State funding rejected by 81% of Conservative members

Yesterday evening ConservativeHome published Tory members' ranking of international challenges.  Today we'll be publishing more results from the April survey.

We begin with a finding that Tory members reject the idea that a "major proportion of funding for political parties should come directly from the state" by 81% to 13%.

David Cameron and Andrew Tyrie have recommended that there should be increased state funding of political parties in return for a reduced number of MPs.  See here.

Comments

[Rob Largan]

No suprise here then.

[buxtehude]

You asked us to make comments as well, what happens to those?

[William]

The unspoken aspect to this is 'are we going to comply with the European Directive on the Punding of Political Parties'? That comes from the Maastricht Treaty, in which the EU was formed and stated that Political Parties have a role to promote the European Union in the member states (no mention of represent the views of the people). It was realised that State Funded Parties can be more easily controlled, as their funds can be witheld if they don't meet the requirements of the EU.

The Directive which wishes to make private donations to political parties illegal, was challenged in the ECJ by 25 MEP's - one of whom was Roger Helmer. The MEP's said that the Directive should be declared illegal as it was against the declared democratic principles on which the EU was meant to be based. The case lasted 18 months, but the ECJ decided that the Directive had the force of law.

So if we allow private donations, we will be in breach of the Directive, and potentially subject to EU fines.

The above is well known, easily found on the internet or by asking Roger Helmer or Daniel Hannan etc, but nowhere - oh nowhere - can you find a reference to the EU DIrective in the British media.

Can anyone explain who it is that controls our media so that not one dares air this most crucial fact?

[Deputy Editor]

You asked us to make comments as well, what happens to those?

All in good time buxtehude :)

[Ted]

I hope the occasional CCHQ visitor recognises that this is an issue which unites most ConservativeHome visitors from the Cameroons through to the sceptics.
It's nice in full agreement with Bux, the Jameses (james'? james's?) etc. for once.(not that I always disagree with them)

[buxtehude]

Ted, I haven't given my view on this yet! But you have assumed correctly.

And I like your point, that is IS nice to be in agreement. On so many issues on this site Cameroons and sceptics disagree, that its good when there is unity on something. (Of course, in reality, we ARE all united in the main thing, which is preferring DC to GB, and that should be enough to allow us to debate freely).

If we are so strongly in agreement, might it be we are right? And might we therefore hope for the Cameron Team to rethink this one?

It is a subject that matters very much. It matters more for the future of democracy than almost any other topic we debate here, because it creates the fundamental framework for the future of politics in this country. It further strengthens the incumbency effect, it further weakens the link between politicians and the electorate. These are trends that should be reversed, not hastened.

So Dave, do us a favour, change your mind.

[Ted]

The last line would be a good title for a CHome campaign on funding
"Dave, do us a favour, change your mind"

[Deputy Editor]

That comes from the Maastricht Treaty, in which the EU was formed and stated that Political Parties have a role to promote the European Union in the member states

Which results in some EU countries not giving state funding to political parties that don't support the EU.

[Chad]

David Cameron and Andrew Tyrie have recommended that there should be increased state funding of political parties in return for a reduced number of MPs.

Well you know my fierce opposition to this, I formed a political party off the back of my opposition to this big government plan.

However comment on the second part of Cameron's proposals is important:

If you want to reduce costs you propose to cut the salaries and expenses of all the MP's.

If you want to cut democratic representation, you propose to cut the number of MP's (as more power will be in less hands).

Like the A-List, Cameron's proposals simply ring-fence and protect his gang (no reduced salary proposals, no a-list competition for sitting MP's etc).

Anyway, Imagine is about to go into its chrysalis for a short while as I have a major revamp coming up to ensure it properly addresses its core audience.

So you'll be pleased to hear a little less from me!

[Alexander Drake]

Sorry to be ante, but I just think that opposing public funding is an example of cutting off the nose to spite the face.

I think public funding will help the Conservative Party more than the others. Labour have the resources of the entire civil service at its disposal. More cash for us will make a big deal, more cash for them will be less significant in how they fight campaigns.

Personally, I disagree with Bux's view that public funding strengthens the incumbency effect - instead I think it makes it easier for an opposition to get traction after the 'tipping point' because it will have more resources to get the message across.

