Cameron to 'clean up' British politics

Today's Tory proposals to put a cap on party donations and to reduce the number of MPs come on another day when there are more sleaze stories.

Today we have allegations about Ruth Kelly's expenses:

"The Conservatives are calling for an investigation into claims that Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary, has a “black hole” in her Commons expenses. Ms Kelly has been accused of claiming £72,000 to cover utility bills and interest payments that she makes on her mortgage for her constituency home near Bolton."

And another Lord admitting to Labour loans:

"The Labour Party was dealt another embarrassing blow last night when Lord Sainsbury said he had also lent the party £2m."

The Guardian provides a balanced Labour vs. Tories sleaze list, it won't be long before voters see that balance weighing on this government even more heavily.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[Margaret]

Why are most politicians greedy and self seeking? They have well paid jobs, fantastic pensions but they still have to fill their pockets with every penny they can fleece out of honest, hardworking electors.

The general public don't seem to care what they get up to, are they blind or perhaps we are turning into a nation without any ethics or morals.

[john Skinner]

Silly of the Tories to say in advance that proposals would be made today. Not surprisingly, Lord Falkender was on Today to trump them. This is an obvious lesson in not announcing policies too far ahead of the next election.

[EU Serf]

I don't understand this allowance culture in politics. Just up their wages and make the whole thing transparent.

[Chad]

Echoing earlier thoughts, but there does seem to be huge public support for zero state funding of political parties.

Sam Younger quotes a figure of 76% against state funding.

If Cameron was really looking to represent the views of the people, and push for a smaller state, he would call for an immediate end to 'short money' and all state funding of political parties.

Unfortunately, it is likely he is going to head in the exact opposite direction and ask for a bigger state, increased state funding.

Perhaps RightLinks might consider a new campaign to end all state funding of political parties?

[Edward]

The prospect of state funding is abhorrent to me. What's worse is that this quotation has come from a supposed Conservative.

"We want people to make more donations, more smaller donations, from more people. To pay for this there will be an element of state funding."

To pay for this? How does more people making more donations require the state to fund or pay for anything? Surely it's individuals paying for it? Unless, of course, the Parties sees the income they currently get as something to which they have a divine right. Whoever thought we shouldn't offer subsidies to prop up failing businesses...

[Chad]

The prospect of state funding

It's not a prospect, it's here and now Edward.

The Tories have been paid £22.5 million in state funding over the past five years, and the LibDems have received £9 million.

The Tories are not asking to start state funding, they are asking to increase the amount they already receive.

[John Hustings]

The trouble is, as tarnished as Labour have been by this loans affair, it hasn't benefited the Tories. Cameron has actually come away looking shifty. I think we are seeing the revelation of a weakness in Cameron's strategy. By fixing himself so closely to Tony Blair, and quite openly presenting himself as continuity to Blair, he isn't there to benefit when Blair's reputation falls. Indeed, Gordon Brown, curiously enough, is more in a position to benefit.

Cameron's pitch that he is Blair mkII is looking less and less apetising for a much more cynical public. His shiftiness on this matter -- in playing along with the Blair line that it's the system that's at fault, not the current administration -- he is opening himself up to the charge that the Tories are no different. Here we see the failure of "consensus" politics.

[Ted]

I'd prefer all private funding, openly & transparently. Problem is that Blair has shown how even transparent funding can drive legislation; do we realy believe he'd have gone through fox hunting farrago if he hadn't got funding from IFAW?

Cameron & Osborne are right to suggest limits - can't see why £100,000 isn't an acceptable maximum though. Problem we face is that we want a professional party operation, supporting local associations, leading campaigns, spending time researching etc. That costs money.

I'm waiting to see the full details - looks like DC is going to suggest a fiscally neutral solution of reducing number of MPs and increasing party funding. Not sure what the incremental saving per MP is (salary plus expenses? = ?) but costs of parliament are basically fixed as buildings still need to be there, officials still need to be there. A cut of 100 MPs could save £10m-£15m p.a. so it might work out that state funding overall doesn't increase.

