Tory proposals to 'clean up politics' are launched

David Cameron has now announced Conservative proposals to 'clean up politics'.  The proposals are the product of a three month study by Andrew Tyrie MP.  Full details can be found in a pdf on conservatives.com but the main recommendations are listed below (with Editor's comments):

• An upper limit "on donations from individuals, trade unions, corporations and institutions" of £50,000.  "This," the party says, "will end parties' reliance on a small number of large donations and address concerns about donations buying honours or influencing policy".  It is a tighter restriction than the £100,000 suggested by ConservativeHome but a speedy vindication of our campaign.  It also offers great opportunities for the 'conservative movement'.  The big donors who have sunk all their treasure into CCHQ can soon invest it in The Taxpayers' Alliance, think tanks and, er, um, ConservativeHome!
• Tax relief on donations of up to £3,000.  This is to be welcomed.  Giving to a political party is a public-spirited thing to do and should be honoured in the same way that charitable giving is encouraged.
• "A ban on all forms of loans to parties, except from financial institutions on fully commercial terms, should be imposed."  Labour - rightly - seems poised to legislate for this immediately.
• There would be additional state funding in the Tory proposals but this would be paid for by reductions in other costs of politics: "a reduction in the number of special advisers, the abolition of Regional Assemblies, and consideration to a reduction in the number of MPs."  This seems a reasonable deal for the taxpayer.
• Additional state funding based on the number of votes a party received at the previous General Election.  The Tories propose a one-off £1.20 for each vote received at a General Election plus 60p per vote every year.  This is the least attractive recommendation.  The parliamentary allowance given to MPs already provides a significant advantage to incumbent politicians.  The advantage to incumbency will only be increased by a financial awards scheme that reflect the choices of yesteryear's voters.  "Additional state funding" should be proportionate to a political party's current ability to fundraise.
• A reduction in permitted General Election expenditure from £20m to £15m.  This seems a reasonable proposal.  Much of current expenditure is wasted on billboard advertising (and not very good billboard advertising at that).  I know plenty of Tory candidates fighting LibDems who hated anti-Labour billboards appearing on their turf.  Coalition-building and narrowcast campaigning is the way of the future (but none of this is cheap).
• A final proposal: "A statutory Honours Commission, accountable to both Houses of Parliament, to replace the House of Lords Appointments Commission and to assume from ministers the task of making recommendations to The Queen for all honours.”  Fair enough.

The Tory Party is clear that these recommendations intend to break the union-Labour link:

"[The proposals] 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."

For that reason it is difficult to see Labour accepting them.

Comments

[Jonathan Sheppard]

You are right to focus on the power of incumbancy which im my view has become even bigger in recent years as the Labour party have been very good to use it to its advantage.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Additional state funding based on the number of votes a party received at the previous General Election. The Tories propose a one-off £1.20 for each vote received at a General Election plus 60p per vote every year."

Ah, the true meaning of 'sharing the proceeds of growth' at last!

Seriously though, I'm really disappointed that the leader of a party that has traditionally stood for affordable, accountable government could propose handing over around £100million of our money to political parties (including, lest we forget, Sinn Fein).

Why should the already over-burdened taxpayer have to pick up the tab yet again just because the political parties can't be trusted to keep their house in order?

[malcolm]

I would agree wholeheartedly with all your comments editor although I'm more relaxed about the limits on donations.I very much hope that Conservativehome will either launch a campaign against state funding or along the lines of a matching of funding as a very bad second choice.
It is to our shame that these proposals have only seen the light of day because of the corruption that exists in the two main parties.Still we are where we are and I suppose these proposals will go a long way to ending it.

[James Hellyer]

and consideration to a reduction in the number of MPs

Yes, I'm sure increasing constituency size will make the MPs more in touch with their constituents...

What an awful, unconservative set of proposals. Why should the poor taxpayer fund political parties they disagree with? Who actually thinks that tighter rules would stop parties getting their money from big donors?

A proper conservative response would be to act with transparency, while not demanding money from the public purse.