Obviously Labour MPs and think-tanks are floating this because they believe it's in Labour's self-interest. But unlike Bux, I don't think it's because they think it assists incumbency.

Personally, I think Labour is flying this kite because they can now once again conceive of being in Opposition, unlike the last nine years. They are beginning to preparing a soft landing for themselves in Opposition.

This to me says:
1. Labour is worried about its electoral future again
2. Labour sees the substantial leg-up it will give the Conservative Party in the short term as a necessary evil in order to help its own long-term survival when it leaves Government. I think the Lib Dems and Labour will have a nasty bitch-fight for the centre-left when we form a government, which suits me just fine.

Public funding will also reduce the dependency on a handful of small donors. Looking to lots of small donors is a nice idea, but not practical, imo.

*preparing for incoming fire*

[Annabel Herriott]

I suppose some state funding would help cash strapped marginal (target) constituencies who cannot even afford to pay an agent, so things like Blue chip will be a nightmare to operate without one.
In fact it is a more complicated issue then the merely theoretical.

[Derek]

Buxtehyde - Doesn't the Maastricht Treaty refer to EU parties? Surely it doesn't outlaw private funding of parties within nation states?

[Ted]

Alexander

Labour could also be keen because they are broke - not anything to do with us or our prospects.

While I think it will be difficult depending on smaller donations a max of £100k per annum per donor to central funds, with other limits for per constituency donations matched with a more active role for members and less centralisation should be our first choice.

I would be happy with, for example, Lord Ashcroft donating say £100k to central funding and other amounts through a number of donations to constituency parties or pro-tory organisations. This would strengthen the local parties in supporting grass roots activities and campaigning.

But to look to state funding as a major part of our parties activities does remove any party from the need to keep its members on-board, it could well increase state supervision of political activity and goes entirely against a philosophy of small government and self reliance.

[Martin]

I simply do not care whether state funding of political parties helps the opposition party as has been suggested or any other political party for that matter. For me it is more a matter of principle. If a citizen of this country detests all the major parties and wants no part in the democratic process, then that is his right. Why are we considering Nationalising the democratic process? It would simply be another tax that we don't really need.

It is no coincidence that Labour is floating this idea now. It is a rather sickening, cynical ploy in the wake of the cash for honors scandal. I do not like to think that my taxes could be going towards funding any other political party (BNP, Socialist Worker?) other than the Conservatives.

As for the second suggestion, as Chad rightly points out;"If you want to cut democratic representation, you propose to cut the number of MP's (as more power will be in less hands)." If you reduce the number of MPs you would have to make some constituencies bigger, hence constituents more remote from their MPs. An extreme example of this remoteness is seen in the MEPs that we have. I am off to the pub in an hours time, and if i were to ask people who their MEP was, i doubt i could find a single person that would know.

[Alexander Drake]

Ted, you're probably right when you say that public funding would reduce the need of a party to keep its members on-board. But to be honest, I actually don't think members are going to be terribly important to future election campaigns (maybe in 10 years time?) I think party membership will keep shrinking, to the point that even if they wanted to play a key role, there won't be enough to do so.

Public funding will help parties deal with that inevitable development. Is it a shame? Yes. Something to be mortally scared of? Not in my opinion. It's a given. There's no point worrying about how awful it will be.

I should also make the point that I agree that more needs to be done to tackle the fact that the Conservative Party is incredibly undemocratic. The Party Chairman is an MP appointed by the Leader. Why? Who elects the Party board? Why does the Leader get to decide who the Party puts forward to be working peers? Why not Conference? Who votes for conference delegates to represent Associations, and how many do Associations get - is it based on membership size? What real power does Conference have?

Elections for the parliamentary leadership are all very well, but the nuts and bolts of the Party are run well down from there, and in that sense a Party member doesn't have a real sense of ownership of the organisation. I think those issues would address keeping party members engaged rather than soothing feelings about being important at campaign time.

[Jon Gale]

Another Cameroon opposed to state funding here. I really hope DC changes his mind on this one.

[Mike Christie]

"I just think that opposing public funding is an example of cutting off the nose to spite the face"

I think it is an example of defending important principles, regardless of short-term cost to oneself.