Wouldn't like to be the one to tell Winterton or someone like him that his seats going to fund the party..... remember being amazed anyone could be so loud in a small room in HoL addressing 30 or so people!

[RobC]

I would like to see some reform of campaign funding, before it gets too much like the US.

[Edward]

I think we're doom-mongering a bit about Cameron's response to this. It all just adds to the general public opinion that things need a shake-up. He can still benefit from that by positioning himself, probably using other vehicles to do this, so as to be the one to offer that shake-up.

[buxtehude]

Exactly right, John: "Cameron's pitch that he is Blair Mark II is looking less and less appetising for a much more cynical public."

Our £276k-a-year part-time brand consultant Steve Hilton doesn't seem to understand the basics of branding (probably because his company specialises in that vacuous department of brand-management that deals with helping companies pretend to be 'socially responsible'). The classic book on marketing by Reis and Trout include these fundamentals, which Cameron should consider:

* You must be Number 1 in a category (we are playing me-too with Blair, while Brown cuts a distinctive figure)

* The worst thing you can do is to try and beat the #1 player at his own game (he has all the advantages in that game)

* If you cannot be first in your category, setup a new category (you have to offer a genuine alternative or why should someone switch?)

* You have to give up something in order to get something (ie you can't please everyone)

[Edward]

I'd agree with all you say bar your last comment, buxtehude. We can't please everyone but we have to please enough to win the next election. Was the "ie" your's or the book's?

[buxtehude]

The 'ie' was mine. I agree, Edward, that we do need to please a lot of people! But I think its relevance here is that we can't try to please Guardian readers and Daily Mail readers at the same time. I realise the DC line is that we can without the Daily Mail, but they forget that most people are not very political and are tempted not to bother to vote at all. You can't assume they have nowhere else to go, because many will just go nowhere.

They 'nowhere else to go' notion is actually extraordinary, as if voters are captive, as if they must vote for someone. This is the bit the Notting Hillers will never understand: just how ordinary people really feel about the entire cabaret.

[Ted]

Bux

Counter arguement:

1) No 1 is being withdrawn - so space created in market
2) See above
3) Agreed but if you've tried to launch product x 3 times and its failed in the market its unlikely to succeed the fourth time. So look at what made No 1 successful, steal those you need (as Tony B stole our policies) but show you've got a better formula.
4) agreed, so drop market failures (Sony eventually accepted VHS even though its offer was technically better because the public wouldn't buy it). We pleased our 30% voter share but didn't attract the rest - so give up / change those things that re-inforced their distrust.

Tony Blair won because he moved his agenda onto our territory at a time our brand had been compromised - his USP was he'd do what we proposed but he'd add a human face, he'd care about health & education, he was new and full of optimism.

Cameron's message is that we care, we aren't hard faced pragmatists who put tax cuts for the rich ahead of health care for the many, we don't just care about the 7% who get ahead in private/selected school but want better education for the other 93%. That we have better answers on the environment, on civil liberties, on social justice and world poverty. (What I don't know)

Maybe it'll work, maybe not but lets give it a chance - just over three months isn't a test.

[malcolm]

I don't quite understand what this discussion has to do with Cameron trying to clean up the sleazy state of British politics.

[Richard]

Can we please start referring to "sleaze" as corruption? Sleaze makes it sound only moderately unpleasant. The public might take more notice if a more familiar and powerful word is used.

Unfortunately the public seems to be becoming increasingly cynical when it comes to politicians and their behaviour. Deference and trust in politicians has decreased over the past few decades and a general view of "they're all in it for themselves" holds sway. If Cameron says "I'll clean up British politics" people will just reply "Tony Blair said that".

[buxtehude]

Ted, I completely agree with "we care, we aren't hard faced pragmatists who put tax cuts for the rich ahead of health care for the many, we don't just care about the 7% who get ahead in private/selected school but want better education for the other 93%. That we have better answers on the environment, on civil liberties, on social justice and world poverty."

