The other night on Vox Politix, the subject of party funding was discussed after the Lib Dem's top donor was sent down for fraud. Having pondered the question of what we should "do", and given that Hayden Phillips Interim Review has been published today I thought I'd post about it. Put it simply, I don't think we should do anything about party political funding. There might be a tweak here or there we could make, but this entire argument seems to be based on the classic "something must be done!" with the rather dodgy assumption that what ever can be done will inevitably be "better". In my view we have the "least worse" situation currently.
Unlike total state funding, it does not restrict the existence (or creation) of small parties. It is responsive to the private market in which parties must operate, for example in terms of paying for advertising etc (capping spending will surely restrict political parties if costs changes due to market changes?). It also has a number of pieced of legislation surrounding it which require disclosure and transparency of large donations (loan loophole excluded of course but effectively closed by virtue of media scrum on the issue). As far as I can tell the situation isn't particularly broken right now.
I wonder though, what the final cost of Hayden Phillips' review will be to the taxpayer?
16 comments:
Cannot disagree more- if you lied to your bank manager and provided false accounts- do not ask for a bank loan, the same applies with OUR cash. Can I refer you to the Young Foundation report, which calls for match funding from the taxpayer to what the individual members of a party have raised themselves. This would not preclude new parties from forming. There should be most definately a cap on all of this campaign spending. I suppose Sir Hayden's report,(where did he collect the Sir from)will mean that absolutely nobody is going to be prosecuted under Cash for Peerages.
Why should the taxpayer match political parties? If you choose to be a member then fair enough, why should everyone else be forecd to keep them afloat?
Mainly because we cannot have a situation where the rich run the country and it makes a bit of a farce of the concept of each vote being equal. How many times have we had the rich donor saying if you the party do not put my policy in the manifesto I am going to throw my toys out of the pram and not fund you. That really is buying votes.Secondly the cheesy Peerages for cash 'scandal' as practised by all the three major parties, may be of interest to the scandal monger, but does not bring credit on our form of government. Are you seriously suggesting that politics is only for the rich and corrupt and that the current 'system' of backhanders is the way we should run the body politic ?? If the taxpayer is the piper he can call the tune, its an economic fact of life there is no such thing as a free lunch/peerage/knighthood/planning permission.
Right so we cannot have a situationw ehre the rich run the country so we're going to force everyone who pays tax, whether they want to or not, to fund political party. Well I'm sorry, I don't want my taxes going to the Lib Dems or Labour. Just as I doubt they want their taxes going to the Tories.
What's more, this idea that we can only stop a tiny minority of politicians being corrupt by paying for them is bizarre.
I;m not suggesting that poltiics is only for the ric at all. What I am saying is that the current situation is the least worst because it balances in the favour of individuals and not the state.
I'm not at all keen on state funding. My blood pressure would reach dangerous levels if we were to pay for the Labour party out of general taxation. To which one might rebut that is the price of democracy. However, consider the case of the SDP - should it have been funded on the basis of numbers of candidates? In which case the sadly missed Natural Law party could have claimed too. Or on the basis of existing seats? In which case the incumbent and historic parties have a huge advantage over any new entrants.
No it is not the least worst, because it is all about who is an insider and who is not. You pays your money, and get to where a tin and fur hat in the unelected House of Lords or worse you get a payback in a favourable policy. I do not want to give a penny to any of this dishonest crew,Con/Lab/Lib, because the whole set up is open to graft,influence and corruption, and I would argue this is why the whole political framework is going down the pan, because it is all about satisfying special interest groups who are funding the political parties, not the national interest.As to Colin's blood pressure, is it not time to argue that the party system has had its day reducing MP's to vote fodder, and encouraging some of the most revolting characters to sit on both sides of the house. I see very little independence of thought, wit and character in our MP's because of the party system. If its a balance between corruption and 50% funding, I say 50% funding.
I liked the Natural Law Party-they were fun.
Actually it is the least worst, you are wrong.
"You pays your money, and get to where a tin and fur hat in the unelected House of Lords or worse you get a payback in a favourable policy."
