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

  • News Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Labour have spoken out about complaints that Fiona Woolf QC, head of the public inquiry into historical sex abuse, has links with Leon Brittan. Brittan was the home secretary at the time when the dossier about alleged pedophiles went missing. And Woolf, who is also Lord Mayor of London, admitted yesterday that since 2008 she had dinner with Brittan and his family on five separate occasions but she has said she has “no close association” with him. A number of Labour MPs […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    Here we are again. Another week, another Wednesday, and another wrangle between Cameron and Miliband about the NHS. This is getting a bit old. Cameron attempted to get Miliband on the back foot – he kicked off PMQs by posing questions to the Labour leader about the Welsh NHS. Rather predictably, the rest of PMQs descended into the two party leaders arguing about who can be more trusted with the NHS. But, there was something a little more sinister about […]

    Read more →
  • Comment There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    A couple of weeks ago saw the UK elect for the first time a UKIP MP – Douglas Carswell, with a huge majority of 12,000 votes. UKIP made enormous strides in the safe Labour seat of Heywood & Middleton as well, reducing the Labour majority from 5,971 to 617. This rise in the ‘acceptable’ far right should be a cause of concern not just to the Tories but also to us. It is clear from these results there is no […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    The result in Heywood and Middleton may have shocked some people, but not all. Some warned this could happen after UKIP took or seriously challenged safe council seats in the north, topped the national vote at the Euros, and polled strongly in Labour areas. Their highest average share of the vote in the 2014 elections came in Labour areas like Rotherham, Mansfield and Hartlepool. We’re told if we campaign on the “issues” people will come back to Labour. This fails […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Last night Young Labour voted on whether or not to come out in support of the free education demonstration set to take place on the 19th November. Reports suggest, they voted against the motion. This result could easily be interpreted as another sign that the argument against tuition fees is dead in the water. In reality, it tells us that opposite is true. The very fact that this was a topic for discussion at Young Labour’s national committee, that there […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y