It's time for Cameron to stand up to big donors

Stuart Wheeler, the multi-millionaire spread-betting tycoon, is in the news again.  Mr Wheeler has been consistently prominent in Tory affairs over recent years...

• He gave William Hague's Tories £5m before the 2001 General Election, partly because he liked the Keep The Pound campaign;
• His Today programme intervention in October 2003 - 'IDS has to go' - helped precipitate the fall of the last but one Conservative leader;
• And, today, he's criticising David Cameron's education and environment policies.  Is Mr Wheeler the donor who has 'recalled' a £250,000 gift to the Conservative Party?

All this makes me very uncomfortable.  I admire Mr Wheeler's Euroscepticism and agree with his reservations about current Tory policies on academic selection and Kyoto but I do worry about his influence.  In last year's leadership election campaign the views of big party donors were constantly sought by the media.

Not so long ago Lord Ashcroft argued that political parties should be able to "accept financial support — cash, benefits in kind and credit — from whomsoever they choose and without financial limit".  His only significant condition was openness.  Lord Ashcroft is a generous man who helped save the Conservative Party from financial disaster when he was William Hague's treasurer - the party should be grateful to him - but this is poor advice.

Big money has spoilt American politics.  Individuals like Mike Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, and Jon Corzine, Governor of New Jersey, invested their substantial personal fortunes in buying office for themselves.   Members of America's House of Representatives start fundraising for their campaigns as soon as they are re-elected.  The Abramoff affair is now rocking the Republican Party establishment.

At the moment there is nothing to stop a UK citizen or other permissible donor making unlimited donations to political parties.  Imagine if the late James Goldsmith hadn't just funded the Referendum Party for the 1997 General Election but had set up a £200m endowment that would have allowed it to campaign in perpetuity?  That would have been perfectly legal under existing rules.

David Cameron has said that he wants to stand up to big business.  This site - not uncritical of him - has welcomed that commitment.  Conservatives should be the friends of free and competitive markets.  That doesn't mean befriending big businesses who can, Adam Smith warned us, conspire against smaller firms and the wider public interest.

I don't suggest that the Conservatives should immediately declare that they will not accept any big donations - that would be the equivalent of unilateral financial disarmament in a world where Labour would still be receiving millions from the likes of Lord Drayson, Bernie Ecclestone and Lord Sainsbury.  I do think, however, that Conservatives should support a more diverse basis for party funding.  I'm not sure what the maximum donation should be but £100,000 would seem enough.  What do you think?

In place of relying on big money from big business Britain's political parties would have to seek money from private citizens.  That would be more democratic.  The internet provides political parties with enormous new opportunities to raise new monies.  At the same that a cap was introduced on big money donations I would favour tax relief on small donations of, say, up to £100.  Giving to political parties is a comnmunity-minded thing and it is better for public money to match the preferences of lots of individuals than being allocated by politicians in private dialogue with one another in Westminster.

Comments

[Account Deleted]

I think tax relief should be allowed on small donations - politics is indeed community minded.

Much though I loathe the big donor system in the US, which also gives disproportionate influence to well funded and polarising 'special interest' groups, which distort facts to scare people into supporting them - everyone from gay rights groups to evangelicals, I can't help feeling a little bit uncomfortable with limiting people....

As I was typing this I realised that nothing could be worse than a descent into US style politics. Spending cap, sign me up.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Now hang on just a second. Stuart Wheeler and Michael Ashcroft are as entitled to voice their opinions as the rest of us.

It's bad enough that every critical utterance on this blog is immediately condemned by the Cameronite thought police and the person who dared criticise the leadership castigated as a latter-day equivalent of the Judean Peoples Front without generous friends of the party being told their opinion isn't welcome either.

[Richard]

Daniel,

I fully agree.

[Frank Young]

Success breads success no more than in politics. If Cameron can, as he is, move us into a position where we look likely to win elections donors will follow.

[Editor]

DVA: "Now hang on just a second. Stuart Wheeler and Michael Ashcroft are as entitled to voice their opinions as the rest of us."

I don't disagree with that, Daniel, but no-one should be allowed to buy a voice. It would be healthy for politics if parties depended on diverse income streams from many people - rather than cosy relations with a few.

I happen to find the politics of Lord Ashcroft and Stuart Wheeler very agreeable but I hate the way people like George Soros are influencing US politics. There should be limits. I don't think you've addressed my central points - not least the James Goldsmith issue...

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Yes, sorry I misread the tone of the article.

I agree that money shouldn't buy influence - I abhor the fact that the financial might of the US oil lobby continues to hold back the fight against untold irreversible damage being wrought upon the world we live in - and I also agree that we should be looking for support from as broad a financial and political base as possible.

However, in reality I feel that it is possibly a tad unrealistic to expect people to invest in something over which they don't have any influence or interest and therefore we should be careful not to alienate people like Stuart Wheeler and Michael Ashcroft.

[Editor]

I don't want to alienate them either... I hope they might still give 'us' £100,00 a year but that should be the top limit.

[Geoff]

I forget, how much is Tony selling peerages for at the moment?

On a more serious point; reference is made to Bloomberg and Corzine. Those are just examples of winners with money - remember Michael Huffington, a man who thought his huge wealth could buy him into US politics at about the same time? His campaign fell apart spectacularly.

