my tail! But I discovered more. The National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) stated:

Crucially, the bill introduces a definition of ‘activities for election purposes’ which is so broad and unclear that it could capture a range of the day-to-day activities charities carry out, entirely legitimately, as part of their campaigning and advocacy work.

Furthermore, the limits of expenditure for carrying out such activities have been drastically reduced, in some cases by up to 70%. Staff costs are to be included in these amounts, even though political parties are not expected to do the same.

Charities are already bound by charity law and therefore cannot be party political. But these changes would be likely to put the frighteners on charities that campaign on important issues and may want to use election time as an opportunity to raise awareness. This is mainly because, according to the explanatory notes, the rules apply not only if the intent is to promote the view of a particular candidate or party, but also considering the effect of the activity.

http://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2013/08/18/transparency-of-lobbying-bill-unintended-consequences-or-trojan-horse/

So - Arturo's presentiments are right!! But then, of course, I knew they would be - they always are. However, his worst fears were expressed by Polly Toynbee in the Guardian. Her article was headed:The lobbying bill will save corporate PRs but silence the protesters: Today parliament must wake up to a lobbying law designed to muzzle the government's biggest critics before the election

Now that could not have been said any clearer, could it? She went on to write:

Why the rush? To get the law in place by next May, so the clock starts ticking to gag campaigning for the year's runup to the 2015 election. Nick Clegg is a prime mover on this bill, as minister in charge of constitutional reform. Why are the Lib Dems so gung ho for something so illiberal? They are said to fear targeted campaigns, such as the National Union of Students reminding voters of Lib Dem MPs who signed up "in blood" to a pledge never to raise tuition fees. The government hotly denies this bill will do anything other than prevent US-style abuse by "Super-Pacs" spending unlimited sums on campaigns and supporting a party without mentioning its name. But that's already banned

Ah ha! So 'Wailing Lad' Clegg is at it again. This time trying to save his own skin! I think that's a lost battle. Most LibDem voters now wish they'd torn up their voting papers before putting them in the ballot box, last time! One even told me:

I'll never forgive the bastards!

Toynbee finished her article by writing:

he shocking state of British party funding should indeed be the real issue, but nothing here stops Ashcroft money flowing, or the shadowy Midlands Industrial Council funding the Tories, or dinners for donors in Downing Street. Nothing curbs the obscene sums all parties spend – a combined £31m at the last election. Electoral corruption sickens voters, already profoundly alienated from party politics. But this is just another crude gerrymander to hobble Labour and gag the government's most dangerous potential critics – charities more trusted by the public than any political party.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/03/lobbying-bill-corporate-prs-silence-protest

So, as far as I can see nothing is safe in the hands of those who wander along the corridors of No. 10. Macmillan once accused Margaret Thatcher of 'selling off the family silver' - he hadn't seen nothin! This bunch of geezers are now demolishing the buildings!

Me and Arturo are off for a bit of Italian nosh in Soho!

Bye