Gagging Law

[MooseBreath]

Yes but the RSPCA aren't likely to campaign against the government about anything political are they?

Do you know of any instances of this sort of misuse ?

They might try to influence them against a return to foxhunting or even about horseracing etc , but what's wrong with that?

Surely it's nothing to do with taxpayers money , it's donations from the public , and if the donating public don't like what the RSPCA are lobbying the government for, they can easily stop making contributions.

My point is , What are they so scared of ? Is this new legislation really so needed?

Has any previous governments been rocked to it's foundations by a bit of flak from a charity ?

Why for example shouldn't a homeless charity bring to the fore problems caused or exacerbated by gov. decisions?

Charities aren't just there to throw money at existing problems . They have a role to play in stopping the problems being created by bad decisions or advising on how to improve the situation.

What "new legislation" are you even talking about? They're proposing to cut the existing spend cap for "third party campaigners" (which charities are not, or at least shouldn't be) from about £700k down to about £300k during election year. In the last two elections only two third party campaign groups got anywhere near the existing £700k limit. This new cap will have very little impact on anyone and none whatsoever on charities so long as they aren't acting like third party campaigners for a specific party. And even then they can still spend £300k on it if they wish.

[Zingari]

It's part of the govts lobbying legislation. As usual the left are distorting the facts to portray themselves as victims.

are you sure they aren't bringing in new legislation because they see themselves as victims  ?

All these corrupt charities ganging up on them with malicious lies to bring them down 

[Zingari]

What "new legislation" are you even talking about? They're proposing to cut the existing spend cap for "third party campaigners" (which charities are not, or at least shouldn't be) from about £700k down to about £300k during election year. In the last two elections only two third party campaign groups got anywhere near the existing £700k limit. This new cap will have very little impact on anyone and none whatsoever on charities so long as they aren't acting like third party campaigners for a specific party. And even then they can still spend £300k on it if they wish.

oh well if that's the case it's fookin long overdue.

 

Where are all these charities that are supposed to be "acting as third party campaigners ? i've never seen any .

Can you show me some ? "

[MooseBreath]

Where are all these charities that are supposed to be "acting as third party campaigners ? i've never seen any .

Can you show me some ? "

No I can't. That's my point. This has nothing to do with charities.

[Webbo]

are you sure they aren't bringing in new legislation because they see themselves as victims  ?

All these corrupt charities ganging up on them with malicious lies to bring them down 

Why is it only the left that are complaining. These people who complain about free speech are usually the same people who want to ban the Daily Mail.

[Zingari]

Why is it only the left that are complaining. These people who complain about free speech are usually the same people who want to ban the Daily Mail.

That's true ,

So will they be prevented from acting as a " third party campaigner"in election years ?

 

edit ; it's not just the lefties that moan , because i'm not one.

I'm just a moaning old git 

[Webbo]

 

 

edit ; it's not just the lefties that moan , because i'm not one.

I'm just a moaning old git 

[Zingari]

you old soft soaper 

 

 

Taken from some lefty rag ;

 

 

The coalition faces a lengthy standoff over charities' ability to campaign against government policies when parliament returns next week.

 

Shadow leader of the House Angela Eagle used a speech in east London to attack the government's lobbying bill, which ministers say is aimed at taking third-party funding out of politics.

 

The opposition fears charities could be forced to stop campaigning in coalitions, pull back from public-facing activity to avoid hitting a lowered spending limit and reduce their lobbying efforts because of the increased administrative burden.

 

The transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill has already been criticised by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which has warned the measures would have a "huge impact on charities' and other groups' day-to-day work".

 

Now Eagle has thrown the opposition's weight behind their concerns by pledging to fight the government on the issue when the bill comes to the floor of the Commons. It is the only major piece of government legislation to face scrutiny in the two-week session before this autumn's conference season.

 

"The big money in politics today is spent by political parties not by charities and campaigning groups," she said.

 

"Yet this bill looks to gag the latter, while doing nothing to curtail the former which spent ten times more than all third parties put together in the runup to the last general election."

 

The proposed new rules are being drawn so widely they could prevent a health charity from publishing a leaflet warning of the dangers of smoking, it is feared.

 

A local community group opposing a bypass could become subject to regulation if a member subsequently went on to stand in a local election, the NCVO has warned.

 

"It is deeply worrying that large numbers of organisations would be unable to know with any degree of certainty whether they were acting within the law, leaving them open to the risk of prosecution," a letter from the NCVO's chief executive Sir Stuart Etherington said.