Or Steve Forbes who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000? He was worth something like $450m-$500m, which is enough to make you a popular bloke when it's your turn to get a round in.

Interestingly, one of the reasons he failed was that he couldn't convince the US of the sense of a flat tax - despite promising to exempt himself from it if he got the proposal passed. What a shame, but it is an idea whose time will come again.

[A H Matlock]

I agree that tax relief on political contributions would encourage members of the public to become financially active in politics and would perhaps reduce current dependence the 2.5 major parties have on a select few major donors such as Mr Wheeler and Lord Ashcroft. £100 is probably too low a limit to make it worth the bother. Something like £2000 sounds more reasonable to me.

Having said that, I'm not sure you can completely restrict the capacity of private individuals to give large sums to political campaigns without (a) infringing on the rights of that individual to give their money to a candidate of their choice and (b) setting up some system of public funding for the parties, who would obviously have a huge financial gap to make up. I believe this is what has recently been done in Canada as far as financing their parties go; a very low contribution limit for individuals and businesses coupled with annual public funding based on number of votes received at the previous general election.

Obviously this would have a far-reaching impact on the state of politics in Britain today. Definitely something that needs to be studied a bit more thoroughly.

[John Hustings]

Putting aside whether donors should have any influence, I think Stuart Wheeler makes an interesting observation:

"I think you should select by ability and earlier on he had said that it was very important to that schools should be allowed to select who they wanted."

If Wheeler is correct (and I *think* he is) then this does indeed mark a "U-Turn" from Cameron, or perhaps even an outright deception of the party faithful?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"If Wheeler is correct (and I *think* he is) then this does indeed mark a "U-Turn" from Cameron, or perhaps even an outright deception of the party faithful?"

SPLITTER!!!

[Editor]

A H Matlock: "annual public funding based on number of votes received at the previous general election."

The problem with this, Alistair, is that it rewards incumbency - which parliamentary allowances etc already advantage. Giving tax relief or even matched funding to current giving is my preferred option.

You might be right about the £100 limit being too modest.

[Interested Observer]

What is it with you, Daniel? For a while you seemed almost reasonable. Now you've regressed back to your head-banging, Cameron-hating, dripping with condescension, morally superior pre-leadership old self. Pity.

At least John Hustings is consistently a nutter all the time.

[johnC]

It beats me why anyone would want to donate money to the Conservative party. You have your motives questioned, your views ignored, your private and business life subjected to hostile scrutiny by the New Labour machine and their media acolytes, and get to see your money wasted on pathetic poster campaigns, embarrassing manifesto launches and armies of useless CCHQ hacks and plotters. What's the point ?

[Editor]

Less of the personal stuff please, 'Interested Observer'. Let's keep on subject.

[Andrew Woodman]

Any thoughts on the state funding political parties?

[Gareth]

In the 1980's and early '90's, one of most successful and damning critiques we made of Labour was that, since they were funded by the unions, they would do the unions' bidding whenin power. The last thing we need to do is allow ourselves to become beholden to a few mega-rich indviduals. Cameron should make it clear that they can give us money or not give us money, but their views on policy matters are of as much value as that of any other party member.

[Editor]

Insofar as the state funds political parties, Andrew - and it already does with short money (and MPs with allowances that have gotten MUCH bigger in recent years) - I think the money should follow the choices of voters/ small donors rather than committees of the great and good.

The same principles that underly stakeholder-directed funding of the voluntary sector are relevant here.

[Geoff]

I have just deleted the post I putting together because johnC has said it so much better.

Too often the money we spend is wasted, but on the other hand the time and effort we put in can be priceless.

Andrew, I am instinctively against state funding. Political parties are held in little enough regard at the moment, even before the country realises taxpayer-provided Short Money has just been de facto extended to a party inextricably connected with terrorism.

How about < inserts tongue very firmly in cheek > some sort of hypothecation, so that I can decide that my wagepacket isn't lightened each month to pay for Sinn Fein's paperclip budget?

An opt-in form of state political taxation might produce some very amusing results, but probably not much cash.

[Chad]

Is not the biggest threat the loan approach? Big donors like Lord Ashcroft are not making straight donations but providing interest free loans.

This creates unfair and disproportiate influence. Why unfair and disproportionate? Because £5m in small donations causes no financial threat to the party as they hit the bank account and cannot be reclaimed, whereas one donor "loaning" £2m can call in that loan if partypolicy drifts too far from their own agenda.

I have been thinking about the unfairness of this situation that gives the many small donors no direct influence, but awards the single large donor with too much influence.

If the party wants to stick to this "loan" approach, perhaps small donors should level the playing field and stop giving directly to the party, instead clubbing together in a Tory Donor Club and loan their much bigger amount to the party.

This way, the small donors could become a big donor too, and help to rebalance influence on the party.

[Editor]

Your Coolservative.com advertisement idea, Chad, is exactly the sort of innovative and democratic funding idea that the party should embrace.

[Chad]

Thanks Tim. I was thinking about using the funds raised to start of a Tory Donor Club to help us small donors to at least begin to exert something similar to the influence these loan-donors currently have.