Any political party that can not muster the enthusiasm and generosity of enough supporters to cover its costs doesn't deserve to exist.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I take it then, Annabel and Alexander, that you have no major objections to ever closer binding to the EU, with all that entails - acceptance of the Euro etc:. If only some of what William says about the 'European Directive for the Funding of Political Parties' that was part of the Maastricht Treaty is correct, you are going along the same road that the bill that I have been trying to get people more aware of, namely the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, wishes to take. AND that is a state where the ORDINARY person is just a cypher (well even more so than now!) and whoever is at the top can introduce whatever new acts that they like, only it will be the EU, dictating a great deal more than just straight cucumbers!

The really stupid thing about all these arguments - discussion in this country, is that, we are so law-abiding. In France they wouldn't dream of sticking the straight cucumbers, or owning up to mad cow disease, or any other aspect of EU law that they don't personally fancy, but how strange that they don't get fined or penalised.

[Annabel Herriott]

Well no,Patsy, actually, I have a nice sticker on my car that says love europe, hate the EU!
I was just wondering how very cash strapped seats with only 1501 to beat, and can no longer afford an agent, will get by come the next general election. Do we go looking for a millionaire PPC with a huge urge to be an MP, or wait for the Tooth Fairy????

[Patsy Sergeant]

And if you think I am just a tiresome old rightwinger!, I have just received an e-mail from Save Parliament, about the latest on the passage of the Leg: and Reg: Reform Bill (aka Abolition of Parliament Bill) (their words NOT mine), the website is www.saveparliament.org.uk if you are interested.

The news in the e-mail is NOT I repeat, NOT good!!!!

[Mike Christie]

"Do we go looking for a millionaire PPC with a huge urge to be an MP, or wait for the Tooth Fairy????"

No, we work hard to try to make our message inspiring, expand our membership and improve our fundraising.

[James Hellyer]

If a party cannot secure funding from its members, it does not deserve to survive.

Incidentally, Chad, how much funding does "Imagine" receive from members other than yourself?

;-)

[Chad]

Hi James,

:-) Imagine will be 100% funded by its members, and I will never accept any form of state funding of politica parties and will refuse any entitlement the party becomes eligible.

I know it is all too easy and perhaps fun to take the piss but I'd rather cut the budget and survive off £100 from members than propose steps to further insulate the small band of political elite from the people.

As I have noted many times before, all Imagine needs to do is get on that ballot paper as that is the one document that all voters will see, and with a clear logo detailing the rejection of state funding, the message will be clear.

It really doesn't take millions of pounds or tens of thousands of members to split key votes.

My professional career has been built on delivering solutions where the high personnel, high budgets fail, so I have learnt many lessons about the advantage a smart, agile operation can have over a lazy, bloated, big beast. I'm pleased to say that politics seems stuffed with the same inefficiency.

I'm very much looking forward to the next general election!

[Ted]

Patsy

Supporting state funding is nothing to do with the issue of the EU - why must it be dragged into every thread? A Eurosceptic can support funding as much as a Europhile could oppose it.

On this government's attempt at an Enabling Bill I have great concerns about the powers that will be given to Ministers & Civil Servants , even in its much amended form. But again bringing the EU into it as the bogeyman distracts the argument from the behaviour of an over-authoritarian government, which displays lttle understanding of the institutions and laws of this land.

[Chad]

A Eurosceptic can support funding as much as a Europhile could oppose it.

Perhaps, but a conservative never could.

And yes, I do mean a 'small c' conservative, not a Conservative who seems increasingly happy to shed any values if it increases the odds of election victory!

[James Hellyer]

"Why must it be dragged into every thread?"

Like the BNP.

[matt wright]

More state funding of political parties would represent the nationalisation of politics and the public would hate politicians even more as a result of it. As Conservatives of all persuasions this is totally against our principles.

Matt

[william]

Supporting state funding is nothing to do with the issue of the EU - why must it be dragged into every thread?
Wrong, Ted.

The issue of State Funding is all to to do with the EU. There is an EU Directive on the Funding of Political Parties, under which private donations to political parties are made illegal.

Parties will only qualify if they are in association with Parties from one third or more of EU member states.

Parties that stand for withdrawal from the EU will not qualify for funding, or those considered xenophobic or unacceptable.

I am not surprised people don't know about this as it is never mentioned in the UK media. That in itself raises another question - why not?

Cameron was attempting to comply with the Directive by agreeing to State Funding with Blair. The UK will be fined if we do not comply in time. At this moment the fact that State Funding is a European programme is kept secret.

