Freeing politics from vested interests

The debate over party funding is back. Mark Ferguson warns of the dangers posed by state funding and paints a gloomy picture of the complacent and soulless parties he claims it would create.

This uncharacteristic pessimism on Mark’s part is misplaced. To see why, let’s look at each of Mark’s three main arguments in turn. First, he worries that basing funding on the existing distribution of votes would “secure the current hegemony.” But he also concedes that the status quo incentivises donations to those parties with the best chance of winning – thereby perpetuating the existing party system. In fact, with a proportional funding formula it is entirely possible that state funding would channel greater resources to UKIP and the Greens, rightly giving them more of a chance to be heard in public debate.

Second, Mark foresees “lazy” parties who have no need to go out and raise money. To which the response should surely be: fine. Think of the resources that all parties – our own included – dedicate to raising money. Do we really think that those resources could not be more usefully channelled elsewhere? Would we not rather have our leaders out and about talking to voters than inside closed rooms buttering up donors?

Finally, Mark claims that state funding would make parties more “distant from the membership that should sustain them.” But parties do not – or at least should not – exist primarily for the benefit of their members. They exist, in theory at least, for the benefit of society as a whole. Anything that makes them a bit less introspective and a bit more focused on their core task – engaging the public – is in my book a good thing. And let’s be honest – if the reason that party leaders listen to their members is because of the money they give, it speaks pretty clearly to a system which is rigged in favour of the rich.

But there is, of course, a more positive case to be made for state funding – to eliminate the corrosive and corrupting influence of money on the democratic process. All parties are guilty; we complain about Lord Ashcroft, and they complain about the GMB. We complain about the City, and they complain about Bernie Ecclestone. And it goes on, and on, and on. These issues are not new, and they will not go away unless we refuse to allow private interests to exert such financial leverage over our parties.

A system with a basic level of state funding based on electoral performance, which could be ‘topped up’ by private donations capped at a low level, would ensure that no vested interest would ever have our political parties over a barrel. At the same time, parties could continue to benefit financially if they genuinely appealed to large numbers of people.

This proposal might not be wildly popular, and you could be sure that the Taxpayers’ Alliance and the Daily Mail would be incandescent with rage. But the appearance, based at least in part on fact, that our parties and politicians are ‘cabs for hire’, is surely far more damaging.

If we believe that democracy is in the public interest, and if our democracy requires political parties, then why should we not fund them from the public purse?