It may be a bit controversial, but money talks, and it would simply to levelling the playing field.

[Chad]

..but it would be a real help if more conservative sites would add the ad box of course.

Ads will starting running on Guido's site next week, so hopefully it will pick up.

[Rob Largan]

I dislike the idea of any public money funding political parties. Why on earth should your tax go towards funding an organisation you despise?

Though I see where you are coming from Ed, and agree with you on the US, I am still apprehensive about government telling people who they can or cannot give their money to.

[Geoff]

Chad, I'm unclear how your "Tory Donor Club" loaning money to the party would help balance the influence of (example for the pure sake of argument) Lord Ashcroft's loans? Do I get to ask for my £10 back if DC doesn't repeal the hunting ban? Does James Maskell ask for his £15 back if he does?

The Coolservative idea, though, yes - great. Hat tip.

[Andrew Woodman]

I doubt state funding of political parties will ever happen. I just thought I'd throw that in as a debating point.

I must say that I'm in pretty much full agreement with the editorial. I've had concerns for a while about donors influence. The effective buying of peerages makes politics look sleazey in the extreme. I think it is important to look at ways forward of encouraging donations without tthe donors wanting anything back personally.

[Mark Fulford]

Mr Wheeler lost me when he said that he would withdraw his funding if Ken Clarke became leader. This is just more of the same.

It's unsafe for the party to rely on individual benefactors and undemocratic for policies to be dictated by the highest bidder. A cap would be a bold, democratic step that would be respected by the electorate. I suspect that finances wouldn't be hit that hard, but Conservatives should be the best party to operate on a tight budget!

every critical utterance on this blog is immediately condemned by the Cameronite thought police and the person who dared criticise the leadership castigated as a latter-day equivalent of the Judean Peoples Front

Daniel, that is an unjustified load of tosh.

[Editor]

Rob Largan: "Though I see where you are coming from Ed, and agree with you on the US, I am still apprehensive about government telling people who they can or cannot give their money to."

I think limits on one person's freedom can often enlarge others' freedom, Rob. If someone gives £5m to the Tory Party it discourages me and many other small donors from doing the same. If someone gives £10m to UKIP it overwhelms my little efforts. In a democracy political power should be as evenly distributed as possible. An individual's ability to give unlimited sums of money means that power distribution is currently unbalanced in Britain.

[Geoff]

I doubt state funding of political parties will ever happen. I just thought I'd throw that in as a debating point.

Don't be so sure. It's long been a LibDem policy; largely because it would disproportionately benefit them over the two main parties. If they were drawn into a coalition then PR would be too big a pill for the majority partner to accept as a price for support, but something like this might be the compromise quid pro quo.

[Chad]

"Do I get to ask for my £10 back if DC doesn't repeal the hunting ban? Does James Maskell ask for his £15 back if he does?"

Hi Geoff,

The TDC itself would yes, just as the other loan-donors would if they called in their loan.

The TDC would be grouped on agenda. Like-minded members would decide to pool their small donations into one big donation to be made as a loan as Lord Ashcroft etc do.

The the TDS can make the same kind of noises when policy drifts as we are disucssing today

A TDC would have to agree on a democratic and focussed agenda. If it raised a few million pounds, surely that would be a way for members to directly influence policy, rather than just hope?

I don't like the loan approach because of the unfair influence it awards. However, if it is staying, then it gives the loan-donors too much influence, and a TDC could at least try to address that imbalance.

[Rob Largan]

I thought there already was some form of state funding of political parties? Am I right or is that my hangover talking?

[Mark Fulford]

The TDC would be grouped on agenda. Like-minded members would decide to pool their small donations into one big donation to be made as a loan as Lord Ashcroft etc do.

So votes for cash would become accepted party practice... I think that plays into our opponents' hands!

[Chad]

"So votes for cash would become accepted party practice... I"

They are already. As I noted, I do not like the loan-donor approach but thge party is using it as we type.

The loan-donor approach has created a very different and dangerous meaning to "pulling donations" as now it does not just mean, not providing new donations in the future, but it could actually destroy the party by calling in large loans when the money has already been spent.

With the threat of not just losing new donations, but plunging the party into debt or even destruction by calling for repayment of a loan, no wonder these loan-donors wield such influence.

[Geoff]

Rob, you are probably thinking of Short Money which has been referred to a couple of times in passing above.

[Andrew Woodman]

The whole area of our parties funding is something which needs reviewing. The amount of money wasted by printing endless immigration leaflets at the last election was scandalous.

I was also pretty horrified when I learnt of the amount the local party was requested to pay in its quota to CCO. It's a struggle enough to raise money locally, and sending thousands to CCO instead of using it for effective local campiagns seems absolute madness to me. Yet another part of the party structure which needs examining.

[wasp]

The Tory Donor Club could be like an American PAC, different ones could exist for different causes.

eg. A women's one could be used to distribute money specifically to women candidates, or young candidates, euro sceptics/philes etc.

[Chad]

It is of course also a very Conservative idea, letting people choose how their money is spent, rather than simply being controlled by a central machine.

[Goldie]

Oh please, Editor, isn't this supposed to be a free country?

Anyone should be allowed to give whatever they want to political parties, and they should be allowed to spend however they see fit.

