Des avortistes pas en phase avec la société

Dans le Guardian, la journaliste Polly Curtis se fait l'écho de l'inquiétude des organisations avortistes britanniques face à la perspective d'un changement de législation.

Les associations de gauche qui militent pour la banalisation de l'avortement se heurtent à une difficulté considérable, il est très difficile de « vendre » un avortement au public habituel des donateurs.

Leur action d'influence ne peut s'appuyer sur une action de masse par le biais du marketing direct car elle risque fort de perdre beaucoup d'argent.

La solution consiste à faire des actions d'influence auprès de pourvoyeurs de fonds publics ou para-publics.

C'est la recette à laquelle fait appel, par exemple, SOS Racisme.

Toutefois, cet échec à entrer en empathie avec la population est révélatrice du fait que ces associations proposent des politiques qui ne sont pas aussi en phase avec ce que pensent les citoyens que les grands médias (comme le Guardian) le prétendent.

A titre de comparaison théorique, je suis frappé par le fait que l'Œuvre des orphelins de la Police recueille à elle seule 15,5 millions d'euros du public pour seulement 0,1 million d'argent public.

Le budget de l'Œuvre des orphelins de la Police.

En d'autres termes, on pourrait avancer que cette association est bien plus représentative de la France que SOS Racisme dont le budget d'un peu plus de 1 million d'euros est pour l'essentiel payé par de l'argent public et par Pierre Bergé.

Abortion law reform plans criticised by women's groups 
Charities and health bodies call on equalities minister to intervene and protect rights of women to get impartial advice
A coalition of women's groups has written to the equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, urging her to intervene in the row over backbenchers' attempts to reform abortion protocols. They say the proposals could delay abortions and allow anti-abortion groups to counsel women.

Featherstone is being asked to seek a guarantee within government that the current system won't change, ahead of a potential vote that could overhaul the existing counselling services for women seeking to terminate a pregnancy

The signatories to the letter include the Fawcett Society, the Women's Health Equalities Consortium, the Medical Women's Federation and the National Assembly of Women as well as the trade union Unison.

It will pile pressure on the Liberal Democrat minister, who has faced criticisms that she has failed to intervene on other coalition policies that Labour claims adversely affected women.

"Preventing abortion providers from offering decision-making support opens the door for organisations opposed in principle to abortion to become formally involved in counselling women on their pregnancy options," the letter says. "Previous governments have always acted on evidence and taken guidance from expert medical professionals. There is no evidence of a need for change in this area and no support from professional clinical organisations for such change."

The intervention comes amid wranglings in government over how to handle an amendment that could be selected when the health bill returns to the Commons next week, which would mean all women seeking abortions would be offered counselling independent of the abortion provider, in a move that could strip charities that provide the services of their current role. It is being proposed by the Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries and Labour's Frank Field and backed by a campaign with links to anti-abortion groups.

On Sunday, the Department of Health said that it would go ahead with plans to introduce independent counselling and consult on how it would work, in a move that was interpreted as caving into the campaign.

After an intervention from No 10 and furious Lib Dems, the government announced it will not support the amendment – though MPs will still get a free vote – with David Cameron and DoH ministers voting against. It also reworded its position on the plans, saying it would consult on the "best" counselling options for women but that the outcome was not a foregone conclusion.

Anne Milton, the public health minister, wrote to coalition MPs yesterday to clarify the government's position and confirm that the health ministers would vote against it.

On Thursday, the Right to Know campaign, which is supporting Dorries's and Field's campaign and is backed by some known anti-abortionists, responded robustly to the government's opposition to the plan. It published a poll of MPs conducted in April, prior to the row over the implications of the move, which found that some 92% backed the statement. "A woman should have a right to impartial advice when considering having an abortion, from a source that has no commercial interest in her decision."

A spokeswoman for the campaign said: "The widespread support for the objectives of this campaign is unsurprising.  It is important that conflicts of interest are removed from the provision of abortion counseling.

 "We want to see women considering abortion provided with the space to think through their decision. This is not a party political issue. The welfare of women is at stake here.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow equalities minister, said the changing position had left the issue mired in confusion. "There is now complete confusion and chaos in government on abortion. This is what happens when David Cameron pursues short-term headlines without thinking the issues through," she said.

Darinka Aleksic, co-ordinator of the Abortion Rights UK campaign, said: "We need to be clear, these amendments are an attack on women's reproductive rights. If implemented they will limit, rather than expand, the availability of impartial advice and information to women facing unplanned pregnancy. Their aim is to restrict and deter women from accessing abortion services."

