STATE FUNDING OF POLITICS?
Posted: 22 May 2026, 00:35
STATE FUNDING OF POLITICS?
27 March 2006
The unedifying picture that has emerged over the last few weeks of political parties taking ‘loans’ instead of ‘donations’ is because by doing this they escaped disclosure. There is the collateral matter of non-disclosure extending to party figures as important as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Party Treasurer in the Labour party.
This has of course triggered hours of media comment and response by politicians. My personal view is that in the case of the Labour Party what we are seeing is the murky face of politics where power is exercised secretly above Cabinet level and is totally unacceptable.
However, what is emerging from this witches brew is an undercurrent of support for state funding of political parties. My problem with this is that it is not usually presented honestly, the phrase used is ‘state funding of Parliament’. This is weasel language, Parliament is already state funded. The core question is whether public funding should be used to support the finances of political parties. Again, to give my opinion, I would be in favour of limited funding for specific purposes so long as there was a very robust system for accounting for the money. As I have no confidence that such a process could ever be free from influence, I am against the concept.
Another argument that is being deployed is that there is nothing wrong with the case of two property developers who donated £3½ million to the Labour Party and saw their current planning appeal approved by the ministry controlled by the Deputy Prime Minister. I am not interested in the argument that these men may have acted purely altruistically, which could indeed be the case. The principle should be that such applicants must be actively debarred from making any contribution at any time, before or after the event. Any other system is open to abuse and there can be little doubt that such abuse will take place.
I can remember the time when the Labour Party’s finances depended on the strength of their local organisations and support from the grass roots and the unions. One of the first actions of New Labour in 1997 was to remove the power to collect subscriptions from the grass roots and thus deprive their supporters of the biggest single incentive to contribute. In an attempt to divorce New Labour from the unions in order to make themselves more electable to the middle classes the party abolished Clause 4 and ditched an alliance with the unions which goes back to the roots of the foundation of the party. Labour was founded to give the workers a voice and the support of the unions was integral with the growth and success of the party.
The argument now is that no party can afford to pay for their outgoings during a general election. It’s worth noting that the tremendous increase in expenditure on campaigning coincided with the move to a more presidential style of government in which power was gathered to the centre and Parliament and even cabinet government were devalued. Why should it cost £20million pounds for a party to campaign for re-election? Would it be more sensible to aid the party’s finances by putting a reasonable cap on what any party could spend? One of the drivers in this process is the ability of the party in power to use policy announcements and public resources to promulgate statements which are in effect campaigning. The Opposition parties have to attempt to match this exposure and so expenditure escalates. It would seem to be common sense to crack down on this process.
Finally, there is the knotty problem of the sale of parliamentary privilege by lobbying and elevation to the House of Lords. This has always been with us and the only way to end it is to convert the second chamber to a fully elected body on the lines of the US Senate. We will never have a fully democratic system until the umbilical cord between unearned privilege and government is severed for good. The only reason it has survived so long is because of its efficacy as a vehicle of preferment for the Court and Establishment.
The best way to strengthen Parliament would be to enhance the powers of Parliamentary Committees. It should not be possible for the executive to ignore the findings of these bodies or other investigating commissions. The Royal Prerogative must be abolished, in today’s system it is actually the Prime Minister’s prerogative.
So my programme would be: Abolish Royal Prerogative and institute a proper written constitution instead of the ragbag of precedent and tradition that passes as a constitution at the moment. Separate parliamentary expenditure from party expenditure, this to include strong sanctions against using government announcements as stealthy campaigning literature. Pick a level of general expenditure on elections that would be supportable by parties from their own resources and enforce this. Make it illegal for any party donor to become a Peer or the beneficiary of any sort of government decision. Follow the French model and abolish the whole of the ‘honours’ system. Substitute one award, the Order of Merit. Keep the second chamber but remove all the incumbents and replace them by a senatorial system elected by the voters.
Pie in the sky isn’t it, it will never happen in my lifetime. There is too much vested power at the centre of government, patronage and privilege will continue to be used. How about a more realistic ambition. When Alastair Campbell left Downing Street one of the reasons given for his departure was that ‘he had become the story’. I’ve got a message for Tony Blair, you are now the story, for God’s Sake Go!
