10) TORY BILL THREATENS TO OUTLAW UK UNION CONGRESS

From the Morning Star and The Guardian, August 19, 2013

            Plans for a new lobbying Bill introduced by Britain's Conservative‑Liberal Democrat coalition government drew fierce fire after it emerged they would effectively criminalise next year's TUC Congress.

            The Trades Union Congress (TUC) said that certain clauses in the government's Transparency of Lobbying, non‑Party Campaigning, and Trade Union Administration Bill would outlaw many of its activities ‑ particularly organising its 2014 annual conference or a national demonstration in the 12 months before the 2015 general election. It said the Bill makes three changes to the regulation of campaigning by non‑party organisations in the year prior to a general election.

            First it would change the definition of what counts as campaigning. At present only activities which intend to influence an election result are regulated, but the Bill would instead regulate activity that may affect the result of an election, which would severely limit an organisation's ability to criticise government policies in the run‑up to an election.

            The proposed legislation would also reduce the spending limit for third‑party campaigners to 390,000 pounds ($630,000 Cdn) ‑ including staff time and office costs. Currently only the costs of election-directed materials and activities such as leaflets and advertisements are regulated.

            Under the proposed rules the TUC's 2014 Congress, or a national demonstration, would not just take the organisation over the annual limit but each member union too, it said.

            TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: "It's an open secret at Westminster that this rushed Bill has nothing to do with cleaning up lobbying or getting big money out of politics. Instead it is a crude and politically partisan attack on trade unions, particularly those which affiliate to the Labour Party. But it has been drawn so widely that its chilling effect will be to shut down dissent for the year before an election. No organisation that criticises a government policy will be able to overdraw its limited ration of dissent without fearing a visit from the police."

            Government officials disputed the claims and insisted there was no risk of any campaigning being banned under the Bill.

            But writing in The Guardian newspaper, O'Grady said, "It is an open secret around Westminster that the proposals in this bill are a highly partisan attack on trade union relations with the Labour party. But as leaders of charities, churches and faith groups return from their holidays, they are starting to realise it could redefine activities they have always regarded as being far above party politics as election campaigning - and that if they fail to comply with the spending limits, they will be committing a criminal offence...

            "Even informal local groups will be caught up in the new rules. Concerned about fracking in your village? Worried about proposals to close a hospital or build a road? Be very careful, you only have a limited ration of dissent in each constituency, and if you get overdrawn or even lose some receipts then you could face a police investigation. Are you a community group that organises a series of hustings but chooses to exclude extremist party candidates? Sorry, you are now considered to be election campaigners.

            "The bill, then, redefines what counts as electioneering. At present only materials and activities obviously targeted at shifting votes are capped. But anything that might change the mind of a voter will count as election campaigning in future. If you are critical of a government policy in the year before an election, that will count as election campaigning. If you are active against racism then you could be campaigning against far‑right parties. Staff time will be included, so the wages of anyone who works on writing a critique of a policy or sends it to the media will count...

            "Our democracy is too important to be closed down for everyone other than political parties for a year before an election. The government should withdraw part two of this bill. And if it thinks there is a problem that needs a legislative solution then it should at least make the effort to consult with others and build a cross-party, cross‑civil society consensus. That would be the best way to guarantee freedom of speech while stopping those with the biggest wallets buying elections."

(The above article is from the September 1-15, 2013, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $30/year, or $15 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $45 US per year; other overseas readers - $45 US or $50 CDN per year. Send to People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, BC,