As long as everything is made available in the public domain.

[Rob Largan]

Perhaps in the interest of democracy the main parties can come together and all agree to set voluntary cap limits. No government taking a way our freedoms, just political parties wanted to ensure the fair influence of all their memebers. And if a party refuses, it will show the public that they are in the thrall of their big donors. Would all be in the spirit of this current consensus politics as well.

Just a thought.

[Chad]

It is a nice idea Rob, but we have to deal with the realities on the ground. Loans are permissible by the Electoral Commission and help keep the loan-donor in the shade as I believe they do not have to declare this (please correct me someone more knowledgeable if I am wrong).

We have to find way to deal with the situation as it is, not how we would like it to be.

Unless the electoral commission bans loan-donors, or the party changes its policy and refuses to accept these loans, (both very unlikely), we must be realists and work within the same framework.

If we don't fight back and play by their rules, then the loan-donors, with their ability to not just stop donating, but actually demand the return of funds are a sword of Damocles to the party.

[Rob Largan]

No seriously though, I think it would be a genuinely smart move on Cameron's part. Shows again he is prepared to 'stand up to big business' and cares about democracy and will show that the party has indeed changed. Not only that but it will put Labour on the spot. If they refuse it would look very bad on their part, if they accept, it will help to reduce the trade union influence, which can only be a good thing.

[Simon]

The main change I would make to the current laws on funding would be to include Northern Ireland in the ban on overseas funding. It's just a sop to Sinn Fein that should stop.

[Disraeli]

Editor,

Couldn't agree more.

I am frankly fed up with unelected party donors thinking that they can buy influence and hold a Political Party to ransom.

Hopefully, unlike New Labour, the Conservatives do not believe in
individual donors being able to 'buy power.' As Conservatives, we have
always been right to distrust those who, as Baldwin reminded us, seek to
wield "power without responsibility." Besides, as the Conservatives get
nearer to Government under an electable, moderate leader, the number of
large donors will inevitably increase and the ability of one unelected
person to attempt a veto on party policy will, thankfully, be gone.

[Donal Blaney]

Both state funding of political parties and imposing a maximum amount anyone can donate to a political party are wrong in principle. Why are we considering yet more regulation and infringements on people's rights?

The key is transparency. If voters can see that Ashcroft or Wheeler are donating money to political parties then that deals in large part with the influence issue. And it is then up to parties to decide whether they want to take money from these people.

Personally I believe that political parties are an appalling way for wealthy conservatives to support the conservative cause. They would get far more bang for their buck if they funded organisations such as The Young Britons' Foundation (ahem, self-interest speaks again!), The Taxpayers' Alliance, Reform or this blog. CCHQ is a massive black hole. The key is the conservative movement, not the Conservative Party machine.

[Sam Coates]

The party would be better leading the way on that, if it wanted to, than doing it as an all-party agreement. If it's our initiative we should take the credit, they wil likely follow.
One positive side-effect of a cap on party-funding would be more investment in the Conservative movement - something it desperately needs.

[Sam Coates]

Great minds Donal, great minds.

YBF, TPA, Reform and CH are exactly the kind of worthy projects I had in mind.
I would have no reservations at all if Wheeler gave 5m to a conservative think-tank (whose policy ideas would have to be strongly considered by the party), but if the party ever has to stick with certain polices for financial security then that is clearly wrong.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I do have a problem with unelected donors seeking to influence party policy. The Party needs to be brave in certain cases by telling them to get stuffed.

At the moment, and I suspect that this is the case with all 3 parties, major donors are given unlimited ACCESS to senior figures which enables them to INFLUENCE decisions. David Cameron, like his processors, would not meet me if I sought a meeting, despite being a constituency chairman, but would meet Stuart Wheeler.

Is this fair? We're all in the same boat: if we do not have money to donate to CCHQ, we're ignored! The editorial was spot on!

[Donal Blaney]

Money will ALWAYS buy influence. If you don't recognise that by now, there is something wrong with you. It buys you influence if you want the best table in a restaurant, sold out tickets to a concert or the best room in a hotel. It may not be fair but it is a fact of life.

In the context of buying influence over policy, I think this is overstated. Bernie Ecclestone nakedly sought to buy influence over Labour's Formula 1 policy and, of course, the trades unions openly buy influence over Labour economic and employment policy.

However in what way can it be said that Ashcroft or Wheeler bought influence over Tory policy. There are no tax breaks that I am aware of that a past Tory government ever gave industries in which those donors were interested. Both men, as far as I can see, are patriots, philanthropists and proud conservatives - without whom in the last 8 years the Party would have become truly bankrupt financially.

Their support should be welcomed and their views rightly listened to. That influence should not be excessive but you cannot have it both ways. If they give money, their views will rightly be listened to. Given their successes in business, it strikes me as obvious that the Party has a lot to learn from them!

