Not if Christopher Kelly has his way!

”If the public want to take big money out of politics, as our research demonstrates they do, they also have to face up to the reality that some additional state funding will be necessary.”

No, no, no, no, NO! A thousand times NO!

I do not accept that the only alternative to powerful Unions and Business Men funding the main parties with large donations is to arm wrestle every voter in the country into a £3 a head subscription – ‘ little more than the cost of a first class stamp’.

It is involuntary funding that is the problem – not just ‘funding’. The ordinary voter left or right has precious little say in whether or not he contributes to the funding of the major parties.

The problems of the Unions ‘opt-out’ only funding, which has left Margret Beckett admitting that if Labour members has to actively chose whether to divert their affiliation fees to Labour, then Labour funding ‘would collapse’, are well known.

I query whether Conservative funding is any more voluntary.  If the Chairman of HSBC decides to donate multi thousands to Conservative Party coffers – did you have a say? You may have contributed to the profits of HSBC, you may even be a shareholder, but you haven’t actually ‘opted-in’ to that donation any more than Labour Party members have opted in to Union funding.

The only funding should be entirely voluntary, small scale. We don’t want to see elections funded so that we can make a choice between two or three ‘adopted candidates’ – we simply want to chose a representative.

I have suggested before that Libertarian Candidates could be supported via the Internet – there is no reason whatsoever why all candidates couldn’t be chosen and funded in a similar fashion with no party machine behind them.

We do it with Pop Stars; nobody would dare to suggest that State funding be given to EMI or Sony in order to support ‘approved’  pop groups – we vote with our wallets when we have heard their ‘manifesto’ – it works just fine. EMI and Sony cream off a percentage of the support we offer individual singers in order to fund their organisations.

The technology is there. The will of those in charge of making it happen isn’t.

They want us to continue to choose between tribal candidates, they want to continue to wield the power of the whips; Kelly’s compromise is a Yellow bellied compromise. A sop to the expected high pitched squeals from the main parties.

We should concentrate on funding representatives, not parties.

John77 November 26, 2011 at 21:30

I contribute a modest sum each year to the political party of my choice in
the town where I grew up because I personally know enough of the ladies and
gentlemen and guys involved to be sure that they are straight and will keep it
straight (yes, the number decreases as I grow older, but it’s still enough for
that). I personally think that it is likely to produce a better choice of/for
candidates (when I was young we filtered out applicants whom we thought were
undesirable for political (e.g. Nick Griffin) or financial reasons – one guy
told my father that it cost him several times the national median wage to be a
good constituency MP*, another (from a different party) that his political
career was funded by his wife’s career as a dentist). I don’t want a rash of
candidates whose only justification is, like Ross Perot, Michael Bloomberg and
Jon Corzine in the USA, that they can pay for the campaign.
*I do not know
whether he called a “vocation” or a duty, but I have to admire him for
choosing to work to help people rather than cruising round the Mediterranean
(and the Labour MP’s wife for supporting him)

Mark November 24,
2011 at 17:29

‘

Runcie Balspune
November 24, 2011 at 13:06

Apologies for rogue apostrophe.

talwin November 24, 2011 at 16:12

Don’t worry RB. The bloody thing haunts the internet, sneaking up on most
commentators from time to time.

Runcie Balspune
November 24, 2011 at 13:06

Why do political parties exist in the first place ? Why do we actually feel
the need they have to be there for representative democracy to work ? The
model parliament system was intended to have individuals represent
individuals, there is no evidence or statute any where that declare’s a
political party a necessity. The only thing political parties assist in is
electing governments, but that’s a different system.

Any law that refers to a political party as a legal entity needs to be
stamped on quick, whether it’s funding or a some new voting system, because
this is the first step towards the deconstruction of the British political
system, by outlawing an individual’s right to represent and be represented as
an equal, or at least making it very difficult.

Libertarians should find the whole idea of a exclusive political party an
anathema to liberty, there is no way any law should endorse it.

Trooper
Thompson November 24, 2011 at
18:54

@ Runcie,

“Libertarians should find the whole idea of a exclusive political party
an anathema to liberty, there is no way any law should endorse it.”