 

Eagle called on Cameron to rewrite the bill so that it protects the big society and "properly regulates the lobbying industry".

 

Under present plans only lobbying firms working for external clients will have to sign up to the statutory register of lobbyists. In-house lobbyists, which make up the majority of the public affairs industry, would not be affected.

 

"This bill is a cynical attempt by the government to insulate their record and their policies from legitimate, democratic criticism in an election year," she added.

[Rincewind]

So all they are asking is for the bill to be rewritten to clarify the proposals.

 

Many organisation such as housing associations dealing with sheltered housing  are unable to become too vocal because they rely on local government funding;

Don't bite the hand that feeds you so to speak. So they rely on smaller groups, it could be the residents, to raise concerns that may crop up. A group of elderly pensioners would not be able to raise the funds for a campaign or pay for any court case. The residents would have no political motive only what is best for themselves. In fact there could well be Tory, UKIP, BNP Liberal as well as Labour voters among them.

So the Coalition need to go over the proposals and correct any errors instead of rushing it through hoping everybody will lie down and accept it without question.

[Rincewind]

Even Oxfam and The Royal British Legion could be affected.

 

This is from The Times.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3850606.ece

 

This concern over the bill has little to do with a charities political stance but at what point a campaign would be considered favouring one political party or another. The amount they can spend has been lowered so if something they are concerned about is also an election issue the group could face prosecution or keep silent meaning the cause they are supporting would suffer. Many are seeking legal advice.

What they are saying is the law as it is proposed is not clear enough and needs reviewing for clarification. I would not think the RBL would have a left political bias.

[Guest MattP]

[Rincewind]

I had a reply off Jon Ashworth. Please read it like a view from a concerned individual rather than from someone that may not support the same party as yourself.

Of course this does not apply to the majority of  FoxTalkers who can give and take and see more than black and white.

I believe his concerns are genuine and well thought out. If anyone disagrees then I am sure he would welcome well constructive criticism.

 

 

Dear Mr

 

Thank you for recently contacting me regarding today’s debate on the lobbying Bill, and particularly Part 2, which relates to third party campaigning.

 

In the past the Prime Minister promised to fix our broken politics, but I believe this Bill makes things worse, not better. It is simply unacceptable that David Cameron finds it okay to present a lobbying Bill that wouldn’t stop Lynton Crosby from advising him on tobacco policy, but could stop an organisation like Cancer Research UK from campaigning about it.

 

Part two of the Bill increases the regulation of charities and campaigners in the year before the election and restricts their activity and campaigning will be restricted even if it wasn’t intended to affect the outcome of an election, for example but engaging in public policy debate.

 

As well as this, staff costs and overheads will have to be included in what campaigners have to declare, which could mean that larger charities have to pull back from any public facing activity in the year before the election to avoid hitting the lower spending limit.

 

There are also concerns that the Bill will deter smaller organisations from campaigning because they won’t be able to afford the administrative costs.

 

I believe this section of the Bill represents a sinister gag on charities and campaigners, and fails to address the real problem – ‘big money’ in politics.

 

The real source of this problem is the amount of money spent nationally on election campaigning by political parties. Political parties nationally spent £31million at the 2010 election, compared to just £3million by third-party campaigners. The biggest third-party spender spent just 4% of the £17million spent by the Conservative Party.

 

If the government were serious about taking the big money out of politics, then they would be looking at things like a reduction in the overall expenditure cap for political parties during election years, and the introduction of a five thousand pound cap on donations to political parties.

 

Of course, keeping the big money out of politics is key to bringing people back into it, but the big money in politics today is spent by political parties, not by charities and campaigning groups. I believe that Part two is a cynical attempt by the Government to insulate their record and their policies from legitimate, democratic criticism.

 

Furthermore it seems to me that the Government is rushing the Bill though the Commons so that the rules can be in place before the next election. There has been no pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, nor any consultation with the sector on the Bill’s proposals.

 

As the Bill currently stands, it will not be receiving my support. The Government must go back to the drawing board and come forward with proposals for genuine reform.

 

Thank you once again for taking the time to contact me and share your views.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Jon

 

Jon Ashworth MP

[Zingari]

Good reply that , thanks for putting it up 

[Rincewind]

Good reply that , thanks for putting it up 

Never mentioned appearing on the radio but from what I was told today he has been asked before and has no objections unlike some Councillors  (labour) that have been asked.