I want that party too. But the way they promote it doesn't work. I don't want tax cuts for the rich, I want a strong economy for ordinary working people which means a low-tax economy. I want good healthcare for everyone which means not accepting the statist NHS. I want good schooling for everyone, which means freeing up the system and creating different kinds of opportunities for kids (I'm least worried about our education policy, by the way). I want solutions to the environment which are not based on the feel-good fantasies of Kyoto. I strongly support an emphasis on civil liberties. I want social justice, both here and around the world, based on non-statist solutions such as those advanced by the CSJ (and, from time to time, DC).

The trouble is that whenever DC is required to show some principle or intellectual effort on any real issue, he ducks away.

The last thing I want is a reversion to Michael Howard! I don't want DC to be replaced by anyone else. I just want him to be better. I want him to free himself from the cosy group of privileged insiders and face up the the real challenge. As soon as possible.

[buxtehude]

Malcolm - "I don't quite understand what this discussion has to do with Cameron trying to clean up the sleazy state of British politics." - it's this: no-one seems to be very impressed by Cameron's entry into the debate. Why? Because no-one sees him as different. He's presenting as a Blair Mk 2 (this is the comment that started me off). So it IS relevant. Your response to issues must be embedded in a real idea of the world.

[Chad]

If Cameron says "I'll clean up British politics" people will just reply...

Will that be before or after the Tories leave the EPP, Dave?

[malcolm]

Bux.I'll be impressed with Cameron if 1)he succeeds in making the Conservatives financial dealings open and transparent and 2)releases the names of those who have loaned money to the party and reveals whether we too have sold peerages or other honours to them.
If it appears that we have sold honours then I would (probably very niavely) hope that Cameron would force those responsible out of their positions within the party.
Then and only then would we be able to take the moral high ground and Cameron would then have performed a really worthwhile service for our party and the country.

[Ted]

malcolm

The Blessed Margaret created a huge number of peers, many of whom were Chairmen/CEOs of companies. Many of these were donors. Major was noticeably more transparent and reforming and created fewer peers.

I'd like to see:
1 HoL reformed to all or mostly elected with any appointments made fuly scrutinised. Having ex-PMs & significant politicians, church leaders does improve the House as a revising chamber so argument for 20% appointed.
2 Honours system put under the aegis of a Royal Honours Commission reporting to the Queen. Membership of commission proposed by Government but subject to approval by HoL.
3 Party funding to be transparent, any loans etc highlighted, maximum donations set at or below £100,000. State funding, if we have to have it, set at maximum of level = 40% of membership/donations (so equivalent of higher rate tax relief)

[mac]

How come Cameron is so (rightly) exercised about corruption at home, which is measured in the £100,000's if Labour, £1000's if it's Tory, but never mentions EU corruption which is valued in £10,000,000's?

If his claims to be anti-corruption are to be credible, he cannot leave the Conservatives inside the EPP a day longer.

[Chad]

If you seperate the title from the HoL, then they should be free to openly sell meaningless titles to the vain as long as the cash ends up in the state's coffers not the party's. - so Ted's point (1) is a way forward.

However, having considered the practicalities that the Big 3 will not give up their existing cosy and lucrative state funding properly, I just don't feel comfortable with the pragmatic approach of asking for fairer distribution when, in principle, I believe state funding to be wrong.

There should be zero state funding of political parties, caps on donations, and declaration of loans.

If a party cannot attract a wide enough support base to cover its costs it will then be forced to either cut its costs, try to attract new members or slowly whither away.

I never thought I would see conservatives campaigning for more state, not less, then, CamCons are in danger of being perceived to be to the left of Brown.

[Samuel Coates]

How about a minimum proportion of debates/votes that peers have to attend if they are to keep their title? (excepting mitigating medical circumstances)

I've always thought that an entirely appointed Lords could feasibly work, with innovative ways of avoiding crony selection. It would be a good way of getting some real specialist expertise and a broader cross-section of society anyway - am yet to be convinced of the point in another entirely elected chamber in the UK.

