The state shouldn’t pay for our failing political system

November 18, 2011 2:36 pm

There’s a train coming down the tracks that could change party politics as we know it. It’s getting so close the vibrations should be felt across the body politic. Yet that’s not the case. So far there has been barely a murmur – the train is party funding reform, and the result could change every party, and our politics.

All parties are guilty of bringing about the circumstances that led us here – and the Labour Party is arguably the most guilty culprit. The flawed way in which our political parties are funded wasn’t dealt with during 13 years of Labour government, either by enforcing changes to a broken system or making a serious attempt to find common ground with other parties.

Labour’s approach to fundraising in recent years has often seemed alarmingly short-termist. Of course there’s the long-standing relationship with the trade union movement, which provides some level of financial security (as long as the unions are willing to pay – something which shouldn’t be taken for granted), but political parties are voracious beasts. There’s the constant desire to do more, driven by the fear that failure to do so will result in your opponents getting the upper hand. The short-termism reached its peak when Labour began to rely on large one off donations from wealthy patrons. We were – at least – receiving the largesse of the 1%, and it felt good, but it was unsustainable. Cash for honours derailed the money wagon, and the party was never able to get in back on the road again. In terms of fundraising, we probably reached our nadir earlier this year when Alastair Campbell’s £10k donation made him the single biggest donor to the party.

In some ways that’s not too surprising. It’s an immutable law of politics that the rich are more likely to give you money if it looks like you might form the next election. Right now, that’s by no means certain, and even if we were the runaway favourites, we’re still years from government. For high rollers, we don’t yet look like a good bet.

If new rules are introduced on large donations – which may not be the case – then that problem dimishshes, but more importantly it will vastly increase the importance of small donations in British politics. That means political parties will need to engage and enthuse a far wider cross-section of the population and vastly improve the care and attention given to members (the lifeblood of political parties). At present many party members (from all parties) feel under appreciated and ignored. You’ve probably all heard the term “leaflet fodder” – and who hasn’t felt like that, when your views are ignored but you’re the only thing keeping your party going.

Under a different system – where party funding was reliant on enthusing party members and supporters, nurturing them and building two-way conversations with them – no member would be allowed to feel ignored. (As a knock on effect, we might even see an upside in genuine party democracy, but that’s for another day…).

There is one potential escape route for the three major parties that would allow them to continue pretty much as normal – state funding. Funding based on the number of votes cast in general elections would secure the current hegemony, but could also lead to lazy parties, secure in their own funding and distant from the membership that should sustain them. If you are certain that you will always have enough money in the bank to sustain your party and campaigning – regardless of your decisions – why bother to keep your membership happy, or even have a membership at all? Why not just have a loose supporters network designed to cheerlead and bolster the leadership? A party without a party. A party without a soul.

More importantly still, state funding is a “get out of jail” card for the political elite. Good political parties are able to sustain themselves financially, through building networks of support and by convincing would-be donors that they are worth backing. By and large political parties receive the funding they deserve (one way or another). State funding of parties would be asking the state to pick up the tab for our broken party political system, and an endorsement of the idea that joining a political party is pointless.

Worse still the public would think that politicians were just out for themselves.

And they’d be right.

  • http://twitter.com/waynesmith1971 Wayne Smith

    This
    idea was first muted a few months ago with the thought that each vote received
    by a member of the public at the ballot box would give that party around £3 in
    state funding – I said then and I’ll say it again, if this is ever made law and
    people are criminalised for not voting, I will for the first time in my life
    abstain from voting in the general and local elections. Just to make my point I
    would relish the opportunity of being made a criminal for not casting my vote
    .. and for as long as this remains on the statute books I will refrain from
    ever voting again, until and unless it is repealed

  • http://twitter.com/roxley Rob Oxley

    This is a good article but it would be taxpayers footing the bill, not “the state”

  • Anonymous

    well put!!

  • http://www.thebritishcitizen.com BritishCitizen

    This
    is always on the assumption that we want political parties to continue at all.    On the
    current evidence, I don’t think we do.

     

    Self-seeking,
    corrupt, incompetent, ineffective… what is there to commend politicians or
    their party dogma to the British people?   There is little to choose
    between them, these days, when it comes to acting in the best interests of
    ordinary people.  It’s just the same old, same old. 

     

    To
    fund them with taxpayer money sends a message that existing political parties
    are to remain a permanent fixture in our society.  They shouldn’t make
    that assumption any longer.

     

    Until
    we find a better democratic structure, political parties can continue to fund
    themselves in the same partisan way: the rich and the powerful backing their
    own kind. 

     

    But a
    major change will come soon as a result of the chaos, poverty and iniquity
    brought upon ordinary people by the complacent fools in parliament who pretend
    to represent us.

     

    As
    Andreas Whittam-Smith observed in the Independent last month (http://tinyurl.com/bwur8lv)  “Western nations are now ripe for
    revolution”. 