[kingbongo]

I heard Andrew Tyrie on Radio 4 and I thought he was very good. He took a much tougher line than anyone else I've heard speak on this issue. He has been working on these proposals for a while so why wait until Labour has a chance to flip flop all over the place in a panic before bringing them out?

I'm unhappy with more state funding for parties and I think if it exists it should better reflect current opinion and mass membership rather than old election results.

None of it will be accepted anyway because Labour owe the unions (via their bank) a big share of £11 million and can't operate without their annual donations. This should again be a case where the Conservatives and LDs can agree a way forward and leave Labour isolated.

I also think we should be asking them why a pension deficit has been allowed to accrue and when they are going to plug the gap as this is another couple of million they need to find.

[kingbongo]

Yes, I'm sure increasing constituency size will make the MPs more in touch with their constituents...

The Isle of Wight (about 100,000 constituents) must be the model and I presume the idea is that all those seats in Sunderland with 40,000 consituents and irredeemably Labour will vanish.

In other words, "New Localism" :-)

[a-tracy]

If the general tax payer takes over the funding can we each have a lottery ticket and once a month someone gets an honour, and everyone six months somebody gets a lordship - that'll be the pension sorted for each winner anyway.

[a weary taxpayer]

Oh dear,

What a poorly thought out response. Has Andrew Tyrie really spent 3 months on these proposals or was he simply given a weekend and a couple of fag packets?

How does being forced to fund the BNP to the tune of around £700,000 sit with a low tax party that believes in freedom?

How does increasing constituency sizes by 10% fit with the new localism?

At least with the policy reviews we can kid ourselves for another 18 months that the policies will be worth waiting for.

[James Hellyer]

At least with the policy reviews we can kid ourselves for another 18 months that the policies will be worth waiting for.

I don't think we can. Letwin's remarks at the weekend were a clear indication that any policies or ideas out of keeping with the new order will be discarded.

[Mark Fulford]

Perhaps the increased state funding suggestion is a tactic learned from NuLab: insert something truly objectionable; concede it after consultation; get everything you really wanted without argument. But we're not in power and Labour might just be stupid enough to go with state funding which, as 'a weary taxpayer' has pointed out, would leave us funding the BNP.

The proposed system is also flawed because it doesn’t allow new parties to get off the ground.

[Ted]

Not as bad as I expected on public funding but

1 how does this cover performance in Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland elections, European elections?
2 Reducing the number of MPs has been discussed for some time but a significant change gives opportunity for considerable worsening of the FPTP situation plus lots of disgruntled MPs in their last parliament.
3 Presumably the 60p bonus per vote is meant to cover loans taken out for GE costs - suppose payment by results is an impetus to performance :-)
4 The Queen is "fount of honour" - not Parliament (it's that tricky Royal Prerogative thing again). Have nothing against parliamentary oversight in selecting commissioners but Commission should be a Royal office not a subjunct of our political process - that will make it clear honours are for service to the nation not politicians.

My earlier comment still stands - too little & too late.

[Ted]

posted the above then read BBCi news - 51% of people want Blair to go now or this year, 23% that he should stay longer than a year and 21% that he should fight next election.....
So 44% of voters think a man who has dishonoured his office, been incapable of getting legislation through without opposition support, talks about his mission while NHS hospitals close wards & fire staff, who has lied over Iraq etc. should remain our prime minister.
Now I'm depressed.

[Derek]

Political parties should belong to their members. If members cannot or will not fund them then they should simply die out. The idea of them being propped up by the state is appalling, and will result in the leadership becoming more remote from the members.

We are becoming more like our EU partners all the time. As others have said, parties will always find ways round these rules. Our parties are become like the old "lame duck" industries of the 1970's. Maggie would not prop them up and taxpayers should not be made to prop up political parties.

[Derek]

What really seems extraordinary to me is how all parties are so ready to denounce the practices that they have been following as being beyond the pail as soon as they are put to the glare of publicity. No one seems prepared to defend themselves. Is it any wonder that the public have such a low opinion of our politicians, when they appear to have so few principles.

"Never do in private what you could not defend if it were made public", seems to be good advice for our politicians.