[Richard]

81% are opposed. Will the leadership listen? Let us hope so.

[Richard]

"I am not surprised people don't know about this as it is never mentioned in the UK media. "

I would have thought the Eurosceptic Press would be screaming blue murder by now. I do seem to recall something about the EU, "xenophobic" parties and state funding but it was a long time ago.

[Chad]

They won't change their policy Richard. In the past six months from Cameron and Maude there has been:

* Proposal to centralise vote for leadership to strip members of vote.
* Proposal to reduce number of MP's.
* Proposal to replace independent political parties with state-funded (and thus controlled) vehicles.
* Centrally-imposed candidate lists that ringfence current MP's.
* Support central national ID database.

The CamCons are a not a small government project.

[william]

James Helyer - I cannot find any ref's in this thread to the BNP, although, since you've mentioned them, they clearly would not qualify for State Funding.

They may well qualify as an illegal party and be banned - Cameron is clearly seeing that as the BNP's destination openly referring to their being based on 'hatred', as has a Party in Belgium already been banned, and as has a Party in Holland.

Freedom of Speech is seriously threatened.

[william]

So Richard, your Eurosceptic 'free' press must be observing a code of procedure which does not permit open discussion of the facts about this. How could any self-respecting journalist not mention the key facts surrounding recent events unless they are constrained?

[Ted]

Chad

As far as I am aware conservatism isn't a religious faith and there isn't a set catechism of beliefs a conservative must have - even Dave's list!

Perhaps I'm more of a pragmatist and see more shades of grey but I see conservatism as a broad community with an underlying distrust of corporatist or statist economic direction, a belief in individual action, rights and duties,in property rights, in free enterprise and a belief in the continuity and strength of our institutions.

I'm against state funding but it's not a sin against conservatism to consider it if the alternatives prove to drive the corruption and destruction of our institutions. It may be a less bad choice among a number of bad choices. I don't think that's even close to being proved yet but some may well believe it to be the case.

[Shaun]

Alexander Drake: "I think public funding will help the Conservative Party more than the others."

Even if that is the case, that doesn't make it right. The Conservative Party has always been and should still be about what's good for the country in the long term, not what's good for the party. For instance, the Thatcherite reforms would never have happened if we were obsessed about short term electoral gains. That's what differiates us from New Labour.
Cameron confuses me. He's wrong about public funding for parties but he's right that we shouldn't oppose top-up fees just because we might gain from the student vote.

My views on public funding: it would certainly entrench and benefit the three major parties, while putting minority parties (especially those outside parliament) at a great disadvantage. Therefore favouring our party, but I'm not a Tory ubber alles (above all) kinda guy that wants us to make life difficult for other parties.

[Chad]

Hi Ted,

Interestingly, when people sought to define the core meaning of 'conservatism' here recently, 'small government' appeared in almost every definition.

If you are telling me that you do not believe in small government, then I would argue that you are not a conservative.

Call me crazy, but for me, small government is the core of conservatism. If your 'pragmatism' enables you to overlook a set of policies that increase central control, then that is for you to decide, but please don't argue that these proposals are conservative, as they are not.
Therefore, I am not surprised that 81% of the members voting reject these proposals which as listed, all clearly involve greater not small state intervention.

All I am saying is that Cameron is not proposing small government policies, and I consider than unconservative in the international sense of the word, not as a description for your party.

[Ted]

Chad

1 I think it was Mr Howard (with Maude).
2 Reduction in number of MPs has been part of political discussion since the 1970's - there is a view that it would stregthen individual MPs if there were fewer of them, that the establishment of supporting offices enables MPs to do more.
3 State funding does carry danger of strengthening established parties and stopping new independent parties if there is no provision for any voluntary funding. Voluntary funding continued in the proposal made.
4 Not a new situation - MPs have generally been safe and candidates needed to be from centrally managed approved list - the A list just reduces the available candidate pool.
5 This is just twisting facts - the HoL by convention does not block a manifesto committment. Once the Government changed the bill to fit the committment (which said ID cards must be voluntary)the HoL had to agree. I agree DD and the other 24 MPs should not have voted for but abstained.

[Ted]

Chad

A conservative party?
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2006/433/index.html?id=pp10.htm

[Richard]

"Call me crazy, but for me, small government is the core of conservatism."