[Margaret]

mac. I don't believe Cameron wants the Tory MEPs to leave the EPP. It was a sop to the right wingers and they fell for it.

If Daniel Hannan in today's telegraph is to be believed, by the time and if, Cameron becomes PM, we will already have been subsumed into a Federal State called Europe.

What is Cameron doing to oppose the EU Constitution which is being implemented as we talk on this BB?

[Chad]

How about a minimum proportion of debates/votes that peers have to attend if they are to keep their title? (excepting mitigating medical circumstances)

What's wrong with trusting communities, and using democracy Sam?

"Trust local communities" Mr Cameron likes to say with his tongue push firmly into one cheek (and no, not one of Mr Blairs, you rude ones at the back).

Remove the party rosettes, and simply get communities to vote for the good and wise in their communities.

[malcolm]

Your ideas seem sensible to me Ted although I would orefer that tax relief is allowed for political donations rather than state funding.I'm also not sure about a cap on the size of donations, if all is open and transparent there shouldn't be a problem.Introducing an artificial cap seems to me to be an attempt to play party politics and make it difficult for the Unions.I would hope that we can be above such things.

[Chad]

Malcolm, the caps are also useful in moderating the loans, as a millionaire donor would not be able to convert all the loan in one go, and so interest will still be payable etc making the whole arrangement less attractive and more like a, well, er, loan.

[Ted]

In answer to why another appointed chamber. A unicameral chamber in a representative democracy like ours, especially one unfettered by a written constitution, can lead to real elective dicatorship. A second chamber, limited as is HoL (ie cannot refuse the government supply, can reject but subject to acceptance of manifesto committments and overruling by representative house) provides a significant brake on the lower house. The HoL could for example have a duty of care towards the Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act and other measures to protect the liberties of the citizen.

To retain the strengths of the HoL we need to keep its objectivity and lower focus on immediate electoral needs. I'd like a HoL to which members are elected for a set period say every 8 years with half elected every 4 years.

I would like to see one that was not representative in terms of constituencies but of the regions and nations - Australia has a good model with constituency representation in lower house and state/territorial representation in upper house. Perhaps we could even have PR in HoL?

I also as above think there is a case for certain people to be appointed but these should be a minority.

[AnnaK]

Why blame Cameron for the loans that funded the 2005 election. Surely the party should ask Michael Howard some questions?.

[Samuel Coates]

The sleaze balance has truly shifted!
Breaking news: Alan B'stard defects to Labour :D

[Matt Simpson]

CCHQ have just published a paper on 'cleaning up politics'

http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/cleaninguppolitics.pdf

[Richard]

"I'd like a HoL to which members are elected for a set period say every 8 years with half elected every 4 years."

Personally I'd like to see the House of Lords returned to its pre-1997 position. Yes, this system wasn't democratic but the fact is that it worked. The case against it wasn't based on rational grounds but on left-wing prejudice and ideology.

[Margaret]

Chad wrote:- Remove the party rosettes, and simply get communities to vote for the good and wise in their communities.

I think this is a good idea. Dr. Richard Taylor, MP for Wyre Forest managed to get himself re-elected, so not being backed by a political party did him no harm.

[Jon White]

No-one has mentioned the writing off of billions of pounds owed to Great Britain from tin-pot African dictatorships - money used almost exclusively for Guns not Butter - by Bliar and Brown for purely political ends.

This was not, to my recollection, in any manifesto, nor did the public have the chance to veto this throwing away of THEIR money.

A finer example of misuse of money to further a party's political ends escapes me for the moment.

(Written as someone who, through choice, sponsors children in Africa. My sympathies are with the people there, my anger is at NuLab for giving away my money without asking me).

[Annabel Herriott]

I agree with John Skinner. DC should ring round NOW, tell the past donors it does have to happen, and just print the lot. End of. Nick Robinson was being quite hostile this afternoon on BBC news 24.It must be very dizzy making for these political correspondents at present, not knowing which collar to feel.