[Ted]

Reading the comments on politicalbetting shows yet again that we aren't up to it in planning for interogation - why send out Tyrie without a defence regarding existing/past loans when if you are weak in one area you need a big hitter like Davis or even Clarke.

Michael Howard confirmed today that he was unaware of party funding activities because that was responsibility of the Treasurer - the Chinese Walls that prevented Leader / PM being involved in dodgy dealings. So mea culpa we took loans BUT we kept at arms length, not like Labour where it was the leader who ran the show.

We should have hit Andrew Marr etc yesterday with plans not trailed them for a day then delivered a damp squib because Labour's moved the story forward.

I was willing to defend Mr Hilton's pay yesterday but sorry not today. We had these in reserve so why wait to use them - and not to be ready with a total at least for loans outstanding, plus some names.

[TT]

"The Isle of Wight (about 100,000 constituents) must be the model and I presume the idea is that all those seats in Sunderland with 40,000 consituents and irredeemably Labour will vanish."

Has anyone worked out what the geographic size of Scottish constituencies would be? It's all well and good (maybe...) to talk of constituencies of 100,000 in densely populated England, but the poor MP for the highlands and islands (o dear, I wonder who that can be?), would find himself resorting to drink over having to fly to the four corners of his constituency for surgeries...

What a mess. And state funding of £1.60 per vote for Sinn Fein! This is quite at variance with a traditional Conservative view... it must be New Conservative. Am I the only one expecting something to implode, and soon?

[CDM]

"Has anyone worked out what the geographic size of Scottish constituencies would be? It's all well and good (maybe...) to talk of constituencies of 100,000 in densely populated England, but the poor MP for the highlands and islands (o dear, I wonder who that can be?), would find himself resorting to drink over having to fly to the four corners of his constituency for surgeries..."

An MP should surely spend most of his time at Westminster, debating and voting on issues of national importance. Much of the time spent in constituencies is wasted, as often the MP can do little to help those who go to surgeries. If a constituent must have a conversation with their MP, then they can make the effort of arranging a meeting.

If constituencies are not of equal size the distorting effect of FPTP gets even worse, and makes it ever harder for us to have a chance of winning a General Election. I think that a Boundary Commission that met after every General Election would make the UK electoral system much fairer by making seat sizes more similar and up-to-date with local populations. It would also have the advantage of creating new Tory seats at each election ;)

What do we think of a boundary commission that meets after every election?

[TT]

"Much of the time spent in constituencies is wasted, as often the MP can do little to help those who go to surgeries. If a constituent must have a conversation with their MP, then they can make the effort of arranging a meeting."

I don't know where this is from, and is certainly not representative of many MPs, who not only are able to assist many of their constituents with seemingly intractable problems, but value the 'in touch' opportunities such surgeries provide. I agree with David Davies on the role of an MP, and that is to primarily advocate on behalf of one's constituents.

And your view that "they can make the effort of arranging a meeting" ignores completely those who may be elderly, without cars, or who may have to travel hundreds of miles (by road and ferry!) in a geographically large constituency

"..debating and voting on issues of national importance" is but one dimension. We ignore the 'local' at our peril

[Samuel Coates]

Tories won't reveal loaners

[Mark Fulford]

They are right not to reveal loaners. To reveal the names at this stage would be a breach of confidence that we're spared from committing through not being in power.

However, to say that loans are "a very, very good mechanism for us to help our cash flow" is absurd. Clearly they've done huge amounts of damage to our reputation. They've also left our policies at the mercy of a mighty few. If Mr Marland can't see this, he doesn't deserve his job.

[malcolm]

Yet again we have refused to put up someone on Newsnight to explain our dubious and probably corrupt practices.This is truly pathetic!
At least Labour had the guts to put up the usually odious Chris Bryant whose regular admissions of guilt on behalf of the Labour party seemed to disarm Paxman.Bryant did point out that thee Conservative party is no better than Labour and in respect of the fact that we have refused to name loaners we are worse.The absolutely maddening thing is he's right!