Small government is the core of libertarianism/classical liberalism. It is true that British and American conservatives have tended to be sympathetic to small government but this is because they perceive large government as undermining civil society. This explains why Roger Scruton, for example, supports the withdrawal of the state from the education system - not because conservative ideology demands small government but because the education system will function better without it.

European Ccnservatism has traditionally been more hostile to small government and there are even strands of British conservatism that aren't too keen on it (The Edwardian radical right spring to mind). Then there is the distinction between small government and inactive government. Many 19th century Tories opposed the growth of the state but believed that the state should be active in defending the welfare of the poor (hence the Factory Acts).

[Chad]

1. Yes I agree. Maude is the current chairman.

2. *cough*. OK, if you can swallow that
argument, then good for you. Personally, I see more power in less hands as undemocratic.

3. 81% of members here are opposed, and I would argue that is clearly because it goes against all small government values.

81% against. Is a political party the aggregate of its members views or a political elite imposing a set of policies of which the public have to like-it-or-lump-it?

4. Agreed. But if Cameron really wanted more women and ethnic minorities in parliament rather than a superficial attempt to look more diverse, why would he exclude seats that Tories currently hold? Surely those are the *most winnable* seats that he talks about?

5. I couldn't care less about carrying an ID card. They are effectively just a computer print-out of information. The danger is in centralising too much personal information. The Tories have not pledged to scrap the core of this project, the database, even though some of the most experience organisation in technology including the BCS have detailed how dangerous such a proposal is.

I'll repeat, Cameron has pledged to scrap the cards, not the db. That is like promising to scrap computer print-outs. It shows a complete lack of comprehension of the technology.

[Chad]

Ted wrote:
"A conservative party?
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2006/433/index.html?id=pp10.htm"

Lol. You are a wag.

81% against here Ted. And what do you call the percentage chance of Cameron dropping this policy to reflect this massive opposition?

If a party does not reflect its members views then it will whither and die, well unless it finds funding from another source. Eureka!

[Ted]

Chad

if you read up the thread you can see I am opposed to state funding. However this doesn't mean I ex-communicate someone who cogently argues their case for it or claim they are not conservative.

Conservatism is a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve (Edmund Burke from Wikipedia - it's worth looking up as it makes the case that conservatism must by its very philosophy be different by geography and society and through time).

[Chad]

I joined the party because it made a very clear statement on its beliefs page:

"Conservatives believe the people should be big, and the state should be small."
Link here

That was the pre-Cameron definition of a Conservative anyway. That has clearly changed.

[william]

Derek,

I don't think the EU has any concept of national political parties playing any role at all. The Regions will be run from their assemblies and report to Brussels. The national parliaments will be bypassed. The trans-european parties will be all-powerful.

NB any Party which does not have associates in at least one third of the other member states will get no funding.

[Ted]

What is most likely to deliver a smaller state:

A Conservative Government? A Labour Government? A LibLab Government or (horror) a LibCon Govt?

I firmly believe its the first one and that anyone who chooses to oppose the Conservative Party through voting for another party is undermining any opportunity to achieve that goal.

In your philosophy I suppose I could now claim that any one who disagrees can't be a conservative....

[Patsy Sergeant]

Ted @ 21.14. I am well aware that we have an over-authoritarian government at the moment, bogeyman or no bogeyman. As far as understanding the institutions and laws, that is another debate, suffice it to say that there is a general debate in all the press every day at the moment, just because the law is having great difficulty in coping with the present messy situation adequately, right across the board, much to everyones disgust. And I think state funding is just another step the wrong way along this messy road!

[Yet Another Anon]

I don't see any need for State Funding of political parties, loans need to be regulated with minimum interest and repayment schedules set - if they want to provide money for particular offices for elected MP's for duties they carry out in office that is one thing.

Surely far fewer MP's - I think a third of the current numbers in both houses would be quite adequate and moving to only having a single set of councillors, surely councillors could takeover much of the work on behalf of constituents that MP's currently do. Larger constituencies would also help prevent groups such as the BNP from winning seats.

[Julian Morrison]

Seems obvious to me that a system which cuts parties off from donors, cuts them off from one of their most overt forms of accountability. Elections are rare, but refusal to fund can be immediate.