[Huntarian]

I am really surprised at some of the comments in this thread.
Stuart Wheeler, Michael Ashcroft, Phil Harris, and many other good men and women, who have earned their money and paid their taxes, have the same right to express an opinion as anyone else in this Party. Having been a donor ( with a very small d) and more importantly a fundraiser for the party over many years I can tell you that anyone who thinks that money buys influence in this party is stark staring bonkers.
In my experience it has barely earned you civility from many of our front bench spokesmen in the past.
Had it not been for the generosity of these big ticket donors this party would have gone out of business years ago and to flirt with any form of state funding, donation limit, or curtailment will simply lead us into oblivion. There is not the slightest chance of the UK ending up like the US, quite simply because the political culture here is vastly different.
Openness and transparency is all that is required. It is that which allows this debate to happen in the first place. Had not Mr. Wheeler and the Party had to declare his generosity do you think the Party would have gone public on it?
The reality is that successful business men and women are not without experience and insight into what is happening in the real world and we would do well to pay some attention to their opinions. I for one consider that Lord Ashcroft’s decision to offer funding directly to key seats without the interference from CCHQ was one of the most enlightened donor decisions of our time, and showed the sound judgement of a business man.
I would like to see more donors target their money to specific campaigning priorities and CCHQ being forced into bidding for their money in the way that sponsorship in sport operates. The most constant complaint I have heard from donors over the years has been that the Party just p-----s their money down a drain. If you look at charitable giving the most successful charities get donors to contribute to a specific objective. Why not the Tory party?
Last time I looked we were still the Party of freedom lets keep it that way. Let’s be grateful to our donors large and small and let’s show them some respect. We will need lots of them to beat Brown.

[Donal Blaney]

Amen, Huntarian. You are completely right.

[Derek]

In the real world money buys power and influence. There is no doubt about it. In my opinion it would be utterly wrong for political parties to be state funded, as that would entrench the existing large parties who would then have no need to attract funds from the public.

I have no problem with billionaires making large donations, even though I accept this gives them more influence than me. There are other ways of exerting influence, such as running a national newspaper. Wealth can buy influence in lots of ways. Who has the most influence Rupert Murdoch or Stuart Wheeler?

James Goldsmith had a huge influence over the major parties without giving either of them a penny, by starting his own party. If we limited donations artificially, I believe politics would be the poorer, and the rich would find other ways to gain influence.

[Jaz]

I agree with the editor, I do not want a Tory party run by power hungry businessmen.

[Annabel Herriott]

In Colne Valley, we would not have run such an effective campaign without "Ashcroft money". Maggie Throup presented an efficient business plan, and we were awarded the- grant - I suppose you would call it. In my book that was OK. We did knock Kali Mountford down to 1501 which wasnt bad going for a small group of activists. We also got a huge amount of help from the local hunts. Donations are OK if given in the right spirit. I believe Michael Ashcroft falls into that category.

[Donal Blaney]

If I were Stuart Wheeler, I would ask what my £5m actually bought me when I gave it to CCHQ and then think what I could do with a future bequest of £5m, £1m or even £500,000. Think of what another member of staff could achieve at the Taxpayers' Alliance? Or what a well funded training programme for conservative activists and candidates through my organisation, the Young Britons' Foundation, could achieve for the cause of conservatism generally? Or how a team of young, keen researchers working outside the confines of the Party machine at, say, Reform, Civitas or Politeia could achieve so much more.

If I were a Stuart Wheeler or a Lord Ashcroft I would want to think how I could get a better return on investment. The Party machine does not produce that return: organisations within the conservative movement do.

[Richard Carey]

"In Colne Valley, we would not have run such an effective campaign without "Ashcroft money". Maggie Throup presented an efficient business plan, and we were awarded the grant..."

I was also involved in a target seat campaign part-funded with the help of Lord Ashcroft, and I think that your comment about the "efficient business plan" makes an important point.

In fundraising at every level from the local association member renewing his annual £15 subscription, to the donor giving moderate-to-large sums, people are more likely to give if they can see clearly that their money is going directly to specific priorities and campaigning projects clearly aimed at delivering a future Conservative government.

I'm sorry if I'm stating the obvious here, but remarks above about "black holes" and the like tend to indicate that it needs re-stating!

[Richard Carey]

Forgot to add in my comment above:

After all - showing people where their money's going when they donate, that's just called, well... accountability, isn't it?

*Cue groans...*

[Sam Coates]

There is also the factor that if the party is perceived as people-sized, members and supporters will be more likely to donate from their comparatively modest incomes. At the moment, it only takes one rich supporter to step in and single-handedly keep the party in the black - it's hard for your average supporter to see that every penny truly counts.
Huntarian referred to charities having success when presenting donors with specific objectives with money. Groups like WorldVision are good example, where you can pay a certain amount to buy some chickens for a village, or a cow, or a waterpump. People like to know that their money is making a tangible difference, Ashcroft's funding of target seats for example.
To translate this into party funding, a lot depends on how we respond to modern campaigning methods, particularly if we decentralise the party structure somewhat. Hopefully the party will spawn more single-issue campaigns/websites that are effective in getting ideological and party-political messages through to voters.
These would attract donations from people with a strong interest in those issues, and present an attractive proposition to ideological donors whilst seperating them from irrelevant areas of party policy.

[Editor]

Huntarian: "Last time I looked we were still the Party of freedom lets keep it that way."

Donal Blaney: "Both state funding of political parties and imposing a maximum amount anyone can donate to a political party are wrong in principle. Why are we considering yet more regulation and infringements on people's rights?"

