Banning political campaigns with public funds - it's because it's not your money

****

The government has told public bodies that they can't use procurement as a tool of political campaigning. There has been the predictable outcry from those who want to use public money to promote a geopolitical agenda, usually wrapped up in the now almost meaningless word "ethical":

“The Government’s decision to ban councils and other public bodies from divesting from trade or investments they regard as unethical is an attack on local democracy.

“People have the right to elect local representatives able to make decisions free of central government political control. That includes withdrawal of investments or procurement on ethical and human rights grounds."

I'm afraid not. For the very simple reason that it's not your money, it's not there for you to conduct political campaigns. In the case of the budgets for local government, NHS Trusts and other public bodies the money is there to deliver the services for which those organisations exist none of which is remotely connected to foreign policy. To use that money - at a cost to local people - to seek to change the policies of a government far, far away is truly unethical unlike the make-believe 'unethical' of the political campaigners.

And for those pension funds that these supposedly 'ethical' campaigners want to use for political purposes - that's completely unethical if not downright immoral. It really, really isn't your money - it's the pensions of millions of public servants and you've no right at all to compromise those people's future wellbeing for the sake of your political campaigns.

So the government is absolutely right to take it very seriously when local councils or other public bodies seek to prosecute their foreign policy using public money - especially when it runs counter to that government's foreign policy and to treaty obligations in respect of international trade.

....

Local councils do not set foreign policy and the pension funds aren't our money to play politics with

****

The government proposes to prevent local councillors from using council funds to conduct political campaigns. And to prevent those same councillors from conducting those political campaigns using the savings of public sector pension fund members.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has confirmed it is drawing up new guidelines to prevent local authorities from mounting their own “boycott and sanction” campaigns.

The directions, which will be issued early in the new year, are expected to make clear that councils’ procurement and investment policies must be consistent with UK government foreign policy.

What is being made very clear here is that local councils - as a part of the UK's government - do not set foreign policy. This isn't simply because we're a bunch of numpties who don't know enough (or have access to the necessary information) to make sensible judgments about foreign policy. It's because if every diddy little town council decided whether or not we liked Israel there's a real confusion out there as to what exactly is UK foreign policy.

So if campaign groups want to change UK foreign policy, the right way to do this is to persuade members of parliament to vote accordingly or, failing that, to get people who will vote according ly elected.

A similar intention - making sure that those councillors don't play politics with the retirement funds of the council's staff - is equally welcome. The duty of the council, as a trustee for those pension fund members, is to secure the best return for those members. If this can be done without investing in Israel, fags, booze or guns that's fine but it has to be clear that any decision isn't a political one determined by the prejudice of councillors not the interests of pension fund members.
....

Sarah Palin, Foreign Policy Sage

****

At the time the lovely Mrs Palin was the subject of much snickering, pointing and general ribaldry from the oh-so-wise punditry. What she had said was this:

After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next.

Looks like she had a point!

...