[Mark Fulford]

Also, if loans are "a very, very good mechanism for us to help our cash flow", isn't it completely mad to ban them? Mr Marland, are they good or are they bad enough to be banned?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

David Willetts is on the Last Word (presented tonight by Peter Oborne) on More4. I'm only half-watching it (I'm busy frantically trying to salvage weeks of mocking posts about the Liberal Democrats from disappearing into a Blogspot black hole) but I'm sure Willetts just criticised the free-market and related corruption in Russia. Shame he can't bring himself to say something similar about events on these shores.

[Bruce]

If the proposals are meant as a PR move to seize the "high ground" from Labor, all well and good. If the proposals are meant as legislation to be enacted, they won't make politics cleaner. In the U.S., a whole cottage industry has sprung up on ways to get around similar campaign spending laws.

[Rebel]

Very, very sad to see the state that the cause of modern liberty has sunk to in the country that gave birth to it.

Here we have:

-severe restrictions on the freedom of speech
-increases in public spending
-entrenchment of incumbency
-more bureacracy

All of those advocated and cheered on by nominal Conservatives.

[Rebel]

You can never, ever do what you want to do, unless you're willing to become complete socialist.

The freedom of speech and freedom of association will always hit against what you're trying to do: curtail speech. So: ban contributions to parties, and you will get more contributions on shadow groups, etc.

All of this should never be tried. Let everyone give as much as they want to political parties, and let them spend as much as they want on whatever they want. The only rule you need is full transparency: let every penny be accounted for, publicly. The rest is real nonsense.

[Alexander Drake]

Ted I completely agree with your suggestions re: honours. The whole UK honours secretariat should be based at Buck House and run by the royal household, to keep the whole thing at an arms length from dodgy political types. If the Queen can be trusted with honours like the Garter, why can't her team do the vetting for a lowly MBE? Most people think she umms and ahhs over the lists anyway.

They even still do in Australia! I know someone who got an AM (an Australian version of the MBE) and she sent a Christmas card to the Queen to say thanks! LOL

Tongue in cheek perhaps, but still a sign that the idea lingers.

[Alexander Drake]

... 51% of people want Blair to go now or this year, 23% that he should stay longer than a year and 21% that he should fight next election.....
So 44% of voters think a man who has dishonoured his office, been incapable of getting legislation through without opposition support, talks about his mission while NHS hospitals close wards & fire staff, who has lied over Iraq etc. should remain our prime minister.

I'm betting it's partly because interest rates are low, and while they are low, people prefer the devil they know.

[Alexander Drake]

I think Derek's post responding to Andrew Tyrie's proposals overlooks one important point.

Britain's system of government, the Westminster system, requires a Government to run the show, and an Opposition to hold it to account, be electorally competitive, and take turns at running the show.

Electoral necessity under this system dictates that to work properly there be clear, disciplined Government and Opposition blocs. In the past, the electoral culture created by factors such as class has propped up the major party system, but that is diminishing.

For so long as the UK uses the Westminster system of government, and for so long as we seek to seriously form a government at each general election, the citizens of the UK are ENTITLED to expect that those who sign up to campaign for and represent the Conservative Party will form a serious, politically and electorally competitive, serious alternative government and not just some ideological jolly jape. Its task is bigger than that and I think has been completely overlooked in this discussion.

What Derek says is partly true - the party membership will become less important over time - but I think that is partly the price that is demanded of the Conservative Party by the Westminster system, and by the electorate that allows it to remain in place, in the face of declining cultural factors that shaped the two party system in the first place.

And if you still don't like all this - do you want the Conservative Party to take its bat and ball home,and allow the Liberal Democrats to become the alternative government? I didn't think so.

[Alexander Drake]

Tim you argue that the proposals give too much strength to incumbents. I actually think that extra resources given to Oppositions are worth their weight in gold, whereas the additional resources given to Governments have much less value to them as they already have the apparatus and resources of the State to check their election promises, funding, etc. Plus its easier to get on TV talking about policy if you actually run the show.

More resources for everyone doesn't everyone doesn't help incumbents alone - it helps Oppositions disproportionately more.

[Editor]

Alexander Drake: "More resources for everyone doesn't everyone doesn't help incumbents alone - it helps Oppositions disproportionately more."

