David Simpson: Fund political parties through a flat rate levy per elector with the recipient chosen via a tickbox on the tax return

David Simpson runs his own computer services company.

> Policy summary

Each year every adult is asked to indicate on their tax return or to their employer where they wish their ‘contribution’ to be sent – this contribution would be about £1 or less per adult, paid by the Treasury to the party, organisation or individual of the voter’s choice. If they do not specify, no contribution is made to anyone. The recipient can be any UK based organisation or individual, whether involved in politics or not.

> Policy explanation

The advantages of public funding through a flat rate levy per elector:

Voters are fed up with politicians generally. Party funding for both Labour and Tory is a focus for that unhappiness. Public response to proposals for the state to fund the parties has been largely negative. But the existing methods are clearly unacceptable, whether it be union money, cash for peerages or large donations from anonymous millionaires. In addition the totals spent by the major parties are grotesque and it's debatable whether they actually contribute to the democratic process. Adequate funding through membership & local fundraising appears to be impossible. It is arguable whether local fund raising is of any real benefit (yes it gets the activists and members involved, but it doesn't raise much and takes a great deal of energy away from what are arguably the more important activities of canvassing, creating and developing policy and bringing pressure to bear on MPs and parties).

This would provide 100% transparency for the parties’ sources of funding.

It would impose an absolute limit on the total spend of each party (the national gross, not just the existing individual member limit) – parties could only spend what they receive through the levy and are not allowed any other sources of funding.

There would be no undue or hidden influence by private individuals, corporations or pressure groups because of their contributions to part coffers. The electorate as a whole will dictate each year how much is given to politics and to the individual parties.

There would be a clear separation between party spending and government spending with a watchdog to check that the government is not abusing its position to promote its own political agenda. Political advisors, 'spin doctors' etc and spurious government PR campaigns would have to be funded from the levy. There would be no Short Money or any other special funding for parties.

This will create a direct link between the individual and what he/she chooses to fund.

There will be a direct link between the success or popularity of a party and its share of the cake, reassessed annually (because decided by the choice on the tax return), regardless of the relative economic strength of its supporters.

Potential disadvantages:

In effect, politicians can decide how much to fund themselves – but all Parliament can set is the amount given per adult – not where it goes, or even if it goes to a political party. If the electorate objects to the global total, they can choose not to give it to anyone, or to send it to their own pet causes and not to politicians at all.

This may promote an even greater separation of the electorate from the political process (because they will have no need to join, participate in or actively support political parties)

A further encroachment of the state into what has been hitherto in the private sphere

There would be no need for a mass party membership (but this might encourage other forms of participation e.g. open caucuses for candidate selection)

A box on our tax returns where we indicate where we want our slice of the funding to go - which can be anywhere, including back to the Treasury (which would be the default if nothing is selected). Anywhere means anywhere that's not actually illegal, and any size - e.g. not just "CofE" but my Parish Church, not the Tories but my MP or prospective candidate - political parties, charities, pressure groups or my Great Aunt Joan. The recipient must be a UK citizen or a UK incorporated body (so no donations to Osama).

Absolute limit - no other donations of any kind to parties (cash or kind) are allowed apart from what is raised through the levy.

A new party/group can decide not to take the levy money, and rely on donations. They must declare everything (gifts, loans and sources - no anonymity). Once established, they can then choose to be funded by the state system. There would be an upper limit on private funding through donations or loans so we don't have some billionaire taking over the country.

Parties would not be allowed to borrow more than say, 20%, of their annual funding. Any borrowing would have to be from a conventional, independent third party i.e. banks or other mainstream financial institutions.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

All parties would be forced to have ‘clean hands’.

The party apparatus would lose control over funding (other than how to spend their allocation); party machines may be weakened.

Parties would need to keep close to their supporters throughout the electoral cycle.

A blip in the polls at end of the tax year could lose a party a disproportionate share of the levy.

Parties may become more cautious, over-sensitive to public opinion – but at least it won’t be sensitivity to opinion polls or focus groups, but to where voters actually send their money, that influences the parties.

Special interest pressure groups could become more grassroots based and richer and therefore more influential (if voters choose to fund special interest groups rather than parties).

Contributions to 'extremist' parties such as the BNP, Islamic or Christian fundamentalists etc may increase.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Do you think it's a bad idea if the party machines are weakened?
• This would give more power, potentially, to the grassroots - is that bad?
• Do you think current levels of spend by political parties are too low, about right, too high?
• Would this reduce the attention the parties pay to the key marginals?
• Would that be a bad thing? (i.e. the 'safe' seats might find that their electors’ money is going to special interests, or not to politics at all in the conventional sense)
• Should there be a tick list on tax return?

