Jim Ferguson » funding

Labour addicted to union cash while Libdems get bought off by Labour UK

Jim Ferguson — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:40:52 +0000

Secret papers reveal Labour’s dependency on union cash

Tuesday, March 30 2010

Previously unpublished papers reveal the true scope of Labour’s dependency on union cash.

Following Conservative pressure, the Government will publish the previously confidential minutes and papers of the Inter-Party Talks on the Funding of Political Parties.

Francis Maude, Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, led the Conservative delegation in the Talks. “Gordon Brown wrecked the opportunity to clean up politics because he wanted the unions’ votes to become Labour Party leader”, he said. “These documents expose the Labour Party’s addiction to union cash”.

The Talks were chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips and were suspended without substantive agreement in October 2007.

Peter Watt, then Labour General Secretary and a delegate on the Talks, has subsequently written how the Talks failed since “the Labour Party could not resolve its internal issues”, “my own party was the biggest block to reform” and Gordon Brown “repeatedly warned the Prime Minister [Tony Blair] that he would block any attempt to reduce the unions’ power.”

Peter Watt also notes how the Liberal Democrats were bought off by Labour: “[Labour] managed to clinch a deal with the LibDems by promising that Menzies (Ming) Campbell would get a taxpayer-funded car and driver if the reforms went through.”

The newly published papers today reveal the true extent of the union funding of the Labour Party:

Many union members would not pay a political levy to the Labour Party if given a choice.
Some trade unions affiliate more individuals to the Labour Party than they have union members paying a political levy (only money from the political levy can be used for political purposes).
From 2001 to 2006, the unions gave the Labour Party £45 million in cash.
Trade unions pay £1 million a year to the Labour Party at a local and regional level, tying in local Labour Party branches through binding “Constituency Development Plans”.

Sir Hayden Phillips drew up detailed option papers on how the political levy could be reformed to give union members genuine choice. The Labour Party objected to these proposals. This was the key stumbling block that led to the Talks failing.

It’s wrong that union barons, not rank-and-file union members, decide how much to give to Labour”, Maude added.

“A Conservative Government will seek an agreed long-term settlement that would introduce an across-the-board cap on donations to end the big donor culture. As part of that reform, union members must have real choice on whether they want to pay a political levy and where it goes.”

Interesting to see how easy it was to buy off the Libdems. I suppose some things never change.

Jim Ferguson

Tweet this!

Military chiefs savage Gordon Brown over incorrect evidence Iraq enquiry – Humiliation for British Government

Jim Ferguson — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:07:02 +0000

This is a serious blow for Brown and his discredited Labour Government. Even the very top brass of the British armed forces cannot stomach his outright dishonesty and disrespect for our armed forces.

The sooner our brave men and woman of the United Kingdom’s armed forces have a Conservative Government they can trust the better.

Jim Ferguson

PM Admits Iraq Inquiry Defence Spending Error

6:54pm UK, Wednesday March 17, 2010

Miranda Richardson, Sky News Online

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has admitted giving incorrect evidence to the Iraq Inquiry on defence spending.

Mr Brown told Sir John Chilcot’s panel that the defence budget had risen “in real terms every year”.

But House of Commons reseach shows Mr Brown’s claim was wrong, and he has now written to Sir John to correct it.

Mr Brown was asked by the Inquiry if he was aware senior figures from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said they were concerned that the 1998 strategic defence review had not been fully funded.

The PM said that the Treasury had agreed spending with the MoD for 2002, 2004 and 2007.

“The Iraqi expenditure was being met, but at the same time the defence budget was rising in real terms every year,” he said.

Repeating his claim, he told them: “The spending review of 2004 gave the Ministry of Defence a rising level of real spending, moving from 1.2% to 1.4% in real terms each year.”

But a research note prepared by the House of Commons Library in October last year showed defence expenditure had fallen in real terms in four financial years since Labour came to power in 1997: 1997/98 (-2.2%); 1999/2000 (-0.4%); 2004/5 (-0.7%); and 2006/7 (-0.1%).