Also seems obvious to me that when civil servants decide what parties get funded and how much, they'll essentially be kingmakers. Not acceptable!

[william]

The people writing here are thinking in national terms, while government (which is now only 20% in Westminster) thinks European.

Only European Parties (Labour and Conservative have the requisite alliances across the EU to qualify for funding) are going to be allowed to survive.

At some point there must come a massive dropping of the penny. The nation no longer exlsts. National Parties exist purely as the delivery point for European programmes.

[Chad]

Ted

What is most likely to deliver a smaller state:
A Conservative Government? A Labour Government? A LibLab Government or (horror) a LibCon Govt?

Hi Ted,

Very sadly the answer is none of them.

Labour are big government embodied, the LibDems open cheque for the EU approach, and warmth to federalism support the big government of the EU, so pre-2006, the answer would have been the Tories (which is why I joined) but as Cameron's proposals have shown, that is no longer the case.

So, for me, the only option is to fight to something that none of the big 3 parties are fighting for, and that is small government policies.

I won't vote for the least "big government", I'll vote for the party that is genuinely pursuing small government policies.

That is no longer the Tories, which is a shame, but of course it is up to Cameron to choose the path he decides is best. I'm not complaining, I tried to influence, but Cameron has chosen a big government approach, and as leader that is his right, but his party is clearly not suited to small government believers.

I realise now that there is no chance of me rejoining the Tories whilst Cameron is in charge, so I will just focus on building a small government agenda (in proposed policies not just in fluffy rhetoric) with Imagine.

I'll no longer tolerate a political elite imposing an almost identical set of policies then telling me to pick the 'least-worst'.

I want real choice where the people can make a real difference, not coalitions with weak, floppy LibDems nor a Tory party adopting New Labour policies to centralise more and more.

I totally understand that Cameron will use his PR skills to do and say anything to win the election, that is his job, to win, but for me, I am not tied to the color of a rosette, but to the aim of making the right changes to make Britain a better place.

We all may differ on our defintions, but I very much define myself as a small c conservative, hence why I am here, but politically, I am now clearly in opposition to the Tory Party itself and will stand against them in key marginals where I think the party can influence the result.

I'm sure standing against the party and damaging its vote is not bar to coming back into the fold later as Priti Patel has clearly shown after her time with the Referendum Party.

[Jon Gale]

Chad, "when people sought to define the core meaning of 'conservatism' here recently, 'small government' appeared in almost every definition.

If you are telling me that you do not believe in small government, then I would argue that you are not a conservative.

Call me crazy, but for me, small government is the core of conservatism."

All due respect Chad but thats cr*p. Look at any definition of Conservatism in a dictionary and it will talk about opposing radical change, conserving the best of society while improving the rest, maintaining traditions, pragmatism and so on. The size of the state is irrelevant.

Modern Conservative appreciation for a small-state grew out of distrust of governments trying to change society to their vision of utopia and social engineering. But it is on a case by case (pragmatic) basis.

Some conservatives like Michael Howard are in favour of ID cards (something you appear to have overlooked if your objections to the Tory party started in 2006) because it may improve law and order. Some conservatives oppose ID cards because it is a change to our traditional liberties, cost a lot of maoney and wont work. Both are equally conservative.

If you want ideological committment to a small state try Liberalism - they hate and fear the state, thus their total opposition to ID cards, their dislike of the army, police, patriotism, and their embrace of Human Rights Acts, internationalism and the EU (because they are frightened by the nation-state and think internationalism weakens it, before you ask).

[Alexander Drake]

*emerging from bunker*

I think the easiest way to reply to those that have commented is to combine them in to one post. My apologies if it seems discourteous...

Mike Christie and James Hellyer argue that if a political party can't derive the resources it needs to function from its membership, it doesn't deserve to exist. I think that arguing a party is nothing without its lay membership is a noble sentiment - but the reality of declining membership makes that unrealistic.

Without new resources to assist parties as membership declines, it is possible that eventually, the party system could collapse. Such a collapse would effectively make Britain ungovernable, if the existing system of government were retained. Britain's modern political stability is in part due to the major party system. So how is it in the national interest for this system to decline?

That, Shaun, is why I think it is in both Britain's interest, and the Conservative Party's interest, for public funding of political parties to be introduced. Like you, I believe that public funding would assist the major parties. I don't see that as unfair - I see it as being genuinely in Britain's cold, unsentimental national interest.