     

    Let us
    hope that a peaceful but radical solution to party politics comes very soon.

     

     

    • http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/ Phil Hunt

      This is always on the assumption that we want political parties to
      continue at all.    On the current evidence, I don’t think we do.

      If a gropu of people mostly agree on the same analysis of the situation and policies to fix it, it makes sense fro them to work together. That’s why political parties exist.

      The problem isn’t parties, it’s parties that’re too strong. This problem is caused by the FPTP voting system, it it’s what needs to be fixed. We should change to something sensible, such as STV, that will make it easier for independents to win, and at the same time make party links looser.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    The only option to vested interests funding parties is to have much stricter controls and state funding as they do in Germany. So I support this.

  • Anonymous

    I expect that state funding of parties would ensure the Government in power at the time would lose the next General Election  – by a landslide.

    I for one would vote against the Government  – no matter which Party – as a matter of principle and try to persuade others to do the same.

    I doubt if I would be alone…

  • http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/ Phil Hunt

    If parties are to be funded by the state, how about the state matching pound-for-pound membership fees, with a maximum of £100/member. This would mean that parties were dependent on their members for funding.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

      Not a bad idea. How does the system work in Germany?

      • http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/ Phil Hunt

        I’ve no idea; should I?

    • derek

      When has a party ever held true to it’s memberships wishes? the control wagon rolls on and were edging closer to the abyss of total control and appointed governments.
      It’s all AUXLEY!!!!

    • derek

      Sorry should have read………. Aldous Huxley 

  • http://profiles.google.com/roger.f.mccarthy Roger McCarthy

    So why precisely is it that Germany and France have in general much higher participation rates in politics (higher turnouts, more party members, relatively flourishing as opposed to increasingly moribund local government) and AFAICT despise their politicians far less than we do?

    Isn’t it in bad faith to argue against something while failing to acknowledge that its implementation elsewhere has had the opposite effect to those you predict here? 

    Are the French PS and the German SPD really ‘just loose supporters networks designed to cheerlead and bolster the leadership’ while Labour is a model of internal democracy?

    Now I can see a very strong Straussian or Machievellian argument that agrees with you on the grounds that Labour seriously is threatened with being electorally destroyed by the triple whammy of boundary reviews, voluntary individual voter registration and a donations cap that will hurt us vastly more than the Tories and Lib Dems. 

    So if they do pull back from a hard donations cap because it is recommended as part of a package that includes state funding and they can’t see state funding being politically acceptable then that gets us off at least one hook. 

    But at the end of the day the Tories will still go into the next election with vastly more money than us – whereas a simple and fair system of state funding would put all parties on an equal playing field and make maximising  total votes and voter turnout much more important.

  • Pingback: Foreign Policy and I | Foreign Policy and I()

Latest

  • Comment Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Cutting Trident will be the price of support in a hung parliament. That’s the news reported from a meeting of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Green leaders this week. With Labour’s slim lead and the SNP and Green vote threatening to impact on its share, this is a serious issue. Labour’s policy clearly states, ‘Labour has said that we are committed to a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. It would require a clear body […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Lord Ashcroft has told him he shouldn’t have done it in 2010. Lynton Crosby has told him not to do it in 2015. It’s no surprise that David Cameron is trying to wriggle out of televised leader debates during the General Election – even though he has said he is willing to take part “in principle”. Time perhaps to dust off one of Margaret Thatcher’s favourite barbs “He’s frit.” Neil Kinnock tried it in 1992 to try to goad John Major into […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    By Stephen Timms MP and Ian Murray MP The Christmas period reminds us that modern life can be busy, hurried and demanding. The pressures of work, demands of family life and hectic Christmas schedules can prove stretching as we juggle competing demands. Increasingly the need for flexible work is driven by the complex shape of people’s lives; as parents go to work, struggle to make ends meet, perform career roles, take their children to school and activities and try and carve […]

    Read more →
  • News Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    As the start of the long campaign begins today, curbing the amount of money parties can spend between now and May 7th, Labour MP Jon Ashworth has sought to clarify what precautions are being taken to ensure publicly-funded government advisers are not using their time campaigning. Ashworth has sent a letter to senior civil servant Jeremy Heywood, asking him to answer a number of questions about what kind of campaigning activity was permitted and undertaken by special advisers (SpAds) in […]

    Read more →
  • News Berger asks Twitter to do more to stop use of racist words

    Berger asks Twitter to do more to stop use of racist words

    Luciana Berger, Shadow Minister for Public Health, has called on Twitter to do more the stop racist terms being used on the site. Berger has herself faced a large amount of anti-semitic abuse on the site, and in October Garron Helm  was jailed for sending her a torrent of anti-semitic messages. Berger told the Telegraph (£): “At the height of the abuse, the police said I was the subject of 2,500 hate messages in the space of three days using […]

    Read more →