[AnnaK]

I agree Annabel, but I wonder if Cameron could be sued if he released the names.

[Samuel Coates]

Our Four Key Proposals:

There are four components to the reforms proposed:

1. There should be a cap on party political donations from any individual or organisation, set initially at £50,000 a year. In the longer term, after a transitional period, we believe that all corporate institutions and trade union donations should be brought to an end. We must ensure there is no suspicion that money can buy honours or influence over policy. These proposals would encourage parties to widen their funding base, and they offer Tony Blair and Gordon Brown the opportunity once and for all to end the Labour Party's reliance on trade union funding - and with it the suspicion that the unions act as a brake on vital public service improvement plans.

2. These proposals would ban all forms of loans to parties, except from financial institutions on fully commercial terms. The Electoral Commission must oversee these to ensure that they cannot become disguised donations.

3. We want to cut the cost of politics. The paper proposes lowering the limit on general election campaign spending from £20 million to £15 million. It suggests further proposals to cut the cost of politics, including a reduction in the number of special advisers, the abolition of Regional Assemblies, and consideration to a reduction in the number of MPs. The cost of politics under Labour has gone up by hundreds of thousands of pounds. The savings proposed in the paper can offset the additional cost of state funding.

4. We believe that cutting the cost of politics would make it fair to ask taxpayers to contribute more to the costs of political parties getting their message across to the electorate independently and directly. Any extension of state funding should be based on votes cast and increasing grass-roots participation. In this way, additional state funding will avoid rewarding failure at the polls or encouraging apathy in membership recruitment.

[Ted]

Proposals OK - still dislike public funding. Comes across as a way of getting Labour (union affiliation fees out) and hitting some things we don't like (advisors, Regional assemblies).

But why not yesterday? why didn't pre-empt Labour with list of our loans and who from for at least 2004 & 2005?

Sorry DC - too little, too late
- gave Gov't chance to get loans ban in first,
- Prescott asks why can't Tories be as open as Labour.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I must say I don't fancy Tony Blair as an ex-PM being in the HoL, he would start using it as a power base, and since there must be quite a few 'lords' who are beholden to him for their titles, he might even be successful!!

[Richard Carey]

"Prescott asks why can't Tories be as open as Labour."

Not that Prescott usually gets the chance to question us, but I will answer this as he probably ceased thinking before all six of his chins came to rest!

The Conservative Party, as I understand, has previously published the headline lending figure in our annual accounts.

Assuming that the Labour Party's Hon. Treasurer, unaware of the loans to fund the party's election campaign, has to sign off on the accounts, then that surely means that we have made far greater disclosure than Labour, as well as apparently more accurate accounting.

In addition, we have had people looking at this for the last three months in the interests of improving democracy, as opposed to the Labour Party that has had people looking at this for the last three days in the interests of shifting the argument away from the criteria that the Prime Minister uses in Lords' appointments.

[Richard Carey]

"Remove the party rosettes, and simply get communities to vote for the good and wise in their communities."

A different suggestion from the opposition. Given that you're suggesting the Conservative Party candidates do this, does that mean that your own party candidates won't be asked to stand under a rosette of any colour?

[Chad]

My candidates will do it for love, not little piggies with snouts in troughs.. :-)

More soon but for now, West Ham are in the Semis!!

[Chad]

In all seriousness though, these proposals combine a cheap swipe at the Unions as Malcolm noted with a demand to reward failure by substituting the collapse in support with state funding.

Tribalism aside, as individuals with conservative core values, can anyone condone the CamCons call for more state funding?

For a small party it would be tempting to agree to state funding, but it is wrong as it involves bigger state involvement, when no conservatism could support such an approach.

So although the easier, instantly lucrative approach would be to support these proposals, the principled, conservative reaction would be to reject them and that is what I will do.

When parties stop acting like they have a divine right to exist no matter how much they abuse their core supporters, only then will support return. It is only a downward spiral because parties are not representing their members.

We are now in a situation where a "Conservative" Party is not just supporting but actually proposing more state funding.