I hesitate to take issue with two people I normally agree with but conservatives surely believe that freedom operates best within limits. In economics we believe in competition policy in order to stop powerful firms monopolising a market. Does that stop us being the party of freedom, Huntarian, or does it preserve competition? Do monopoly-busting or regulations against predatory pricing infringe people's rights, Donal, or do they give small firms with new ideas the chance to succeed?

I believe that political parties will be much more attuned to popular opinion if they are funded by the many, not the few. A Conservative Party with a donor base of tens of thousands is healthier than a Conservative Party funded by ten rich businessmen.

Where I do agree with you, Donal, is in the value of people funding an emerging conservative movement.

[Andrew Woodman]

I mentioned it before, but does anyone else think the quota scheme is madness in many seats. In my seat, we've struggled financially like most local parties and have to rely on retired volunteers to keep the admin in order and the party going.

Yet, we are required to pay thousands of pounds to CCO every year. This is money which could be invested in local campaigns but instead goes down the CCO black hole.

[Donal Blaney]

We are not that far apart, Tim. I agree with you that diversity in funding is essential and lots of small donations from donors is the way forward.

I would far rather that our larger donors spent money on funding groups such as YBF to train association officers and activists how to raise money locally or to fund excellent campaign consultants such as Greg Smith (who raised tens of thousands for Greg Hands in Hammersmith & Fulham), rather than spending it on CCHQ/CCO.

[Donal Blaney]

The other madness that drives me crazy is the way some associations spend their entire financial year raising money to pay the CCO quota and to pay their agent. The agent spends all his time raising money to pay his own salary, rather than concentrating on his job. We also need to get associations to realise that raising £100 at a cheese and wine does not constitute fundraising. If political campaigns are to be run in a more smart manner, using financial and human resources more effectively, this involves the proactive raising of smaller sums from a wider pool of people in local communities.

[Donal Blaney]

The final point I would make about Lord Ashcroft funding target seats is that I fear that it made many associations and candidates lazy as to their responsibilities to raise funds. They sat back and accepted a handout under the guise of this allowing them to spend more time canvassing and campaigning. In reality time spent fundraising IF DONE PROPERLY is very productive and rewarding. I would humbly suggest to Lord A that next time he funds the training of fundraisers in associations so they can help themselves, rather than simply handing out money. This would be more conservative!

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Is it only me that gets annoyed by the use of conservative rather than Conservative? The Conservative Party by-and-large hasn't been conservative for decades or more, and this aping of US domestic politics is profoundly disturbing.

[malcolm]

A very interesting thread this and I'm sorry I have been away from my P.C.all day.
On the whole I side with the Editor I think although I would be a bit concerned as to the effect it would have in practice.It might even make CCO a little more appreciative of the time and albeit insignificant amounts of money I give to the party.I would also be concerned that if funds dry up for the two main parties there would be a successful call for state funding something which I am wholly against.
I think also we can draw a distinction between Ashcroft and Wheeler.The former has given considerable amounts of time and money and kept his private views private as far as I'm aware.Wheeler on the other hand shouts his mouth off too often to the media in a way which is not at all helpful.Why anyone would be interested in his views on politics anymore than the average pub bore I really don't know.

[Andrew Woodman]

I've sent you an e-mail regarding funding btw Donal.

[Editor]

Cllr Lindley: "This aping of US domestic politics is profoundly disturbing."

This post has been about avoiding one aspect of US domestic politics, Iain - its moneyed natured. But I'd love it if we aped (much of) the US conservatives' approach to tax relief, zero tolerance policing and welfare reform... but those are big topics for another day.

[Huntarian]

Tim, I quite agree that in an ideal world we should be building a mass membership party that funds all its activity from the £15/20/30 membership subscriptions and the odd fundraising dinner and the percentage cut from the National draw etc. However we don’t live in an ideal world, and in my constituency it is increasingly difficult to grow the membership to keep pace with the death rate never mind genuine expansion! We can’t be alone in this and without the big ticket boys and girls nationally we would be lost and bankrupt.
Were it not for the Stuart Wheeler for example funding Liam Fox’s challenge for the leadership, or Phil Harris and his friends funding DC, would we have had the contest at all, or would it have been Howard’s way that won the day at the National convention?.
We are both avid believers in more democracy in our party, I would love to see the day that 25% of all those who voted Conservative were actually members of the party, but again we find in my constituency that on top of our membership we have about another 15%-20% of people who are regular donors but simply wont become members--- there seems to be some physiological barrier. I liked the idea that DC seemed to float in his campaign of, registered supporters—maybe that’s a way round it. Perhaps people think that it is easier to withdraw their support than cancel a membership.
But I digress, as the Party of freedom we also advocate responsibility that surely is why we promote legislation to ensure fair competition and attack monopoly. State funding would be an extension of socialism, limiting the size of donations takes away from the rights of the individual to do with his money whatever he wishes.
We will not win the next election without the generosity of the larger donors. Blair would not have won in 97 without the efforts of Levy and the blind trusts.
Having been at the sharp end of fundraising for over 20 years, any donor to our party who thought he could buy influence with a cheque has been sadly disappointed. My experience is that we treat our donors abysmally. Sure the odd fellow gets a gong, so what, if that’s what makes the world go round, I can live with that.
We need to win first and build the mass membership party after we are in power, the big ticket chaps are heroes in my book and deserve better recognition for their generosity

[Andy Peterkin]

"Is it only me that gets annoyed by the use of conservative rather than Conservative? The Conservative Party by-and-large hasn't been conservative for decades or more, and this aping of US domestic politics is profoundly disturbing."

