Pay less for politicians?

A wonderfully refreshing report out today by Policy Exchange challenges various lazy assumptions about party funding.

"Paying for the Party" reveals that the notion of a funding "arms race" between the major parties is a myth. Often used to legitimise State-funded politics, the notion that without taxpayer funds, the costs of politics will spiral ever upwards, is simply wrong.

More interesting is the idea that the costs of doing politics might actually be coming down.  Given how the internet lowers distribution costs elsewhere, perhaps we ought not be surprised if we start to see the cost of politics starting to fall, too.

So, why then do we spend a record amount of tax-payer money on party politics? The report makes it clear that de facto, we already have tax-payer funded politics.

Perhaps one way encourage remote politicians to reconnect with the people they are meant to serve, would be to make political parties live within their means and fund themselves through honest, voluntary payments?

Seems to work for ConservativeHome, or the Royal Horticultural Society or even the RSPCA .....

Comments

[Dave B]

In the USA democratic primary race, Mr Obama, suggested voters should consider how he has managed his campaign when running for office. The intention being to contrast his well organised, well funded campaign with Mrs Clinton's less well organised (Caucuses) campaign, that fails to pay it's bills.

Is this an argument the Conservatives could use? Labour can't run a political party responsibly, so how can they be expected to run a government?