Is Labour suffering from the credit crunch?

An interesting item of news is that to raise funds to meet its £24 million debt, and presumably to raise money for a future general election contest, Labour is auctioning off a range of 'prizes money can't buy' such as dinner with the X Factor judges or a game of tennis with Tony Blair. Lord Levy commented to BBC Radio 4 that "I think fundraising is cyclical. People tend to support parties they think is going to win, if they feel a party isn't going to win and are not in tune with where the party is at they tend not to want to support it ... I certainly do think that is what's happening with Labour." But is this the real reason?

Charities around the country are facing funding crises, charity is increasingly seen to begin at home. Now charity donations are usually the result of personal involvement in the charity and their work, experience of breast cancer (first or second hand) is a factor that encourages donation. So one can perhaps see, if giving money independent of the organisation is linked by similar reasons, that the problem for Labour may not simply be perceptions of electoral success but that people are unwilling to give money away. Also, within this context, would be even less likely for money to be given to Labour. Could it be more likely, looking at the polls that there is simply a lack of support for the party or what they claim to strive for? Thus, to me, it would seem more logical to stress the 'not in tune with' issue than the perception they are not going to win as sufficient reason that very few will press the donate button for a party when they are not even prepared to support charities.

Right message, Right media

Advertisements leave impressions with the viewer, few are constructed to directly make people think or evaluate the argument but accept it, perhaps subconsciously, or want to find out more. Hence it is no surprise that the majority of advertisements shown so far in the race for the nominations in the US have remained concentrated on television. However there is a new function for the Internet, while Youtube can amplify messages by allowing them to be re-posted, advertisements, websites and social networking is all about donations. Hence perhaps, Obama, the man most active on the web has earned the most donations, Clinton had to dip into her own purse while McCain relies heavily on Republican money. As we move from the nomination race to a Presidential contest will we see the Internet becoming more important for both candidates or will Obama carry on outstripping his opponents: I guess the key question is how much money can Americans afford to give to a campaign?

Cock-up not conspiracy - so that's ok then!

Peter Hain is another nail in the coffin of trust in Labour, not only is the party guilty of mismanaging is funding but so was he during his challenge for Deputy Leadership. It is a mistake he claims, so 5,000 can just be overlooked apparently. To compound the problem his aides are engaged in a blame game. First aide Phil Taylor says it was all done properly when he was in charge, while his successor Steve Morgan says he was brought in to sort out the mess Taylor left in his wake. Now this all may be a mistake but what are we to think as a result.

Hain is a Minister of State, in fact he is Secretary for Works and Pensions. His department must be responsible for millions of pounds, but he is effectively telling us that during something as mundane as a Deputy Leadership contest, where only thousands are involved, he and his small team managed to cock it up; how can he then justify remaining in a position of any responsibility and expect that the public can trust him to run the department effectively? I think it is a fair question!

And, what a waste of money. Thousands spent on a failed campaign, what were donors seeking to gain from donations. Surely pure benevolence cannot justify this. Very worrying! A good argument for all election spending to be capped heavily and for very limited funding that excludes flashy advertising to be provided by us the tax payer. This will mean MPs and the party have to work harder on the streets and free media exposure while utilising the Internet more instead of spending a fortune on flashy ads to slag off their opponents. Well that's my opinion, not often I go off on one but I enjoyed it!

Who should pay for party campaigns?

Brown said yesterday that trust is eroded very easily, personally I am not sure there is much trust in him left; his solution reform party funding. While it is a move to distract the agenda, it is also clear that something needs to be done to clean up party funding. The problem currently is that individuals are not meant to gain from donating, so why donate? The long history of donations from Ecclestone to Abrahams suggest that there has been a correlation between making a donation and gaining something in return; despite protestations of coincidence, it all seems too convenient for anyone with a cynical (or realist) perspective. The problem then is how to reform funding.

Discussion on capping donations from individuals is not popular. All the parties have big donors, why who knows we can assume only, but without them the party would be in trouble. So it comes down to the idea that public funds should replace private donations; this is not a vote winner! The electorate may expect a glossy and professional election campaign, but deciding to pay for it at the expense of other services or an increase in taxation is a little like turkeys voting for Christmas. As Keith Ewing argues, there is currently an arms race taking place between the parties over who has the best campaign, but this is unsustainable and it is this that needs rethinking as it is the cause of the funding problem.

But there may be another way. Parties have a problem due to the lack of mass membership. Campaigns can be efficient on the ground if there are local activists to work on the behalf of the party and they are willing to produce their own material. Equally a range of direct communication can be utilised to get messages across to the people. The reliance on television and the glossy centralised campaign, while also focusing on the floating voter and not the party loyalist is damaging the link between party and members and reducing the likelihood of activism. While membership funds may not pay for flashy HQs a simpler model of campaign communication, with more control in the hands of local parties and activists, may just make politics more about people than about winning power. Or am I just a little too idealistic?

Bottom line; is professional flashy, glossy or just what will work best for the money available?

Alien concepts

We can read a lot about American politics and camapigning, and usually there is the hint that global political campaigning is becoming Americanised. Perhaps there is some truth in that but the one thing that is definitely missing in the UK is the in your face demands from money using highly emotive rhetoric. I signed up to Barack Obama's emails, I have no idea if they work and if they do why.

Over night I received a plea for money, or rather a request that I should "own a piece of this campaign". Others have done so, the email claims, such as James from Durango Colarado. He is quoted as saying:

"The founding principle of the great American experiment, as it has been called, is based on the involvement of citizens like us. Regular people joining forces to make an uncommon and profound difference."

I guess I just don't get it. It would put me off completely, but then I cannot actually vote in the US so what does it matter what I think. In the US Obama claims his funds are rising on a minute by minute basis, so it must be having some positive effects.

$ = Votes

Interesting that many feel that the safest way to assess the standings of hopefuls in the US nomination battle is by the money they amass. Hence one article argues the Obama is making significant progress because he has 'opened 250,000 wallets gaining 339,000 donations'. The article informs readers that: "So far this quarter, Obama aides say $20 million would thrill them, the Edwards' camp says its shooting for $9 million, and Clinton aides say she will be in the $27 million range"; will this correlate with the result one wonders. To put the figures into perspective "Howard Dean built a reputation for unprecedented grass-roots support when 70,000 people contributed about $10.5 million in the first two quarters of 2003". Is this an indication that people want a candidate to have the best campaign money can buy, or that in modern America you not only have to vote for your preferred candidate but also buy them. One wonders what happens when the sponsors feel let down by their candidate if elected, and how they communicate this; maybe Facebook or MySpace in the future will see messages that read "I donated $XXXX, but I don't agree with YYYY, but because of that $XXXX you have to listen I do what I say" and how many "any me's" will there be.

On a less serious note see the 'Race for the White House' board game; only in America?