Should Blair be held to account for Labour's debts?

Peter Kenyon Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:54:11 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

At the end of last week I wrote a 'spoof'' blog about Labour Leader Gordon Brown inviting members to underwrite Labour's debts in return for a party renewal package. It was posted here and on Labourhome. A poll added on my Labourhome blog has shown consistently that nearly 2/3rds of respondents would not help bail the Party out, even if it the help were subject to conditions.




Perhaps, I should have asked whether former Labour leader, Tony Blair, should be held to account for his role in the Party's current indebtedness?

I found this quote in a report of Lord Levy, Blair's chief fundraiser at the Hay Festival today, particularly irksome:

"Tony Blair is a schmoozer par excellence who has managed to schmooze his way through life," he said.
And threatened his party with bankruptcy, he might have added for completeness.


tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Should Blair be held to account for Labour's debts? | 16 comments (16 topical)

Re: Should Blair be held to account? (#1)

by Free Radical on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:31:04 PM GMT

I would be very happy for Mr Blair to be held to account for his role in the party's indebtedness.

I would be even happier if Parliament had held him to account for the misleading of Parliament over Iraq...


Re: Should Blair be held to account for debts? (#2)

by ChrisPaul on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:50:49 AM GMT

On the question of the indebtedness we would presumably have to consider the VFM of the election victories too? To be fair? Would comrades prefer to be in opposition through having had insufficient campaigning, but relatively free of debt? I think our MPs should hand over the deeds of their second homes for the party to use as collateral.

 http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2008/05/save-labour-party-peter-gets-too-much.html 

 

 


Re: Should Blair be held to account for debts? (#3)

by alexhilton on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:50:42 AM GMT

The election that never was cost the party an estimated £2-4m. Also, the lack of a General Secretary has given us a decision-making vacuum that has cost money.

Blair can be held accountable for a number of things but he "schmoozed" a lot of money into the party war chest. We shouldn't use him as a catch-all scapegoat.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should Blair be held to account for debts? (#9)

by TonyH on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:01:46 PM GMT

Can you imagine the look on Cherie's face if Tony was asked to plump up £10m?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should Blair be held to account for debts? (#10)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:10:02 PM GMT

Dear TonyHannon

One for Steve Bell and his If..cartoon strip?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should Blair be held to account for debts? (#15)

by TonyH on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:17:24 PM GMT

Quite possibly Peter. Quite possibly ;-)


[ Parent ]

Re: Should Blair be held to account for debts? (#13)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:00:57 PM GMT

Dear ChrisPaul

I think our MPs should hand over the deeds of their second homes for the party to use as collateral.

What was that about a touch of sun? Though I'll grant you, Chris, after TB has had his pips squeaked, the second homesteaders could come a close second.


[ Parent ]

Re: Acountability for Labour's debts (#4)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:55:14 AM GMT

Dear Alex

You're not suggesting that the NEC should continue to stick its collective head in the sand about who is responsible for the current state of the Party's finances, surely?

My sources claim the cost of the non-election was much lower than £2 to £4 million. However, the point you make reinforces the case for the Party's accounts and a provisional Conference Agenda to be circulated to members by the end of June, to be followed by a conventional AGM on the first day of Conference to enable the NEC to account to members for their stewardship of the Party since the previous Conference. We could then all see more clearly how income was being generated and expenditure incurred.

The use of Party funds to pay staff employed at No.10 or the new role you describe in your latest post might prove to be of particular interest, as might questions about how the Accounts were ever signed off last year, or whether there are now financial protocols ensuring an ethical approach to fundraising, not to mention evidence of a fundraising strategy to build a new General Election war chest, and pay-off the debts.


Re: Accountability for Labour's debts (#5)

by alexhilton on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:08:28 AM GMT

I think you know very well that I oppose the head-in-sand approach and that I support a more transparent and democratic party.

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery."

The Party has an income in the region of £20m and expenditure in the region of £24m. Under Blair, the £4m was being raised in donations, and since then it has not. Our lack of a General Secretary means the Party organisation has not had a leader taking a strategic look at the finances and proposing expenditure cuts - telling Brown what needs to be done.


[ Parent ]

Re: Accountability for Labour's debts (#6)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:31:10 AM GMT

Dear Alex

Will you and Mark be backing the Cities of London and Westminster CLP Rule change for a provisional agenda and early circulation of the Accounts now?

Otherwise we are going to have to wait until 2009 just to debate the subject at Conference.


Re: Accountability for Labour's debts (#7)

by alexhilton on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:19:18 AM GMT

Peter, please email it to me (or if you have put it up on Labourhome, direct me to the link) and I'll take a look. In the meantime, are you supporting Mark McDonald for the Treasurership of the Party?


[ Parent ]

Re: Accountability for Labour's debts (#8)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:39:10 AM GMT

Dear Alex

The 2Cities CLP rule change can be seen through the link in Comment 4 in this thread.

I'll let you know on support for Mark if we can agree on a strategy to pressure the NEC now. A lot of what needs to be done cannot wait until September.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should Blair be held to account (#11)

by fluffymike on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:37:33 PM GMT

Whilst not the biggest Blair fan - but I still don't think he should have been pushed out just for the benefit of one person - I really do not think he can be held liable for the Party's debts...

And how much money was raqised and spent on the non-election of our new leader and the deputy leader beauty contest? Money that could have gone towards the party rather than the Sleeping Beauty mirrors of two vanity campaigns...


Re: Should Blair be held to account (#12)

by Free Radical on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:51:37 PM GMT

Presumably the non-election of our leader cost very little. But I think it is insulting to refer to the deputy leadership election as a "beauty contest" - after all it is one of the few bits of transparent democracy left in the party. And, actually, it generated some very good debate within the party at all levels - for the first time in a very long time as far as I could see.

Under our constitution the NEC is charged with responsibility for the accounts. They are the first port of call in holding to account. And, if they did not know what was going on, then why not?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should Blair be held to account (#14)

by fluffymike on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM GMT

I beleive Brown had donations of over £100,000 towards his non-election?

And yes it may be a bit harsh to dismiss the deputy leadership election as a beauty contest given that it allowed for some marginal and largely meaningless as it turned out debate and left-leaning posturing - but between them those 6 candidates raised something close to a million pounds...

For a position that has very little substance and even less policy influence...

Money that could have reduced the parties debt by 10% or so!


[ Parent ]

Blair should be held to account!! (#16)

by Mark Wadsworth on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:32:17 PM GMT

Yes, of course!

a) It's more than partly his fault
b) he's got plenty of cash to pay them
c) every single penny that he and his Mrs have earned is thanks to the Labour Party that allowed him (in a moment of weakness) to become leader and hence PM.
d) There'll be plenty more book royalties coming in future, from follow up titles like "Blair: The Prison Diaries" and so on


Should Blair be held to account for Labour's debts? | 16 comments (16 topical)