> Costs

Say a total per year of £30 million – the cost per adult would be less than £1 p.a.

The cost of capturing choices, especially idiosyncratic ones (e.g. Aunt Ethel) from tax returns etc Show the details on each adult’s P60.

 

Comments

[Laughing Cavalier]

It looks like the perfect way to let the ruling party know which way you vote so that they can decide whether or not to discriminate against you in future.

[John Peters]

Absolutely, definitely not.
There are practical problems. The sum is too small for the adminsitrative costs. Defining who would and would not be eligible is impossible. Large numbers of people do not fill in their own tax forms.
It is wrong in principle. Since administrative costs are covered by government, this is state funding of Cherie Blair's hair-dresser. It is an extension of central powers and a restriction on individuals and groups.

I would propose that any donation, loan or benefit must be made public within 3 hours of agreement and then leave them to it. Any Party which doesn't notify the electoral commission within that time pays that sum back and the same amount more as a fine.

I agree with Gildas when s/he (apologies, I don't know which) says:

"Is it really so difficult to grasp the idea that political parties should only raise their money from willing individual donors? With total transparency. (I'm against donation limits, but of all the restrictions thats the one I'm willing to accept).
If the political parties are skint, that is their problem. Not mine."

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Over my dead body!

Sorry, but paying taxes to fund politicians is beyond the pale.

[Thomas Hobbes]

I know that Tim will say I am being negative again - but this is another bonkers idea that makes us look stupid. Anyone with half a brain could have spotted the problems listed above, so why put it out for discussion?

[David Banks]

Well , at least the tick box idea means that none of our hard earned shekels have to go towards funding people like the BNP unlike a blanket state hand out. OK , for once (!) i will change my mind. Have normally been against state funding due to not wanting my tax monies to go to Nick Griffin et al. But with tickbox concept in place would vote for this idea. I think it's a good one.
Oh and by the way regular readers/contributors , i have managed recently to drag myself off benefits ( no thanks to Blair)and find myself a full time job.

[Yet Another Anon]

The fact is that all forms of State Funding for political parties are a failure, there is no way from stopping people individually from campaigning or from stopping Trade Unions or Businesses from carrying out their own campaigns at election time - I suppose there could be some kind of blind system whereby parties were not informed where the donations had come from to avoid them being influenced by the donations, but then again a rich person\Trade union|business could simply decide to spend the money directly and so fall outside the rules unless of the rules.

Parties got along fine before Short Money, indeed parties that have never had any seats in parliament have never received any Short Money - it could be rather difficult tracking down all the organisations and could be a very long list, surely this also would add complexity to tax forms - wouldn't it be simpler to limit the amount of donations by any one individual unless of course it is actually going to be tax deductible, I don't suppose much would be raised by £1 per individual given many would choose not to donate anything at all so it would be left to News International probably to do most of the campaigning.

[matt wright]

Not keen on this,

Matt

[Matt Davis]

State funding of political parties? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

However clever the actual plan itself the basic principle ought to be anathema to all those who believe in democracy and especially to Conservatives.

[Londoner]

I am glad that it has now been proved possible to get policies voted down. Perhaps ones faith in the participants in this exercise can now gradually be rehabilitated...

[David Simpson]

Well that one seems to have been shot down in flames!

Not everyone seems to have read the fine details of the proposal but clearly the fundamental practical objection is the means of collection. Allocating money according to votes cast would seem to be an answer (and if there is a big stay-at-home vote as in 2005 the total allocated would correspondingly be reduced - that would make 'em sit up and take notice).

As for the "no state involvement" element, that seems to be a doctrinal issue. I take a more pragmatic stance (as in, get the state to do something useful for once).

Oh and several people rather snearingly (I thought) referred to me as a businessman - I'm just self employed!

[David Simpson]

. . . and finally how can it be a tax if you can choose whether or not to pay it, and who it is paid to. If anything we're taking some of our money back and sending it where we think it might do some good.

[David Simpson]

"I am glad that it has now been proved possible to get policies voted down. Perhaps ones faith in the participants in this exercise can now gradually be rehabilitated..."

It's just a shame that policies cannot be modified after all this useful discussion, to produce something that people could support. I have seen several policies that, had we been able to change them, I would have supported, but as they stood, were unacceptable.

[The Remittance Man]

The political elites of all parties are becoming more and more isolated from the general public as it is. State funding, in whatever form that may take, will simply increase this isolation.

These people are supposed to represent US and thus should be listening to US. Removing the need for any party to appeal to the public by giving them free, taxpayer funded, handouts is hardly going to achieve that.

Mr Simpson's proposal would only be supportable if it included the following option (and only with the exact wording provided):

"None of the thieving, mendacious mountebanks listed above".