Blair's legacy to Labour: debt

The Electoral Commission published the 2006 Statement of Accounts for the major political parties yesterday. Labour's can be downloaded here. They show the outgoing Leader left the Party with debts of £24.86 million.

As an avid promotor of rights and responsibilities, I hope Tony Blair will be honouring his when it comes to helping the Labour Party pay them off. Talking of fundraising, I was doing my bit last night at an event to help pay for campaigning leaflets to secure 50% social housing in the proposed Chelsea Barracks development. It was organised by comrades in Pimlico branches of Cities of London and Westminster CLP. Oh, and while we were partying the winner of £100 in our bi-monthly shareclub draw was announced. That scheme is grossing 20% more than at the beginning of the financial year. But I digress. In accounting terms is Labour a going concern? The auditors appear to have signed off the accounts without qualification. Though how the Party is going to pay off its national debt and raise enough money to fight a General Election any time soon is a mystery. At a constituency level we are preparing a five-year budget aimed at ensuring we link our fund-raising to the costs of campaigning, elections and internal party democracy, policy development and governance. Are any other CLPs thinking along similar lines?

Display: Sort:

Re: Blair's legacy to Labour: debt (#1)

Harsh to blame this on Blair and anyway rumours are going round saying Brown's lined up £20million of donations for November, so let's wait and see. But as I say, it's still a rumour.


Blair's true legacy to the party is the fact we're still in power now.

Re: Blair's legacy to Labour: debt (#3)

Dear NorthernMonkey,

'Harsh to blame this on Blair' - why harsh? He was Party Leader. He was happy to talk about encouraging membership in opposition, and be associated initially with a target of one million members in government.

The reality was a fundamental contradiction between a mass membership party and his Command Party structure. Gordon Brown may have lined up £20 million in donations from his rich friends. I would prefer him to establish a target of a million members willing to make regular financial contributions of up to £200 a year.


We are still in power despite Blair. Those of us active in London remember that Blair lost us the London Mayoral election in 2000. Thousands of former Labour councillors remember that Blair lost them their seats. so I'm sticking with my thesis.


The Labour Party is not just about Westminster. Without a solid base in local government we remain vulnerable. We will never rebuild trust with the British people if we rely on a few rich individuals for the money to fight the next British General Election.

Re: Blair's legacy to Labour: debt (#5)

Well a million members is an incredibly unrealistic target.

But speaking in terms of electoral success (whether at Westminster or local government), Blair has been simply superior over any other Labour leader - there's no doubt about that.

The only reason why we lose in local elections occasionally is because we're the party of government and local elections are always used to give the govt. a 'kick'.

Brown would not be in a strong position now if it wasn't for all the hard work Blair did reforming the party, listening to the people and making us electable.

It's all too easy to knock Blair, but you should remember all the good he did for us. Blair has been our most successful leader ever and I doubt we'll ever have a leader as successful as him again.

Re: Blair's legacy to Labour: debt (#6)

Dear NorthernMonkey

'Well a million members is an incredibly unrealistic target.'
Absolutely right, if our new Leader fails to make the connection between words and actions. More top down policies - imprisonment without charge, US missile defences and membership will remain static, if not resume its downward trend.


IMHO the real leadership test facing our new Labour Leader is whether he can win back electoral support and increase membership dramatically. The first test in London is whether we can increase the number of Labour members on the Greater London Assembly as well as get Ken re-elected as Mayor next May.

Re: Blair's legacy to Labour: debt (#7)

His electoral prospects don't look too bad at the moment, but as always, there's no room for complacency.

I'd be disappointed if Ken doesn't beat Boris Johnson, but yes, it will be important to see more Labour members in the GLA.

Re: Blair's legacy to Labour: debt (#2)

Absolutely.


All the main parties faced this problem.


The tories have luckily converted most to donations and sold their previous HQ for lots of money.


I think the accounts for this year will be very good.


In fact I think in the first quarter we beat the Tories in donations.

Re: Blair's legacy to Labour: debt (#4)

Dear Loz

'All the main parties faced this problem'. Yes, because all three main political party leaders find members a bit of a handful. Much easier to go and tap up a few rich mates. Except, perhaps in the case of the Lib-Dems who ended up having their accounts qualified due to a dodgy loan that will/may have to be repaid.

Worse, they are all quietly plotting to sneak their hand into the taxpayers' pocket via the Hayden Phillips Inquiry into the Funding of Political Parties. Well, they all were until the Tories did a 'steal of a deal' selling CCO for a eye-watering profit. My hunch is set out here:

http://petergkenyon.typepad.com/peterkenyon/2007/07/jack-straw-keep.html