That may be true, Alexander, but I'm thinking of new, insurgent parties and movements who may not yet have parliamentary representation. I'm also thinking of insurgent groups within parties. I'd like to see more accountability of sitting MPs where alternative candidates are put forward to unseat MPs who no longer represent the dominant theme of members or who have become lazy.

[Donal Blaney]

I remain concerned at these proposals by the Party leadership although it gives me hope that if wealthy donors can no longer give to parties, they may instead support the cash-strapped organisations that make up the conservative movement.

A better response would be to seize the mantle of Lords reform - to say that no one will buy a seat in the legislature anymore and that the new Senate will be wholly elected and will have true powers of Executive oversight so as to create a genuine balance of powers between Executive, Commons, Judiciary and Senate.

I feel very uneasy indeed that we are looking to go down the road of state funding of parties. Worse, only certain parties will be approved - as the Telegraph said today, what if the approval process requires the signing up to bien pensant policies espoused by the chattering classes but that are against conservative principles?

A better route to take would be to make donations to political parties (and charities) tax deductible. Instead we rely on a post-donation subsidy from the Treasury. The US system of tax deductibility to charities and "501(c)(3) organisations" is surely preferable. In espousing this, we would put ourselves at the forefront of a revival in the charitable sector while at the same time arguing against state-approved parties. Going down the Cameron/Blair route of state funding will create a political elite out of touch with the voters.

[Chad]

but I'm thinking of new, insurgent parties and movements who may not yet have parliamentary representation

Well as someone who has a brand new, fledgling political party, I can happily confirm that I will refuse any attempt by the state to give me funds from taxpayers.

You can happily quote me on this. I will reject and return any state hand-outs.

A political party should live and die by its membership alone.

State funding clearly requires state control. Although it would clearly help me financically to play along with this, I think people need to make a stand on behalf of the taxpayer and stop governments dishing it out, and political parties sucking it up like it is their own money.

Let the people decide. Every vote for the big 3 and any other party that participates (based on a 5 year parliament would be £4.20 (£1.20 plus the 5 x 60p) taken from the taxpayer, whereas every vote for the small-government parties like mine that reject state funding will cost the taxpayer nothing.

[Chad]

The escalation in costs, with each party fighting to match the other seems a bit like the nuclear race.

If election funding was slashed, but parties given more and fairer access to the taxpayer-funded BBC, (perhaps then forcing the leaders to meet in head-to-heads etc) then surely that would be enough media coverage, and the rest of the costs would come from donations and willing activists?

The real issue is that political parties really do not need a fraction of the amounts they are currently wasting but instead of addressing that they just want bigger state hand-outs.

[Withheld because this is too naughty]

But Chad - I'm not overly bothered by the £12.60 your party would get!

[Chad]

That's optimistic! I was thinking £4.20 :-)

However, let's look at the serious issue - Cameron is proposing the creation of state political parties, funded by the taxpayer.

State funding will naturally require state control (although we can debate how far this will go).

This is an incredibly serious issue. If you cap donations, make all income transparent, and work to woo back the lost members, then they will donate of their own free will.

State funding serious endangers freedom of thought and expression, and will damage represetation even further.

So please, feel free to mock and insult the person opposing the proposal for taxpayers to fund political parties. We're heading in a dangerous direction.

[Peter]

It is outrageous even to consider state funding for a load of politicians on the make, who think of nothing but voting themselves high salaries and huge pensions. Why should the taxpayer fund them? Politicians
should fund their parties themselves if they can't find private backers. I am a Conservative party member ( but probably not for long) and find Cameron's prouncements, on this subject, ignorant to say the least. If there is any state funding at all, then the Communist and Nazi parties should be included, as well as the Monster Raving Looney party, and all the fringe parties.
If we as taxpayers are funding this rotten bunch then we want a say in cutting their salaries and pensions as a quid pro quo. I can't think of a better reason for returning to an absolute monarchy. Both the Queen and Prince Charles have more integrity, honesty and common sense than most MPs.

[roger]

"a reduction in the number of special advisers, the abolition of Regional Assemblies, and consideration to a reduction in the number of MPs."