I don’t follow your logic. Political parties are not exclusive, they are
open to anyone who shares their position. You can’t get rid of political
parties, as it’s natural for birds of a feather to flock together. Before
parties became formalised, there already were parties, albeit more loose. In
one-party states, you still have a similar thing, with people grouping
around individuals or political positions. In large parties, there will
inevitably be factions.

As for state funding of political parties, it goes without saying that
the idea is monstrous and must be resisted, but they already get taxpayer
cash. What they will try to sell us on, is that we need them, that they are
an indispensable part of our ‘democratic’ system. This is nonsense. We need
none of them

Runcie
Balspune November 27, 2011 at 17:07

Check out the T&C of the Labour Party online membership
application:
https://www.labour.org.uk/join/

“Terms and conditions
I am aged 14 years or over. I am a subject or
resident of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or a
citizen of Eire. If I am eligible I am registered as an elector at the
address given above. I am not a member of any other political
party. I agree to abide by the rules and constitution of the Labour
Party.”

That’s sounds “exclusive” to me.

Di & Ed
Onmince + Sly Cesofquince November 27,
2011 at 18:39

Exclusive? We beg to disagree! They let us in straight away and we
have to say that the finger buffet was a real let-down – all mince and
slices of some medieval apple/pear hybrid thing – an absolutely stomach
churning combination so we spat it all out and sloped off for a bucket
of deep-fried chicken as soon as we felt it was polite.

Mr & Mrs J.
Umblie November 27, 2011 at
19:45

May I take this opportunity to complain about the seamanship of Mr
& Mrs Onmince and their deck-hand Mr Ces0fquince, as we had the
misfortune to share a headwind with them whilst we were putting about
in our own craft; our heads may be green and our hands may be blue
but, once we were out there in our sieve, we were as entitled as any
other seafarers to a modicum of respect and consideration. The
occupants of the Pea Green boat paid no heed to our already watery
plight and indeed heaved-to in our vicinity in an unnecessarily
entitled way and really put the willies up us. We are glad their
finger buffet was shoddy and we hope they all felt jolly sick after
their bucket of fried chicken.

M Barnes November 24, 2011 at 11:08

To be fair to the politicians…. hold on a second, I just need to take a
moment after typing that sentence, don’t feel myself….. let me start
again.

The majority of politicians have come out against state funding, albeit
because they know it’ll go down like a bag of cold vomit with the voters.

There is a vicious cycle here. Politicians want to get elected, they want
their party in power. They know that ‘getting the message out there’, whatever
that may be, requires attracting the attention of the public and the media and
that means money for ads, promo events, travelling around the country and so
on. This creates a money ‘arms-race’ between political parties. If they are
state funded, they will try to work around the rules to get more money
privately so they can beat the opposition – that’s human nature for you. If
they are privately funded, they will try to work the rules to enable people to
give them money in the easiest fashion with minimum bad PR or get straw-orgs
to do their campaigning for them cf Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
I like
the idea of individual donations but lets be honest that does rather hand
things on a plate to the tories. And it means that the very rich can grease
palms away from the unsightly gaze of the lumpen masses – something that
certainly Labour and the Tories have been complicit with in the past, not sure
about the DemLibs.
On balance, the current system will have to do, with
whatever rules are necessary to ensure transparency. I take the point about
Unions and their opt-out rather than opt-in, that should probably be changed.
And we the public should get over ourselves when it comes to complaining about
funding and lobbying……….. or get used to the taste of cold vomit.

Cascadian November 24, 2011 at 22:13

I would have thought that private-sector financed advocacy groups such as
Swift Boat Veterans would be a very good thing in the UK.

Anybody willing to expose candidate lies might improve the general
quality of the candidates, it might even arouse the electorate to recognize
that candidates parachuted from central casting with little more experience
than a degree in PPE and membership of the party will very likely not
represent them well-Ahem Ed Balls and missus amongst many others.

M Barnes
November 25, 2011 at 14:13

The SBVT claims have been fairly comprehensively disproven and the
group itself hid a clear republican political aim behind a claim of being
‘for truth’ as opposed to ‘for Bush’.
I have lots of problems with the
US system of political funding. There is no transparency of funding,
groups spring up all over the place disguising their partisan nature
behind neutral titles. By staying apparently removed from their preferred
candidate they exempt themselves from many of the funding rules governing
official candidates. The upshot being that not only do such groups act as
attack dogs for their candidates (with full ‘not us guv’ deniability) but
they do so using funds supplied by people who do not wish to admit their
own political affiliation. So the democratic process can be easily
subverted by rich, anonymous donors whose self-interest is not known to
the public.

