“Tony Blair has revealed the huge funding pressures on Labour in private remarks to party workers, saying that they need to find four or five times more cash to fight the next election. Mr Blair told senior party figures that the extra cash was desperately needed to match expected Conservative spending in target seats from now until the next election”
reported David Charter of The Times on 17th April 2006. Mr Charter continued,
“His verdict came after an analysis of Tory spending in the two years before last year’s election, which showed that Labour was outspent by a factor of 2.4 to 1 in 93 target seats. In three seats that Labour lost, the Tories spent more than ten times as much in the months before the election was called.
Labour insiders believe that extra Tory spending power cost the party at least a dozen seats in the general election last year and they will push for annual constituency spending limits. Spending is now strictly capped only from when the election is called. Senior Labour figures are alarmed at the pace of the “arms race” in party funding, which some fear is driving the dash for cash behind the “cash for honours” scandal.
Peter Bradley, who lost his seat of The Wrekin after the Tories spent 10.9 times as much as Labour, has compiled an analysis of targeted funding from Electoral Commission figures. Mr Bradley said: “My research identifies a strong correlation between a party’s capacity to outspend its rivals and the swing in its favour in key marginal seats.”
It might be recalled that I have a fondness for Mr Bradley and have posted about him before. To recap, I consider that Mr Bradley is a sore loser. The Tories weren't playing fair by spending more during their campaign to “take” his marginal[1], he bleats. It has escaped his consciousness entirely, that his arguably odious comment made during the passage of the Hunting Bill through Parliament galvanised against him specifically, political opposition of all hues (including the associated funding.) He made the Hunting Bill personal and he paid the price. In any event, I digress. My argument is that it is perfectly acceptable for political parties to target the seats they have assessed to be “for the taking” (or for that matter, defending.) The Liberal Democrats would suffer in particular, if they were prevented from targetting, after all, it is what they are so good at.
Notwithstanding New Labour’s attempt to spin the Conservatives’ targeted spending as being “underhand”, of course, our Mr Blair’s New Labour does the same thing. Fast forward one day, and we are embroiled in the BNP story reported by David Aaronovitch of The Times. As everyone will recall, allegedly Minister Margaret Hodge had told The Sunday Telegraph that her white, working-class constituents in Barking are contemplating a serious electoral flirtation with Nick Griffin’s British National Party. Mrs Hodge’ parliamentary neighbour Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham, let the cat out of the bag when giving his opinion concerning the rise in popularity of the BNP. Mr Aaronovitch reports (though the emphasis is mine),
“[Mr Cruddas’] assertion is that the BNP phenomenon is caused by a failure of mainstream, especially Labour, politicians to appeal to “traditional” voters. Instead, the parties try to maximise their appeal to middle-class swing voters in marginal constituencies. Labour’s project has ceased to be the “emancipation” of the still large working class.”
Well there you have it. Labour targets marginals too. This leaves me with one last thing to say. Shut it, Bradley.
[1] Although The Wrekin could never have been described as a “marginal”, well that is, not until Mr Bradley made his ill judged “Class War” comment.