[Rincewind]

Time for an update

Freedom of speech is at stake

 

The government’s plan to silence criticism is whizzing through parliament. [1] Alongside other organisations - from Oxfam to the Countryside Alliance - 38 Degrees members have been turning up the pressure on MPs. [2] And it’s working. Today, the government tried to grab back the initiative. They’ve published changes to the plans which they say would address the main concerns. [3]

But they’re trying to dupe us - and dupe MPs. Their suggested changes are cosmetic, not substantial. The thrust of the ‘gagging law’ will remain exactly as is. And it's not just our opinion - charities aren’t supporting the government’s changes either. [4]

Your MP is already on side, but there’s a danger that they'll think the government has fixed the problem. They might not think it’s that important to turn up to vote, or to try and persuade other MPs to vote the right way.

Ros Baston, an ex-Electoral Commission lawyer and independent expert, has written a legal briefing laying out exactly why the changes aren’t good enough. [5] If we get the briefing into every MP’s inbox today, along with individual emails saying why the gagging law needs to be stopped, we can disprove the government’s false reassurances before they get a foothold.

Can you write an email to your MP thanking them for opposing the bill up until now and asking them to read the legal advice urgently? Please click here to write them an email arming them with a copy of the legal advice:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/gagging-law-inadequate-changes

The two key organisations representing charities, non-profits and voluntary organisations, NCVO and ACEVO, have also rejected today’s announcement. NCVO say that the changes “do not go far enoughâ€, and “leave a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguityâ€. ACEVO has said that they “don’t prevent the Bill curbing freedom of speech around electionsâ€. [6]

At every previous vote, MPs were told to keep supporting the gagging law. They were assured that the government would make changes to address the groundswell of concern. At the last vote, the minister responsible, Andrew Lansley, said he’d listened to the outcry, and that he would fix the worst bits. [7] Now his changes have been published - and they don’t fix it.

Time is short - the vote is next week - and the issue is complex. There’s every danger that MPs will fall for the government’s line again. Lansley is hoping that MPs will trust him, and take the changes at face value. That’s why it’s so important that we prove how inadequate they are before next week’s vote.

Ros Baston’s legal advice explains in no uncertain terms how Lansley’s changes fail to deal with the widespread concerns. If MPs read it, there’s a strong chance it’ll convince them that these changes aren’t good enough, and that the gagging law still needs to be fixed. And if enough MPs are convinced, they might throw the gagging law out altogether. Or at the very least, the plans will be so contentious and toxic that when they get to the House of Lords, they’ll face substantial changes.

Can you help make sure your MP reads the briefing now? Send your email here:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/gagging-law-inadequate-changes


Thanks for being involved,

Susannah, James, Blanche and the 38 Degrees team


PS Any chance you're in London next Tuesday 8th October? At midday on Tuesday, hundreds of people are coming together in Parliament Square in London to celebrate all that is great about democracy. This is our chance to show all MPs just how passionate ordinary people are about their right to speak out on important issues. If you're on Facebook and you'd like to come, please click here:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/rally-for-freedom-of-speech
If you're not on Facebook and you'd like to come, fill in this quick form to let us know:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/rally-for-freedom-of-speech-rsvp

No worries if you can't make it - on the day, check out #gagginglaw on Twitter, or the 38 Degrees website, to see what's going on.

[Strokes]

I feel I should be compensated for time, this thread is utter bollocks.

[Smudge]

oh well if that's the case it's fookin long overdue.

 

Where are all these charities that are supposed to be "acting as third party campaigners ? i've never seen any .

Can you show me some ? "

I wouldn't have thought either Green Peace or Oxfam could operate without being political. They both campaign all the time and need political support. Having said that I see nothing wrong with it.

 

Soft money is a problem and it might not just be UK based, which means that any foreign company or country can have undue influence on UK legislation.

I do not agree with the gagging part but there is a trend to buy power and it has to be controlled.

[Rincewind]

But this could affect groups like cancer Research, Save The Heroes, RNLI, Mind, Dr Banados, British Legion etc.

If any party has anything related to their causes these groups do not have the funds available and they could be taken to court when all they want to do is highlight the cause. They are non-political.

If one of the parties for instance (does not matter which) had in its manifesto that it was going to look at care veterans leaving the forces on medical reasons received the RBL would be unable to run a campaign on this topic for a year before the election.

Lawyers have looked into this and they say the law has flaws which need addressing. The campaigners are not saying it is wrong but they would like certain aspects of it revised to protect their causes and the people it could affect.

I find that reasonable.