If we had state funding for political parties, we wouldn't be in this mess

RedRooster Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:26:58 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

There is only one way to clear up the mess of dodgy donations, and much like modern campaigning, it isn't cheap.



There is no coherent democratic argument for why, in order to campaign effectively and put out a national message, political parties should have to appeal to the tastes of a few eccentric millionaires, OR business leaders, OR trades unions. Notwithstanding breathtaking administrative incompetence, as long as there is a significant need for funding from private backers, questions can always be asked about ‘what is this organisation getting for their money?’

In fact what seems bizarre to me is that whilst personal gain from political donations is considered an outrage, political benefit from financial largesse, i.e. your views getting more publicity and possibly more of a say in shaping policy, is seen as perfectly legitimate.

Everyone needs to read this leaflet, which argues for state funding on the basis of it being used for ‘bottom-up’ policy making, precisely the kind of which Extending and Renewing Party Democracy changes were supposed to bring in. I always believed that the duty to consult with local community groups could only ever be done in a sustained and professional way under the mantle of increased state funding.

But now we have a more pressing reason. As well as strengthening democracy at the grass roots, we have to remove the demand for donations at the top. Without it, however much we improve our safeguards, the smell of corruption will still be there.



tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
If we had state funding for political parties, we wouldn't be in this mess | 20 comments (20 topical)

Re: If we had state funding............. (#1)

by jkitleft on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 02:40:35 PM GMT

Campaign Finance Reform is needed. But state funding is not. If the BNP suddenly get into Parliament, why should I have to pay taxes to fund them??


Re: If we had state funding............. (#8)

by matt1986 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:11:31 PM GMT

With regards to funding for the BNP (or any other party we disaprove of) if we had state funding, they wouldn't necessarily receive any funding if we didn't want them to.

We could have a system like what Helena Kennedy's Power Inquiry suggested, where each voter could choose a political party to donate a few pounds to each year. The funding each party received would then be proportionate to the wishes of everyone in the country. If this were the case, the BNP would never receive as much funding as the mainstream parties. 


[ Parent ]

Re: If we had state funding............. (#9)

by Peter Kenyon on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:33:56 PM GMT

Oh, so state funding is OK then?


[ Parent ]

Re: If we had state funding... (#2)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 05:52:18 PM GMT

Absolutely agree Rooster - state funding is the only fair way of funding parties. We cannot allow the situation to go on where millionaires can exert great influence on a party because of how much money they can donate.


State funding does have its negatives, but I'm afraid it's the only fair and democratic way to do it. Unfortunately, if people vote for the BNP then I'm afraid they are entitled to the funding the same as any other party.


Re: If we had state funding... (#3)

by jkitleft on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 06:33:54 PM GMT

I think there should be a cap on how much is donated


[ Parent ]

Re: If we had state funding... (#4)

by simonmagnus on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:14:39 AM GMT

I found this quite enlightening,its a little piece by the mail journo ben brogan and if its true we should concentrate all our effots on the integity of this individual....
Stepping out of the fray for a moment, I can't help but be impressed by the scale of the operation being run against Labour. My inside knowledge is fairly limited, but the Lobby talk today is of an operation masterminded by LORD ASHCROFT, who I'm assured has had a crack team digging away on Labour finance issues for some time. The first fruits of their research appeared this weekend. The evidence for all this is slim: for example, a parliamentary aide to a Tory peer recently put in an FoI request to the Dept for Transport concerning the Durham business park. Whatever the facts, this is precisely the kind of research the Conservatives should be doing. It's certainly what Labour in Opposition did very successfully against John Major. The only difficulty is if Labour decides to retaliate by asking questions about Lord Ashcroft's tax position.
The last line says it all...why are we not exposong ASHCROFT as the charlatan that he truly is...he is in the lords but hardly attends,its unclear if he pays ANY tax in this country so in theory he shouldn't have a title and he lives in belize which is a tax haven for very rich men and is still allowed to fund smear campains against the british government....this MUST be stopped at all cost.


[ Parent ]

Re: State funding for political parties...No (#5)

by Peter Kenyon on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:13:08 AM GMT

Dear RedRooster

Labour has no mandate to legislate for increased state funding of political in the current session of Parliament.

We only have ourselves to blame for our dwindling membership. The Electoral Commission undertook a far more open and transparent consultation about the funding of political parties in 2003/04 and concluded there was no case for increasing demands on the public purse to fund our politics.

The Hayden Phillips Inquiry was a smokescreen for the 'cash for honours' affair, which Gordon Brown bizarrely wants to resurrect as a smokescreen for 'dodgy donations'.

The difficulty task of rebuilding public trust in our politics and politicians is, surely, encapsulated in the task of rebuilding Labour's own membership.

http://petergkenyon.typepad.com/peterkenyon/ 


Re: State funding for political parties...No (#6)

by SunilPrasannan on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:33:48 AM GMT

Why should I subsidise (as a Tax Payer) a party or parties whose policies I don't agree with? Smacks of the one size fits all TV Tax, I mean Licence :)


[ Parent ]

Re: State funding for political parties...No (#7)

by TrueLabour on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:45:22 AM GMT

Peter Kenyon is right.  If we had retained 100,000 of the 200,000+ members lost since 97 we would not be in this state.   It is because we have lost so many members that we are in this position.

The party needs to be re-built. 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: State funding for political parties...No (#19)

by Free Socialist on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:01:17 AM GMT

Re-built? I think it needs massive and radical transformation. But we cannot contemplate that with the current leadership - they are too pro-business and seemingly against too much grassroots democracy.


[ Parent ]

Re: If we had state funding (#10)

by alexhilton on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 04:22:36 AM GMT

Labour members already have precious little say in the running of the party. State funding would be the piece of the jigsaw that turns us into a supporter's club for the people in the centre, rather than a democratic membership organisation.