Surey its just a means of distinguishing between someone who has paid £15 for a membership card and a certain intellectual strand within the Party, and nothing to be worried about?

[Donal Blaney]

The point I am making, Iain, is that you can support the values of the Party without supporting, belonging to or even voting for the Party - hence the distinction between a conservative movement (encompassing different organisations and interests that are broadly supportive of the Party and its values) and the Conservative Party itself.

[MTK]

A passing comment about state funding of political parties:

Isn't that what happens at the self-styled "European Parliament"?

It forced that party to quiesce its instincts for the both money and even the right to speak in debate.

Like PR, it discourages anything like individual representation, and we must oppose it for the same reasons.

Whatever differences exist in the Conservative Party, surely we can all agree that we do not want it to be nationalised!

[Editor]

A reaction to some of your comments, Huntarian...

"Were it not for the Stuart Wheeler for example funding Liam Fox’s challenge for the leadership, or Phil Harris and his friends funding DC, would we have had the contest at all, or would it have been Howard’s way that won the day at the National convention?"

I'm not against big donors - just a limit of c£100,000. The party leadership campaigns could still have been financed. The same concern applies anyway. I would prefer we elected a leader who was able to attract lots of donors than just a couple of chums writing him fat cheques.

"I liked the idea that DC seemed to float in his campaign of, registered supporters—maybe that’s a way round it. Perhaps people think that it is easier to withdraw their support than cancel a membership."

I'm 100% in agreement with you on this. We need to stop raising money only from members. Donations from people who support our climate change or keep the pound campaigns are just as valuable. Becoming more of a campaigning organisation is one important way forward on funding.

"State funding would be an extension of socialism."

"State socialism" is already happening. In recent years MPs have voted themselves much bigger allowances and Short Money keeps HM Opposition afloat. I think it would be better if the funding followed the choices of individual donors, rather than decisions taken by bureaucrats/ politicians in Westminster.

Limiting the size of donations takes away from the rights of the individual to do with his money whatever he wishes.

Just as easy to say that stopping predatory pricing takes away the rights of a would-be monopolist to cut his prices in order to bankrupt competitors. I think giving more than c£100,000 amounts to predatory funding. It discourages a political party from forming connections with real people throughout Britain.

"We will not win the next election without the generosity of the larger donors. Blair would not have won in 97 without the efforts of Levy and the blind trusts."

As I said - we shouldn't unilaterally disarm but we should support legal change.

We need to win first and build the mass membership party after we are in power, the big ticket chaps are heroes in my book and deserve better recognition for their generosity.

As Labour has shown - membership tends to fall when you're in power... when you're making difficult decisions. We should be building a mass CONNECTIONS (forget the exclusive focus on membership) party now.

The big ticket chaps are heroes (most of them, anyway) but so long as they are able to bankroll the party we're less likely to become the mass connections, campaigning party we need to become.

***

PS Noone has answered my James Goldsmith worry, by the way... "Imagine if the late James Goldsmith hadn't just funded the Referendum Party for the 1997 General Election but had set up a £200m endowment that would have allowed it to campaign in perpetuity? That would have been perfectly legal under existing rules."

[Richard]

"Imagine if the late James Goldsmith hadn't just funded the Referendum Party for the 1997 General Election but had set up a £200m endowment that would have allowed it to campaign in perpetuity? That would have been perfectly legal under existing rules."

I can't see anything wrong with that. His money, he can do what he likes with it.

"Do monopoly-busting or regulations against predatory pricing infringe people's rights"

Yes, they do. The most effective cure to monopoly is a deregulated free market. The only monopoly that can survive on such a market is one that satisfies its customers. Predatory pricing also benefits consumers. The idea that once they have knocked their competitors out of the market, large businesses will then jack up prices is a myth. If they did that they'd quickly find themselves being challenged from somewhere offering lower prices.

https://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=678

To conclude, I don't believe the state should legislate regarding donations to political parties. However, I do believe that the Tories voluntarily ought to be open about donations they receive and make it clear that donations will not buy influence. This would set an example to Labour and the Lib Dems as well as reassure voters that the Tories are not in the pcoket of "Big Business". Having said that, I can understand the Tories promising some consessions to pressure groups who might fund them (such as the TPA) on the basis that these have an open and clear agenda that chime with Conservative principles.

[Alexander Drake]

The Labour Party has the money and resources of the union movement to fall back on, and is also currently supported by the resources of incumbency.

We need to get the money from where we can.

Damn the high and mighty talk about where the money should come from, all's fair in love and war! Don't think the Labour Party are going to give up their money from the unions!

That's also why I don't care whether it's publicly funded either - if we accept short money, we accept the principle of State assistance to the Party's operations. Beyond that it's hair-splitting imho.