In real terms it is 12% higher, but I do accept that in one or two years defence expenditure did not rise in real terms.

Gordon Brown

The average annual increase between 1997 and 2009 was 2.7%, it said, but noted that “this figure is likely to have been distorted by current operations”.

Asked at Prime Minister’s Questions whether he would correct the record, Mr Brown said: “Yes. I am already writing to Sir John Chilcot about this issue.

“Because of operational fluctuations in the way the money is spent, expenditure has risen in cash terms every year, in real terms it is 12% higher, but I do accept that in one or two years defence expenditure did not rise in real terms.”

The Prime Minister’s evidence to the Inquiry sparked condemnation from senior military figures.

Lord Boyce – who was the head of the military at the time of the invasion – called him “disingenuous” and insisted the MoD was starved of funds.

“He’s dissembling, he’s being disingenuous,” Admiral Boyce told The Times newspaper.

“It’s just not the case that the Ministry of Defence was given everything it needed

“There may have been a 1.5% increase in the defence budget but the MoD was starved of funds.”

Lord Boyce’s predecessor Lord Guthrie accused Mr Brown of costing soldiers their lives by failing to fund the army properly.

The Tories described Mr Brown’s admission as a “humiliating climbdown”.

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: “He has made repeated and fundamentally false claims, misleading Parliament, the public and worst of all the Armed Forces and their families.”

A spokesman for the Prime Minister said Mr Brown had “taken the first opportunity” to tell MPs about the mistake.

<a href=”http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=2001437c67″>Prime Minister’s Questions</a>

Tweet this!

Labours betrayal of our armed forces – Military chiefs accuse Brown

Jim Ferguson — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:44:06 +0000

The truth of Brown’s attempt to cover up the amount of defence spending is starting to come out. The armed forces are now quite clear on the position that Brown’s Labour Government cannot be trusted. Despite huge professionalism and bravery on the part of our armed services the armed forces cannot depend on this Government. Every military person needs to wake up fast to what Brown and his cabal of misfits have done and how Labour has turned its back on them and our nation.

Labours disrespect for the armed services is staggering and their appalling record and betrayal of our military personel cannot go unpunished. I would urge every soldier, sailor, and air force member of the armed services to assist the rest of the people in this country to throw this dredful Labour Government out of power as soon as the General Election takes place. Only then can we begin to properly fund and support not only our fighting men and woman but ensure we get the support that their families deserve as well.

Jim Ferguson

This graph (hat tip to Burning our Money) gets closest to the truth about Labour’s record on defence spending (click on the image to enlarge it):

For the reasons pointed out by BoM, because defence costs have risen faster than inflation the second graph is most relevant. At a time of two wars Labour has cut the buying power of our armed forces.

***

Yesterday Gordon Brown told the Iraq inquiry that he gave the military all they needed. Liam Fox hit back, accusing the Prime Minister of being “evasive” and pointing to contradictory statements issued by others.

Today, Mr Brown gets both barrels from retired military chiefs in The Times and Telegraph.

“He’s dissembling, he’s being disingenuous. It’s just not the case that the Ministry of Defence was given everything it needed. There may have been a 1.5 per cent increase in the defence budget but the MoD was starved of funds.” – Admiral Lord Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff up to the start of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, quoted in The Times

“To say Gordon Brown has given the military all they asked for is simply not true. He cannot get away with saying I gave them everything they asked for, that is simply disingenuous.” – Lord Guthrie in The Telegraph

“The real truth is the Armed Forces are underfunded.” – Major General Patrick Cordingley, quoted in The Telegraph

Speaking on Radio 4 at 8.15am this morning, General Sir Richard Dannatt backed his former colleagues in the armed forces. The whole of the armed forces had been robbed to provide the basics for combat operations, he told listeners.

In its leader column The Telegraph makes the obvious conclusion:

“What they do know is that there are soldiers who would not have been killed had they been better equipped and whether that was the Treasury’s fault or the MoD’s is neither here nor there. The Government must be held to account; and Mr Brown has been at its heart for 13 years.”

Tim Montgomerie

Tweet this!