Re: If we had state funding (#11)

by repub on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:31:20 AM GMT

Alex is right. State funding would further weaken the party's reliance on its membership.

And yes we should be talking about democratic membership organisations. Parties should be able to recruit members because they provide an inspiring vision, it should be on the same basis that they win funding from their supporters.

Trade union funding IS different to the funding of millionaires because it represents the collective decision of thousands of people to fund a party.

So by all means introduce reforms that control how and when money is spent but we should not go further down the route of state funding. Not only would it be unpopular with the electorate but is the easy argument to make by those who cannot take the decisions necessary to win back trust and support.


[ Parent ]

Re: If we had state funding (#12)

by matt1986 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 01:58:00 PM GMT

I'd be reluctant to break Labour's link with the Unions, which would happen if we opted completely for state funding, but I don't think it's an easy, lazy argument to make just because we can't be bothered working hard to win back public support.

Parties are less likely to be democratic organisations if they rely on funding from a small number of wealthy people. Policys/ideas etc emanating from the party will just reflect the preferences of the donaters rather than the membership at large. State funding may well increase party membership, if people feel the new arrangements make it more likely their voice will be heard.


[ Parent ]

Re: If we had state funding (#13)

by RedRooster on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:16:56 PM GMT

I actually agree that funding from unions is different from funding coming from millionaires, as one is from a mass membership organisation and the other is from gifted / lucky individual.  My point was just that there is no argument from a purely democratic perspective which can justify groups with bigger financial resources getting a bigger say in the public arena, that's all.  And interestingly I haven't heard anyone disagree with that.


[ Parent ]

Re: If we had state funding (#14)

by doctordunc on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 04:53:44 PM GMT

I think there is an absolutely valid argument against large donations from wealthy individuals and I think we should cap this (and pretty harshly).

Donations from party members, or from mass-membership organisations, should be treated completely differently: anybody can join a party or a union and contribute money that way (and gain what precious little influence that apparently gains us!)  Not anybody can give £600,000 pounds to a party.  Capping individual donations and capping spending seems a much more sensible approach than the state funding route: have you asked many people who aren't party members how they feel about the idea of their taxes going to pay for political parties?  You mention the idea that we can nominate the party our taxes go to... does that mean people have the option of no party? (thus paying less tax?) Or tiny parties that may or may not contest an election?  If the former, why would we assume any more people would choose to fund parties through taxation than through membership?

Forcing people to pay for party politics (though I'm sure we can all make the case for how everyone benefits from well-funded party politics) could only further alienate people from the process and would breed cynicism, quite apart from what it would do to the relationship between the labour movement's leaders and its members.


[ Parent ]

Re: If we had state funding (#16)

by matt1986 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:29:20 PM GMT

I think people would prefer state funding and being able to influence party policy to funding by individual donations and having no say over policy.

The Power Inquiry basically suggested a system where a pot of money is set aside and each voter has control of £3 of this money. On the ballot paper at election time (or any other suitable time) voters can tick a box indicating where they'd like this £3 to go to. Anyone who didn't want to do this wouldn't have to, and their £3 would just be spent elsewhere, as part of normal govt spending. No-one pays less tax.

If you look at the Commission's findings, cynicism and alienation occur precisely because a system like this is not in place. People are put off politics if people perceive that democracy can be bought. It points out that if a party receives large donations, it has no incentive to try and get people to join the party. By stopping wealthy individuals paying for our parties, parties will be forced to appeal to the public to allocate money to them and to try and get them to join the party. This is why state funding should increase party membership.


[ Parent ]

Re: If we had state funding (#15)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 05:11:08 PM GMT

But it doesn't have to be 100% state funding. Members should still be allowed to give small donations (ie. less than £5000) - this if anything, would give ordinary members more of a say since the party would have to try and court them for their cash rather than having to court influential millionaires.


[ Parent ]

Re: If we had state funding for political parties (#17)

by pennypacker on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 07:46:05 PM GMT

Sorry but I cannot agree with this at all. State Funding for political parties is positively dangerous. On what basis would this funding be made available? On the basis of votes? political representation? These methods would merely entrench the position of which ever party happened to be in power.

A previous poster has commented that we would be able to chose which parties are given state funding. That is positively immoral, it is undemocratic and goes again the principles of free speech. Free speech is absolute, you either have it or you don't. It cannot be the case that the state funds some parties but not all because particular individuals do not approve of their policies - there is no level democratic playing field in such circumstances.

 Parties would receive more donations and have more members if they actually responded to what people want. By and large we have not and that is why we are struggling for money.


Re: If we had state funding for political parties (#20)

by matt1986 on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 04:39:19 PM GMT

You're absolutely right that it would be wrong to entrench certain parties' positions by giving them more funding, but parties already receive state funding, and it's the two main parties which are the main beneficiaries, making it unfair for other parties under the current system,exactly the thing you want to avoid. (Of course, at the moment this suits me as a Labour Party member but in the future it might be us who receive less than other parties.)

If every single party received equal funding it might make sense for absolutely anyone to just set up a new party and claim the same amount of money as Labour or the Tories. This would obviously not be right. And I don't think free speech would be enhanced at all by giving every party/policy/opinion the same amount of support.


[ Parent ]

Re: If we had state funding for political parties (#18)

by Free Socialist on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 12:57:00 AM GMT

The key thing about this mess is that we must, in some shape or form, keep the trade union link - without it Labour discards the last vestiges of being (or, for the cynical, pretending to be) a party of the working people, and just become another Liberal party. Or a 'softer' Tory party. There is no alternative.


If we had state funding for political parties, we wouldn't be in this mess | 20 comments (20 topical)