Evan Harris, vice-chair of the Liberal Democrat federal policy committee and pro-choice campaigner, said: "Previous governments in this sensitive area have always acted only on the basis of the best advice from expert medical organisations and I will strongly urge the government not to disturb or propose disturbing the existing arrangements for providing unbiased advice until this has demonstrated that there is a problem and persuaded the Royal Colleges or BMA of the case."

Les malheurs du Labour seront-ils résolus par le fundraising ?

Dans cet article du Guardian les journalistes Polly Curtis et James Ball dévoilent les conséquences pour les travaillistes britanniques d'un changement de la loi électorale britannique sur les dons aux partis politiques. Un choc pour le parti de gauche qui s'est longtemps reposé sur les versements effectués par les syndicats et quelques grosses fortunes. Les travaillistes vont devoir se réinventer et, pourquoi pas, tenter une solution nouvelle pour eux : le fundraising.

Labour could be ruined by proposed cap on political donations

Annual limit on funding would affect all major parties, with Labour facing a potential deficit of £13.5m


Labour could face financial ruin under plans being developed to cap the biggest donations to political parties, a Guardian analysis shows.

The independent standards watchdog is said to have agreed to recommend a new limit on donations, introducing an annual cap with figures ranging from £50,000 to £10,000 being considered. Such a move, in an attempt to clean up political funding, would end the six- and seven-figure donations to the Labour party from its union sponsors, as well as the Tories' reliance on the richest city financiers.

An analysis of five and a half years' worth of donations to the parties reveals the move would most dramatically affect Labour's funding base. If the £50,000 limit had been in place over the period, Labour's donations would have been reduced by 72%, the Conservatives' by 37% and the Liberal Democrats' by 25%.

A source close to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which has been reviewing the party funding system and is due to report in October, said it was trying to find a way to impose a cap without bankrupting any one party.

Some committee members are arguing for more public funding for political parties, but most believe this is not achievable in the current economic climate. The debate now appears to rest on whether union money should be treated as single large donations or as multiple small donations from individual members' affiliation fees, and whether those affiliation fees should automatically go to Labour.

Union members could be given the option to donate their fee to another party in what would be the most radical shakeup of Labour's relationship with the unions in a generation, which would be fiercely opposed by union leaders.

"The thing we are going to have to decide is whether to bite the bullet and suggest public funding," the source said.

The committee, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, is due to meet on Thursday to decide the core issues. Nick Clegg, who is responsible for political reform, has promised to start cross-party talks on funding reform after the committee reports.

There is deep suspicion in Labour that senior ministers want to use the reforms to destabilise the financial foundations of the party. A spokesman said: "We would expect the Conservatives to stick to their promise that they will recognise that this issue needs to be resolved through cross-party consensus.

"We value the link with the trade union movement and any attempt to rewrite our constitution and deprive Labour of millions of working people's voices would leave politics a poorer place."

A Conservative spokeswoman said: "If the purpose of a cap is to deal with the perception that money can buy influence then it must apply equally to individuals, companies and trade unions, from whom the Labour party receives 85% of funding and who get extensive policy concessions in return."

A Liberal Democrat spokesman insisted that the coalition would not impose a deal on the parties. "The history of party funding reform is littered with corpses. You have to do it in consultation with the other parties," the spokesman said.

The analysis also reveals the impact a potential cap of £50,000 would have on all the political parties' already fragile balance sheets. Party accounts show that the Conservatives' extravagant spending at the last election – outspending Labour by two to one – and restructuring of their pension liabilities left them temporarily more in deficit last year, with a shortfall of £6.2m in 2010, which would jump by around £13m to £19.6m had their donations been capped at £50,000.

Despite its lower spending, the potential impact of the changes on Labour finances would be more severe, with more than £16m of funding disappearing from party coffers, transforming a surplus last year of £3.2m into a £13.5m deficit.

The Liberal Democrats' deficit of £335,000 expands to £1.9m. Labour separately has outstanding debts of nearly £10m, the Tories £2.6m and the Liberal Democrats £411,000.

Previous negotiations over funding failed in 2007 with the parties unable to agree a cap. Those were chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips, a former civil servant.

Phillips said the problem of the party funding system was "chronic". He urged the parties to make changes before the next scandal emerged.

But he warned that the hurdles facing reform have grown, because of the perceived closer links of the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, to the unions and because the economic climate makes it harder to justify public funding.

"When I produced my report and negotiated with the parties, public funding wasn't a big bone of contention. I think there would be much more reluctance now even though I still believe it is the right solution. The political party system is essential to democracy. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to provide a stake in the way parties are is funded."