Saturday, December 16, 2023
The role of money in politics
Those who oppose state funding for political parties and who believe that the current system of elections being funded by big private donors is fit for purpose, will do well to consider this article in the Guardian, providing the back story to Labour's 2004 ban of hunting foxes with dogs.
The paper relies on claims from Lord Mandelson, that Tony Blair banned foxhunting in 2004 after coming under pressure from an animal rights group the Labour party had accepted a large donation from:
Peter Mandelson, the peer and former Labour MP, said the former prime minister included a commitment to hold a free vote on hunting with dogs in Labour’s 1997 manifesto after receiving money from an animal welfare fund.
Blair has said the foxhunting ban, which was finally enacted in 2004, was one of the policies he most regrets. Debate has since raged about whether the ban should be repealed, with the Conservative party previously having promised to hold a free vote on whether to do so while Labour say they will tighten loopholes in the ban.
Mandelson was speaking during a discussion on whether political donations can affect policy on the Times Radio podcast How to Win an Election.
He said: “I can offer you an example from 1997 where an organisation – it was a fund to do with the welfare of animals – got pretty transactional with us. It was the first and last time I remember this.
“They wanted a ban on hunting in return for a very sizeable amount of money. And Blair and co were sort of reluctant obviously to enter into some sort of trade over this policy.
“However, there were a lot of people in the party who wanted that ban – there were a lot of MPs coming and demanding it.
“And we got into a difficult situation where frankly we went a little bit too far – further than Blair wanted – in making this commitment in our manifesto. It was frankly under, not duress, but under some sort of pressure. It wasn’t attractive and it’s not been repeated.”
Mandelson did not name the group responsible. However, in 1996 Labour accepted £1m from Brian Davies, who founded the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Davies, who died last year, said in 2019: “This donation helped Labour win the election and go on to create the Hunting Act, which they had pledged to animal lovers across the UK.”
A spokesperson for Blair said: “This is a misinterpretation of what was said, there was no such agreement. [Mandelson] is clearly saying there were a lot of people who had passionate views on the subject.”
There are other examples as well of donors allegedly having undue influence, including this one from 2008, when it was reported that Whitehall documents had shown that Tony Blair personally intervened to secure an exemption for formula one from a tobacco advertising ban just hours after meeting the sport's boss and Labour donor, Bernie Ecclestone.
Whatever the truth, the ability of donors to give large sums of money to political parties and, as a result, gain access to important policy makers is a major weakness in our system and needs to be addressed.
The paper relies on claims from Lord Mandelson, that Tony Blair banned foxhunting in 2004 after coming under pressure from an animal rights group the Labour party had accepted a large donation from:
Peter Mandelson, the peer and former Labour MP, said the former prime minister included a commitment to hold a free vote on hunting with dogs in Labour’s 1997 manifesto after receiving money from an animal welfare fund.
Blair has said the foxhunting ban, which was finally enacted in 2004, was one of the policies he most regrets. Debate has since raged about whether the ban should be repealed, with the Conservative party previously having promised to hold a free vote on whether to do so while Labour say they will tighten loopholes in the ban.
Mandelson was speaking during a discussion on whether political donations can affect policy on the Times Radio podcast How to Win an Election.
He said: “I can offer you an example from 1997 where an organisation – it was a fund to do with the welfare of animals – got pretty transactional with us. It was the first and last time I remember this.
“They wanted a ban on hunting in return for a very sizeable amount of money. And Blair and co were sort of reluctant obviously to enter into some sort of trade over this policy.
“However, there were a lot of people in the party who wanted that ban – there were a lot of MPs coming and demanding it.
“And we got into a difficult situation where frankly we went a little bit too far – further than Blair wanted – in making this commitment in our manifesto. It was frankly under, not duress, but under some sort of pressure. It wasn’t attractive and it’s not been repeated.”
Mandelson did not name the group responsible. However, in 1996 Labour accepted £1m from Brian Davies, who founded the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Davies, who died last year, said in 2019: “This donation helped Labour win the election and go on to create the Hunting Act, which they had pledged to animal lovers across the UK.”
A spokesperson for Blair said: “This is a misinterpretation of what was said, there was no such agreement. [Mandelson] is clearly saying there were a lot of people who had passionate views on the subject.”
There are other examples as well of donors allegedly having undue influence, including this one from 2008, when it was reported that Whitehall documents had shown that Tony Blair personally intervened to secure an exemption for formula one from a tobacco advertising ban just hours after meeting the sport's boss and Labour donor, Bernie Ecclestone.
Whatever the truth, the ability of donors to give large sums of money to political parties and, as a result, gain access to important policy makers is a major weakness in our system and needs to be addressed.