27 March 2006
27 March 2006
The unedifying picture that has emerged over the last few weeks of political parties taking ‘loans’ instead of ‘donations’ is because by doing this they escaped disclosure. There is the collateral matter of non-disclosure extending to party figures as important as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Party Treasurer in the Labour party.
This has of course triggered hours of media comment and response by politicians. My personal view is that in the case of the Labour Party what we are seeing is the murky face of politics where power is exercised secretly above Cabinet level and is totally unacceptable.
However, what is emerging from this witches brew is an undercurrent of support for state funding of political parties. My problem with this is that it is not usually presented honestly, the phrase used is ‘state funding of Parliament’. This is weasel language, Parliament is already state funded. The core question is whether public funding should be used to support the finances of political parties. Again, to give my opinion, I would be in favour of limited funding for specific purposes so long as there was a very robust system for accounting for the money. As I have no confidence that such a process could ever be free from influence, I am against the concept.
Another argument that is being deployed is that there is nothing wrong with the case of two property developers who donated £3½ million to the Labour Party and saw their current planning appeal approved by the ministry controlled by the Deputy Prime Minister. I am not interested in the argument that these men may have acted purely altruistically, which could indeed be the case. The principle should be that such applicants must be actively debarred from making any contribution at any time, before or after the event. Any other system is open to abuse and there can be little doubt that such abuse will take place.
I can remember the time when the Labour Party’s finances depended on the strength of their local organisations and support from the grass roots and the unions. One of the first actions of New Labour in 1997 was to remove the power to collect subscriptions from the grass roots and thus deprive their supporters of the biggest single incentive to contribute. In an attempt to divorce New Labour from the unions in order to make themselves more electable to the middle classes the party abolished Clause 4 and ditched an alliance with the unions which goes back to the roots of the foundation of the party. Labour was founded to give the workers a voice and the support of the unions was integral with the growth and success of the party.
The argument now is that no party can afford to pay for their outgoings during a general election. It’s worth noting that the tremendous increase in expenditure on campaigning coincided with the move to a more presidential style of government in which power was gathered to the centre and Parliament and even cabinet government were devalued. Why should it cost £20million pounds for a party to campaign for re-election? Would it be more sensible to aid the party’s finances by putting a reasonable cap on what any party could spend? One of the drivers in this process is the ability of the party in power to use policy announcements and public resources to promulgate statements which are in effect campaigning. The Opposition parties have to attempt to match this exposure and so expenditure escalates. It would seem to be common sense to crack down on this process.
Finally, there is the knotty problem of the sale of parliamentary privilege by lobbying and elevation to the House of Lords. This has always been with us and the only way to end it is to convert the second chamber to a fully elected body on the lines of the US Senate. We will never have a fully democratic system until the umbilical cord between unearned privilege and government is severed for good. The only reason it has survived so long is because of its efficacy as a vehicle of preferment for the Court and Establishment.
The best way to strengthen Parliament would be to enhance the powers of Parliamentary Committees. It should not be possible for the executive to ignore the findings of these bodies or other investigating commissions. The Royal Prerogative must be abolished, in today’s system it is actually the Prime Minister’s prerogative.
So my programme would be: Abolish Royal Prerogative and institute a proper written constitution instead of the ragbag of precedent and tradition that passes as a constitution at the moment. Separate parliamentary expenditure from party expenditure, this to include strong sanctions against using government announcements as stealthy campaigning literature. Pick a level of general expenditure on elections that would be supportable by parties from their own resources and enforce this. Make it illegal for any party donor to become a Peer or the beneficiary of any sort of government decision. Follow the French model and abolish the whole of the ‘honours’ system. Substitute one award, the Order of Merit. Keep the second chamber but remove all the incumbents and replace them by a senatorial system elected by the voters.
Pie in the sky isn’t it, it will never happen in my lifetime. There is too much vested power at the centre of government, patronage and privilege will continue to be used. How about a more realistic ambition. When Alastair Campbell left Downing Street one of the reasons given for his departure was that ‘he had become the story’. I’ve got a message for Tony Blair, you are now the story, for God’s Sake Go!
27 March 2006