To be perfectly blunt, the US system of funding and indeed political
gerrymandering, self-interested lobbying, corrupt politico’s, pork-barrel
driven policy making …… I could go on…. is not one to copy. And I like the
USA. I suspect the founding fathers would be spinning in their marbled
tombs if they could see what has been done with the system they gave blood
for.

Cascadian
November 25, 2011 at 17:54

Swift boat is indeed contentious, however the major objective to
expose Kerry’s inflated claims and show him to be unfit for office was
successful and it did not require a government imposed toll to do
it.

I would agree that there is too much money and influence slopping
about in US politics, however to conclude from that, that UK politics is
influence and corruption free (which you did not) is also false. Neither
system is working as it should, I do believe that politicians in the US
are exposed to more scrutiny than your MP’s and that can only be a good
thing. The exception seems to be Obama, where frankly a mass hysteria
seems to have resulted in the election of a corrupt and inexperienced
candidate.

But getting back to the question, should voters be contributing to
the coffers of the major parties I emphatically say no. I am informed
enough to decide whether I wish to contribute to a party and do not need
the government to make this decision for me-though ironically, in Canada
they do just that, fund the major parties from taxes. When the present
government stated it would rescind the arrangement it damn near caused
the government to fall when the socialists and lieberals suddenly found
a cause they could agree upon-easy access to lots of money for no
effort. That could be in your future.

M Barnes
November 28, 2011 at 13:34

I agree that state funding is not an acceptable option – not just
for me but for the majority of voters. And there are a number of
politicians who are also against it for reasons of principle as well
as those opposed to it because they know ‘that’ll never fly with the
voters’. I don’t think it is in the future of the UK. It’s a kite that
gets flown every now and again and is blown to pieces by fierce
bombardment from the public and newspapers.
No system is
corruption-proof – that’s human nature for you. Show us a rule and
we’ll immediately try to figure out how to get around it.

Delphius November
24, 2011 at 01:17

I’ve already blogged I’m dead against the idea of state funding.

If the parties are losing donations, then they should modernise, reinvent
themselves and become more relevant to the modern voter.

Continuing down the path of unrepresentative democracy, with local
constituency party members being ignored and young professional politicians
being parachuted into seats will only continue the slide.

If political parties are not relevant and representative, then they deserve
to wither and die. They are not special cases. Besides, how do we divvy up the
money? Are we saying the likes of the BNP will get taxpayer funding (a hideous
thought in itself), or is it just the big boys?

The idea of state funding should die a quiet death, just like the parties
if they no longer serve our needs.

Longrider November 24, 2011 at 09:52

According to the report, it’s just for the big boys. They have to have a
minimum of two elected MPs.

Plantman November 23, 2011 at 23:30

I am on record (on this blog) of promising to go to the barricades on this
… BUT having thought it over I have changed my mind, here’s why (and no
apologies for duplicating what I’ve posted on other blogs in the past
24hrs)

I think that the proposals to provide taxpayers cash to the political
parties are wrong only in as much that the amount mooted is TOO SMALL.

It should be a minimum of £10 to the (currently qualifying) parties. Then
please, please let me write the election adress for BNP/English
Democrats/Green/UKIP (delete as appropriate) The message would be simple “A
vote for Lib/Lab/Con will cost you £10 – a vote for us is FREE!”

Can’t think of a more pleasurable and popular way to get rid of the
troughers that have brought us to the pass we’re at.

(In fact why not make it £50 – that’s a virtually guaranteed wipeout)

OK that’s a bit glib but this proposal, when you stop and think about it,
speaks volumes about the mindset of the political establishment. If we ever
needed yet more confirmation about the bubble of arrogance and

Michael November 23, 2011 at 22:30

So political parties will go bust without State funding.

Sooner the better, if you ask me.

Engineer November 23, 2011 at 22:10

Let them tout for donations from individuals only. A maximun individual
donation by any individual to any party of, say, £500 per year (but
individuals could donate to as many partys as they saw fit). Then the partys
work within their budgets; if they haven’t got much to spend, so be it.