This reduction of MPs should become a central plank of party policy, pushed during every media opportunity - reduce the number of Scottish and Welsh MP's (allow, say, 3 each) . Thus achieving parity, value and fairness for English voters and releasing the funding to English parties.
Special advisors should be capped at the number extant when labour came to power.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Reduce the number of Scottish and Welsh MP's (allow, say, 3 each) . Thus achieving parity, value and fairness for English voters and releasing the funding to English parties."

Why not go the whole hog and cut the socialist scroungers adrift entirely eh? The money saved could be spent building monuments to St George and Alf Ramsey and educating the nation as to when St George's Day actually is.

*removes tongue from cheek*

[Chad]

Indeed, we used to criticise the EU for being a vast bloated, expensive central-control beast but the CamCons can't do that and propose greater centralisation and state-control at home.

No wonder, it has all gone quiet on the EPP withdrawal pledge.

76% of the people diagree with this big government approach (according to Electoral Commission stats) but Cameron and Prescott are hand-in-hand on this one.

State-controlled "democracy" that selects which parties are "acceptable" to vote for is the stuff of nightmare big brother visions.

It would have been bad enough if Prescott had made these proposals, but for the Conservatives to do is shocking.

We need opposition to big government, not collusion to make it happen.

[Jack]

So will we release details of people who lent money to the Party? That conversation on Newsnight between Michael Crick and the party treasurer was terribly cringeworthy on the treasurer's part.

[Rob G]

Chad: I don't like these proposals either. In particular, I object to tax relief for donations to political parties--why should the state (i.e. other taxpayers) pay people to do something that is worth doing for its own sake?

But I think you are in danger of under-mining your own arguments by the assertion that the proposals envisage a State-controlled "democracy" that selects which parties are "acceptable" to vote for is the stuff of nightmare big brother visions.

The Conservative Party proposals say that funding should go to any party that either has two members elected to the House of Commons, or has one elected member and gained at least 150,000 votes at the last General Election. That definition is already used for other purposes. I don't see how you can construe it as deciding which parties can be voted for.

Incidentally, the proposals also say that A party which does not qualify, or chooses not to apply, for state funding will not be required to accept the limits on donations.. So new parties would be able to get off the ground by attracting a few wealthy sponsors (if they choose to go down that route).

[Esbonio]

It has taken a great deal of effort but I have tried to give the new Tory leadership the benefit of the doubt for some time now. This idea of taxpayers' money for political parties now makes me realise my instincts and initial scepticism were correct.

[Chad]

Hi Rob,

It is either a split by votes or it isn't.

I'm not a UKIP supporter, but they polled 600k votes but won no seats.

That is still 600,000 ordinary Britons who this new state machine will say, "thanks for supporting UKIP but they will not be entitled to their £1.2 per vote".

Of course, if UKIP (just as a hypothetical proposal) received the cash, then they would be in a better position to build on that 600k vote and hopefully win a seat next time.

Unfortunately these proposals have been deliberately skewed to prevent this. The proposals are not promoting diversity in politics but about protecting the status quo.

However, for clarity, I am not proposing that they drop the seat restriction, but that they drop the entire plan.

[Rob G]

Chad: thanks for explaining. The proposed system doesn't say who people can vote for, but it does say which votes earn money. So I can see why that might be objectionable.

[Ted]

well we've been saying we need to explain our unpopular policies clearly and win over doubters so here's the chance for our leadership.
BTW why was poor Mr Tyrie pulled off Newsnight last night - was it judgement on feedback for his valiant attempts to sell policy while undermined by our refusal to be transparent over 2004 & 2005 loans?

[Chad]

..if they throw the "extreme" parties at us as an excuse for excluding the small parties with a growing support base but no seats, don't forget to remind eco-Dave that the Green Party would also receive no funding under his plans, despite receiving 258,000 votes.

There should be no state funding of political parties.

[malcolm]

Well Tim as far as I can tell state funding has gone down like a lead balloon with the bloggers on this site as well as the leader writers of our friends in the press like the Dmail and D Telegraph.Are you interested in launching a campaign against it?
Conservative home is becoming more and more influential and could be a powerful voice in defeating state funding.