It beggars belief. My first press release will be a call for the end to all state funding of political parties.

[Richard Carey]

"My candidates will do it for love, not little piggies with snouts in troughs.. :-)"

I am sure, despite the juvenile smiley face, that many Party supporters like me will deeply resent this comment. I, along with many others, have given much time and effort working for the Conservative Party on a voluntary basis, and have never asked for or received a penny in recompense. Indeed (and this should not be taken as a complaint of any kind!!) it has certainly been at a net and gross financial cost, when personal expenses and leave from work are taken into account.

Enjoy that press release, now, won't you? And, why are you here again, now that you have decided you are no longer a Conservative and are going to stand candidates (if you can find some) against the Conservative Party?

[Margaret]

Lots of us have tramped the streets shoving leaflets through doors. Leafletting is a waste of time and money, people vote for parties now, not individuals, that is why 40% of the electorate do not vote, they cannot distinguish between the 3 main parties.

A good local candidate, respected in his/her community would help to bring politics back to the people again. I bet most people do not even know who their MP is.

[Chad]

Richard,

And, why are you here again, now that you have decided you are no longer a Conservative and are going to stand candidates

Because I am a conservative (small c). Sorry, if that offends you.

Please attack the issues, not the man. Tim did say he would ban those who continue to do this.

I've said it many times, and like many here, I am a conservative, but that is not the same as a CamCon which apprears to be heading to the left of Brown.

OK, so you support an almost socialist state-funded party imposing candidates with ersatz diversity, failing its pledge to withdraw from the EPP, but I do not.

I won't be hounded off just because I dare to disagree. That said, banning disagreement is probably the next step in Comrade Cameron's grand plan.

Again, I am amazed that because I oppose state funding, big government, keeping taxes high, support grammar schools, and am an internationalist (thus eu-sceptic) people like yourself are getting aggressive and suggest that I have no place commenting on a conservative website!

I really fear that Cameron is the Gorbachev of the Tory Party, as he is in danger of bringing it down completely.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>I think this is a good idea. Dr. Richard Taylor, MP for Wyre Forest managed to get himself re-elected, so not being backed by a political party did him no harm.<<<<
He is a member of a political party (Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern), in fact one of it's founders - they controlled the local council in the area for a bit apparently and are looking to spread, it's a local political party but still a party.

[William Norton]

Slightly off thread:

STOP PRESS:
Charles Clarke queries Jack Dromey's competence as Labour Treasurer and wonders about his motives.

STOP PRESS:
Inspector Knacker to investigate complaint that Labour have sold honours. "I've got it taped" says Top Cop.

Watch out for these stories any moment now:

Jack Dromey shot by Police armed response unit. "We thought he was a Brazilian" says tearful rozzer.

Peerage for Met Chief. "He's demonstrated he has all the qualities I've come to expect of a member of the House of Lords. He's my kind of person" says Tony Blair.

[Richard Carey]

Please attack the issues, not the man. Tim did say he would ban those who continue to do this.

Chad,

I certainly have no wish to attract the ire of our esteemed Editor - the controls on this site are obviously a matter for him and his deputy, but it is spurious for you to allege that I have breached any standard of conduct.

I felt it important that the advice that you offered the Conservative Party in this thread be qualified by the fact that you are now working to stand candidates against it, and for that I make no apology.

OK, so you support an almost socialist state-funded party

I'm not in the slightest bit hurt by any of the many epithets hurled in the direction of myself and my colleagues by political opponents in the last few years, but "socialist" has to be the strangest...

Perhaps in the interest of harmony and more constructive discussion on ConservativeHome.com, you and I should agree to disagree?

Richard.

[Richard Carey]

Perhaps in the interest of harmony and more constructive discussion on ConservativeHome.com, you and I should agree to disagree?

I should have added to that: because this is really not the the argument that I would ideally like you, me or any of us here to be expending time or energy on!

[Samuel Coates]

Thanks for keeping it civil guys.

On another note, v.interesting book review comparing Cameron's style with JFK's.