There is one problem, though. A party that promises generous handouts,
peace, prosperity, motherhood and apple pie might get a lot of donations, but
may find it harder to keep promises once in office. A party that tells the
unpalatable truth might not do so well.

Ah – the perfidity of human nature….

davidb November 23, 2011 at 21:12

We could make voting compulsory, and the fines levied for not voting could
be divided up among the parties. That way instead of voting for them costing
us money, not voting for them would cost money too.

There should be a “none of the above box”, and if that’s what any
electorate wants the compulsary election should be rerun with different
candidates until one is elected.

Mark November 23,
2011 at 20:06

Yes, what binao said

Livewire November 23, 2011 at 15:02

Lets do it properly and have ‘penalty clauses’ for failure,
Yakuza-style.
“The National Debt’s gone up Osborne, there’s the knife,
there’s your finger, don’t
get too much blood on the despatch box”.

Joe Public
November 23, 2011 at 19:34

Enforcing the other Japanese tradition of Seppuku for failure, would be a
better motivator for success.

JuliaM November 24, 2011 at 10:39

Wouldn’t work. Politicians are already gutless…

Simon Cooke November 23, 2011 at 13:48

In the scale of things political parties are not very large organisations –
turnover for the two large UK parties in 2010 (including the general election)
was just over £80 million – with the Lib Dems adding a further £10
million.

This is the main reason why the parties are vulnerable to capture by
wealthy groups or rich individuals. You only need to compare these figures
with the money lavished by sugar daddies on Manchester City and Chelsea to see
that risk starkly.

However, as a libertarian, you are right to reject state funding (people
don’t pay taxes to fund politics). But the solution to the problem lies within
our current system – we elect a person rather than a party. And, at the locla
level, the amount available to spend electing (or failing to elect) that
person is strictly curtailed:

Pre-campaign spending: £25,000 + £0.07 or £0.005/elector
Campaign
spending: £7,150 + £0.07 or £0.05/elector

The different amounts per elector are distinguished by ‘county’ and
‘borough’ constituencies – essentially recognising it is more costly to
campaign in rural communities.

The pre-campaign spending is a maximum – the full amount only applies if
the period between elections goes full term.

It seems to me that the simplest campaign finance reform would be for this
to be the only form of campaigning permitted by political parties.

binao November 23, 2011 at 13:27

The bloated political class is already utterly disconnected from us. Why
would we want to pay to maintain it?

My own preferred solution is to ban all contributions to political parties
except from registered electors. Maximum permitted £50/ elector in any one tax
year, no gift aid, and only to be collected and redistributed by HMRC. All
funds traceable.
Sting in the tail being that any such maximum contribution
entitles said elector to take part in e-vote on candidate selection and key
manifesto policies of selected party.

We might get a desire to reconnect with the elector.

Just a dream.

Angry
Exile November 23, 2011 at 13:03

Agreed, politicians must be made to live within their means. If they get to
fund the parties on the taxpayer’s dollar as well then all hope of getting
them to live within their means when they’re in government is gone for good.
And what the hell are they making 1st class stamps out of if they cost nearly
three quid? Heroin?

Caedmon’s
Cat November 23, 2011 at 12:25

I fully agree, Anna. Why on earth should I fund political parties with whom
I have the deepest contempt, and whose agendas as far as I’m concerned are
usually odious? This is a characteristically unprincipled and brain-dead
suggestion.
Nevertheless, I understand why this is being proposed – after
all, there are 3 main parties – each of which which is merely a slightly
differently flavoured layer of the same Fabian cake..

2Mac November 25, 2011 at 13:36

By making funding allocated by the state, they would be able to stop any
competitor parties ever entering the arena by blocking any attempts to fund
them at launch and stopping the funding being allocated due to their lack of
share of previous vote.

Therefore we have a system of the 3 main parasitical political parties
maintaining control and power forever.

They call this democracy. The right to choose some public school wanker
or some formed Triad union supported nonce without any life experience,
skills, knowledge, judgement or business acumen being elected in every
constituency in the land.

I am feeling particularly revolutionary these days.How much injustice,
elitism and incompetence will we take before we snap…..They think it will
never happen….That’s what the French Aristocracy thought.