Sweeping generalisation lacking substantial evidence.
"I do not want to give a penny to any of this dishonest crew,Con/Lab/Lib, because the whole set up is open to graft,influence and corruption, and I would argue this is why the whole political framework is going down the pan"
Again a sweeping generalisation this time conveniently ignoring money raised locally by local associations that goes on election expenses etc.
Your position appears to be based on the little more than a cyncical assumption that all MPs are corrupt.
I'd say that the state coercing money through tax in order to stop it from being corrupt is bit like a burgular knocking on your door and telling you that you've an obligation to give him your valuables in order to save him from the moral nightmare of committing a crime.
The real corruption is within your assertion as it removes the fundamental element of "choice" from democracy and forces all to engage in a hegemonic state.
You basically want to force people to pay for the privilege of having an election in which they themselves have a vote in. Frankly, that's absurd.
As I said the set up is open to corruption, and I defy anybody to say that is not. Individually I am sure that each MP is not corrupt, but they are involved in a system that is open to corruption, and I am not going to list every scandal that has come about through undue influence since 1945. If I follow your logic in your last sentence, we should stop the taxpayer funding MP's salaries and turn the clock back to pre-chartist days, when only those with private incomes or the placemen of the rich could sit in the House.
any system can be "open2 to corruption. A state systenm just as much as a non-state system. That argument is a moot one. The point remains that you wish to coerce people into paying for something that may not actually have any desire to pay for. Whereas the current system allows for liberty. You're solution is more authoritarianism, my solution is the status quo and allow the law to deal withthe problem as and when they arise. That is what the law is for after all.
Nice to see "Sir" Hayden has taken everyones comments onboard and essentially ignored them.
I'm satisfied to see my faith was not misplaced in him.
Guthrum, if you wan't to see more of your hard earned going to support a Political party you can do so already, it's called making a donation. This concept of we must financially support the body politic is farcical, we have a nationally paid for tv station which can provide party political broadcast time free of charge to each and every party.
You can stand on speakers corner to make your point for free, not to mention the MSM obsession with following politicians around night and day anyway what in gods name do they need more money for from anyone let alone us? Please don't roll out the tired well they are all bankrupt blah blah blah.
A party should stand or fall on it's members support nothing more, nothing less, and frankly I don't give a rat arse what they do in other countries this does not make it acceptable here.
So they are all in financial strife, well tough $hit. Tighten your godammned belt and correct your finances do not rely on joe public to pay for your incompetance.
I am not sure how much interface you have had with the operation of the Law, it operates in favour of the people who can afford the most expensive lawyers, I am certain that a)Nobody is going to be charged over Cash for Peerages b)the Status quo will not stand. Parliament is going to take the money anyway, so is it not better to lay down some enforcable ground rules before they do.
NO STATE FUNDING. At a stretch limits on donations. The mess the parties are in is because of financial profligacy. Maybe political parties should be banned from going into the red, then we wouldn't have to be tormented by this begging bowl review.
I agree with Dizzy. For the benefit of the country I lay down a couple of dreary hours making sure the basic premise of mine/Dizzy's was recorded on Sir Philips report, for all the use it will do.
Actually many people in the forum were at least of the view that state funding is not the way to go.
Finally, the reason I like the current system is that it worsk like a market. If you can sell your ideas then people will follow and fund. If you come up with useless nonsense that no one will fund, then you will fail. Markets are the greatest invention of humanity.
Well I appear to be in the minority, the status quo will produce more sleaze. The Young Foundation addresses the overspending, and if you cannot get support for your ideas/Ideals you do not get match funding. Personally I think the US style razzamatazz is to blame for the overspend, and I see nobody being charged for the current sleaze.
Yup, very much in the minority, Guthrum.
There should be complete transparency as to who gives what to whom, with perhaps a £50,000 annual cap on donations.
Then, if the parties attract members and/or donors, they will survive and prosper. Others, like the Labour party, will die a horrible death and never be seen again (one can hope anyway).
Post a Comment