[johnC]

I can't really see what is wrong with the existing system. If the problem is that loans do not have to be disclosed while donations do, then surely the answer is not to get rid of loans but change the disclosure requirements. Otherwise the fact that (a) the Labour Party treasurer didn't know about his party's loans, and (b) a remarkable number of those who have given Labour donations or loans have received honours and peerages should be purely internal embarrassments for the Labour party. It speaks volumes for the ineptness of the present Tory leadership that they have failed to capitalise on this but instead come up with a daft set of proposals of their own. The thought of state control of political funding fills me with dread. It sounds like another nail in the coffin of freedom.

[Chad]

I do like the idea of the cap though, as instead of being able to raise the financial needs from a tiny group of millionaires, parties will be forced to actually talk to the members en masse and convince them to come onside.

In short, the party would need to start to appealing its members rather than a narrow set of rich people.

The current system enables parties to ignore almost all their members and to focus all their efforts on just one or two people.

The current system has taken parties away from the members, and the new proposals take them further away still.

It it time to return to the true aims of a political party; to represent its members views.

[Rob G]

Chad: agreed, except that there is no need to impose a cap by law. Parties can decide for themselves what size of donations or loans they accept. A strict legal cap would just encourage creative ways to get round the spirit of the law while fulfilling the strict letter.

[Margaret]

I think there would be a tax payers strike if they were asked to fund these bloated politicians who hang on to their lucrative jobs, long past their sell by date. Most people do not consider their MPs are worth a light, let alone the money they get.

I am horrified that a so called "Conservative Party" would even think of supporting such a move.

[Esbonio]

I agree with you Margaret.

There is no way the taxpayer should be required to fund political parties. This idea is obnoxious on various counts: it represents yet another misuse of public money and it seems anathema to democracy. If the parties cannot get enough support under their own steam then tough. We certainly should not have to finance them especially as it may favour the more established parties.

As for honours, if we are to have them and I do not see why not, they should be completely separate from a purely elected legislative parliament. Of course it is the failure to address the democratic deficit in the House of Lords which is the real problem. It is however typical of our modern professional political class to invert reality and by impliciation blame the electorate for being disengaged and not handing over enough money to the political parties. If they have not got enough money they should cut their coat according to their cloth and make themselves and their policies more attractive. That is what everyone else has to do who cannot rely on the taxpayer.

[J T Tozer]

Surely the obvious thing is to create an office of political regulation (ofpol).
If for instance it is decided that each party is to be given say one pound for every general election vote, this would be held by ofpol. It would then act as a bank. Registered parties, would then set up direct debits, to pay for day to day running expenses. Any other payments would have to be applied for, explained and justified. Anyone who wishes to make a contribution individuals/companies/unions etc would send the money to OFPOl who would vet the payments and then add them to the parties account or reject them if unsuitable. OFPOl would also have the power to investigate wrong doing by political parties, or members of either house, recommend dismissal etc.
If politicians can't be trusted to behave it could be the only option.

[chad]

I like the way the Cameron proposal doc accepts that parties have found ways to get round the transparency rules (page 4) but is totally unprepared to do what is honourable to draw a line under the past and name the hidden donors.

We need to know if the £20 million are real commercial, not-to-be-converted loans or soft-loans and who made them. Could this explain some of the bizarre policy ideas of Cameron? It is not about the past, it is about now.

Surely in the end, it will come out, and the last thing the Tories need is for it to be leaked or dragged out of them, making them look sleazy again.

Labour and the LibDems have taken the heat and listed their loan-donors.

No-one will take Cameron's bid to "clean up" politics seriously until he comes cleans and matches the other parties and names the donors. It will just rumble on, and as the heat disappears off Blair, it will focus on the only party still hiding its donors; the CamCons.

[Margaret]

Cameron has no intention of taking the Tories out of the EPP, and the EPP support the defunct European Constitution.

http://euobserver.com/?aid=21190&rk=1

The centre-right European People's Party (EPP) will at its congress next week call for the "implementation" of the EU constitution,

Says it all. The right wing Tories have been well and truly stuffed.