[EU Serf]

I think we should try and squeeze some cash out of these generous donors for organisations like The Taxpayers Alliance and Donal's YBF. Then we could have a genuine conservative movement, as well as a party.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"What is it with you, Daniel? For a while you seemed almost reasonable. Now you've regressed back to your head-banging, Cameron-hating, dripping with condescension, morally superior pre-leadership old self. Pity."

Oh look - I make a point about how criticism of Cameron isn't tolerated and I get an anonymous ad hominem attack in return!

Excuse me if I don't keel over with shock - I can only assume this comment was an attempt at irony?

For the record, I don't hate Cameron, but I don't subscribe to the brand of uncritical sycophancy that has afflicted more than one of the contributors to this site.

"Daniel, that is an unjustified load of tosh."

I don't think so Mark. Take a look at the point I have just addressed as a shining example of what I was referring to.

[Gareth]

"We also need to get associations to realise that raising £100 at a cheese and wine does not constitute fundraising"

Have I missed something?

[Gareth]

"Why anyone would be interested in his [Wheeler's] views on politics anymore than the average pub bore"

Hear, hear Malcolm. IIRC, Wheeler's intervention was a crucial tipping point in the knifing of IDS. To pretend, as some on here do, that these large donors are without influence is not borne out by the evidence. Not only do they influence the party but they also think they have a RIGHT to influence the party.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Coming back to the point about fundraising, could reform of this not be tied in with reforms to our candidate selection and leadership election processes?

The idea I have in mind is if open primaries are to be held in future, why not charge non-members for participating (say, £5 for candidate selection, £10 for leadership election)?

The benefits of this would be twofold: firstly, it would help raise money and secondly, it would act as a disincentive to members of other parties to sabotage the process.

[Editor]

DVA: "The idea I have in mind is if open primaries are to be held in future, why not charge non-members for participating (say, £5 for candidate selection, £10 for leadership election)?"

That all sounds a bit much, DVA, but the Italian left recently had open primaries to choose their opponent to Berlusconi and requested €2 (I think) from each voter. They raised a lot of dosh.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"That all sounds a bit much, DVA, but the Italian left recently had open primaries to choose their opponent to Berlusconi and requested €2 (I think) from each voter. They raised a lot of dosh."

Yes, but my concern is that a smaller sum would not be enough to discourage rogue elements from intervening and voting en masse for a less suitable candidate - although I guess some sort of candidate pre-selection process could be implemented in the form of a restricted shortlist, but this would not be in the spirit of greater democratisation of the party.

I recall that a well-known troublemaking blog openly advocated joining the Liberal Demoprats for only £6 specifically to influence their leadership election.

[Richard]

"Not only do they influence the party but they also think they have a RIGHT to influence the party."

Probably on the basis that they donate lots of money. If you buy a lot of shares in a company you're allowed to vote at shareholder meetings and have more clout than those who have bought less.

If it was made clear to them BEFORE they donated that they wouldn't be permitted such influence then they certainly couldn't argue that they have the right.

[Editor]

My guess, though, is that most partisans wouldn't want to give €2 for their opponents to deploy against them.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"My guess, though, is that most partisans wouldn't want to give €2 for their opponents to deploy against them."

Yes, but if you elect somebody with questionable competence, there's a chance that no matter how much money you give them, they will prove incapable of using it effectively. I point you in the direction of our current government!

[Gareth]

"Probably on the basis that they donate lots of money. If you buy a lot of shares in a company you're allowed to vote at shareholder meetings and have more clout than those who have bought less."

I'm afraid this is precisely my concern Richard. We're not a Plc with shares to trade. The party must be in a position where it can judge the merits of any proffered advice on the basis of how good the advice is, not how many 'shares' in Tory Party Plc the advice giver has.

I happened to agree with Wheeler when he said IDS should be deposed, but I was very uncomfortable with the views of a party member, not elected to any party or public position, being give such great weight. It makes us look like we're for sale to the highest bidder.

[Editor]

Gareth: "I'm afraid this is precisely my concern Richard. We're not a Plc with shares to trade. The party must be in a position where it can judge the merits of any proffered advice on the basis of how good the advice is, not how many 'shares' in Tory Party Plc the advice giver has."

Precisely. Well said.

[Tom Greeves]

I love big businesses. They provide cheap, convenient services and products, and thousands of jobs. What's not to love?

The restrictions on political spending in the States are a GROTESQUE abuse of the First Amendment, and his obsession with it is why I don't want Senator McCain to win the GOP nomination.

If it's all transparent then the public can show their approval or lack thereof at the ballot box. And Alexander Drake is right, Labour are still in hock to the communist unions, which is far more worrying than a few sane businessmen having an influence.

Global capitalism forever! The destruction of socialism, communism and protectionism too!

[Derek]

"£100 raised at a cheese and wine evening is not fund-raising." - Don't mock the small event. As someone who is trying to keep an association afloat this is not terribly helpful. True I would much rather hold a £100 a head dinner for several hundred people- who wouldn't?

Every pound raised in any honest manner is gratefully received. On the very rare occasion when someone sends in a cheque for £1,000 we are delighted. I will consider any new idea, but I am also pleased to carry on with our coffee mornings, bring and buy, raffles, etc.