I spent some time yesterday blogging about the government's new Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.
It is therefore good to note the Guardian picking up on the theme this morning, saying:
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.
In its letter, the commission says the proposed rules about spending at constituency level "may be unenforceable", partly because "it will often be hard for campaigners to identify with a reasonable level of confidence when an activity has 'no significant effects' in a given constituency".
More broadly, it says the proposed rules about what constitutes election-related activity are not sufficiently clear.
The briefing says: "In our view, it is not at all clear how that test will apply in practice to the activities of the many third parties that have other purposes beyond political campaigning. For instance, it seems arguable that the new test could apply to many of the activities of charities, voluntary organisations, blogs, thinktanks and other organisations that engage in debate on public policy.
"In contrast, the current definition of third party campaigning sets out quite clearly both the type of activity that may be covered (material directed at the public that promotes electoral success), and the fact that such activity is controlled whatever the intentions of those carrying it out."
I am pleased to note that the concerns I have raised are considered valid by the body tasked with enforcing the new law if it is enacted.
What is worrying is that I suspect it will be enacted, nonetheless.
Please do protest by writing to Chloe Smith MP at pscorrespondence@cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The policy could be a kneejerk reaction to this: http://bit.ly/ukteaparty2
The irony in this is just delicious….
Here we have the state imposing a law in order to achieve the understandable aim of removing big money lobbying in politics but you don’t like the method….
It is too imposing in paperwork, restrictive, intrusive and creates a financial burden when as far as you are concerned you already act properly!
And yet when have any of these objections been enough to stop your demands for further law on tax avoidance and company requirements?…..Never is the answer…
Well the same answer you use will serve for this case as well….Tough!, why should the law be fair to everyone and why should policy not create obligations.
Oh but you cry, you are special, you did not mean it to apply to you, the self regarding wonder who knows what democracy needs……no, only to the wealthy and corporate sector who you despise.
How does that powerful courageous State look now?…..reap what you sow….
How utterly ludicrous
This will have no impact at all on most lobbyists – as is widely appreciated. Lynton Crosby will not need to register
But it will impact on charities, unions and individuals
And the Electoral Commission say it cannot work
So:
1) It does not do what you say
2) It is about restricting free speech whilst allowing corporate UK to lobby
3) The transparency achieves nothing new in this case – except put a price on commenting
4) Fundamental human rights are breached – which is something a million miles from asking people to pay tax, which is what I do
So stop proving you are an enemy of democracy and free speech like all the others who seem to be welcoming this