Finally to reassure Patsy and William, my attitude to public funding has nothing to do with European issues. Although I share a monarch with you, I have to stand in the 'others' column while the Germans stroll through customs at Heathrow - thanks to the EU. So don't worry on that account.

Public funding of political parties will help us win Government, and maintain a mainstream-orientated major party system that will make it possible for the UK to build stable governments without absurd Italian instability, or minority governments that can't commit to the task of governing without looking over its shoulder at the numbers in the Commons every five minutes.

Just my views - and I'm fully conscious that it's an unpopular view here. I think it needs to be aired nonetheless for a variety of reasons.

[Alexander Drake]

Chad, you said:

I am now clearly in opposition to the Tory Party itself and will stand against them in key marginals where I think the party can influence the result.

I'm sure standing against the party and damaging its vote is not bar to coming back into the fold later as Priti Patel has clearly shown after her time with the Referendum Party.

Does that mean that, so as the Referendum Party effectively helped Labour in 1997, you are admitting that, thanks to FPTP, you are now by default helping Labour stay in office at the next election?

[Patsy Sergeant]

If it is true that we are doomed to become ever more closely bound to Europe, and that DC's murmurings about leaving the EPP, and loosening our ties to Europe, then perhaps we had better spend some time debating the possiblities for this LITTLE, overcrowded island, at the hands of the European Parliament in the future!

Shortly Romania and Bulgaria will become members, this morning M. Barrosso said only that their entry may be delayed 'until they got their criminal problems under better control'. When they are free to migrate, many of their large populations will look West to pastures green (rich, not ecological!) to enjoy themselves. That's their Right.

If the EU sees themselves as IN CHARGE of a greater Europe, the chances are that the numerous Ministers who live cheek-by-jowl with other neighbouring countries, will support each other, at the expence of countries further away, (think for one minute -only- of the Eurovision Song Contest, the part where the marks are dished out - IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER EVERY YEAR!! i.e., the same NEIGHBOURING countries support each other). The UK obviously has no natural close boundaries being surrounded by sea, so we are always having to 'butter-up' other nations slightly more to get what we want, Blair WAS quite good at that ONCE.

It would not take a great leap of the imagination (especially when thinking of the French attitude to Les Rosbifs) to picture a time when the migrations are actively EASED our way, afterall Germany and France already have economic problems which at least partially involve migrants. And where will the governments sanctimonious statements that the Welfare State needs many immigrants to help fund it, of course those statements don't address the issue that quite a few of said immigrants may have more interest in 'taking out' of this Welfare State than 'putting in'.

[William]

Alexander Drake says Public funding of political parties will help us win Government.

Public Funding is conditional on a Party barring itself from EU withdrawal, and on the Party being in alliance across one third of EU countries.

Without the threat of withdrawal from the EU, we are not in any position to re-negotiate. Public Funding is part of the lock and key that will not only bind us into Europe, but it will also remove our ability to reform the EU from the inside.

There is a Directive which already makes it illegal to give private donations to Parties. There is no choice about this, unless we break out of the EU. Holding a debate as if there was a choice about this is fraudulent. There is none.

What I object to is the fact the Party leader is dishonest and he joins in with Bliar pretending that there is a choice.

If you want the luxury of holding interesting opinions about this topic then first you must withdraw from the EU. Otherwise you might as well whistle up your ******** the amount of good it will do.

As for winning government, that presumes that Britain is governed from Westminster - another moot point.

[Richard]

"If you want ideological committment to a small state try Liberalism - they hate and fear the state, thus their total opposition to ID cards, their dislike of the army, police, patriotism, and their embrace of Human Rights Acts, internationalism and the EU (because they are frightened by the nation-state and think internationalism weakens it, before you ask)."

I think you are confusing Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism with Left-Liberalism. The former is anti-state but also anti-EU and anti-internationalist. Many libertarians are patriotic and don't think highly of the HRA, preferring our traditional liberties that assumed we were born with out rights rather than given them by the state. The latter is keen on the HRA, internationalism and a larger state due to its sympathy for interventionism and political correctness.

[Chad]

All due respect Chad but thats cr*p.

Jon, as you know, any sentence that starts with "all due respect" has no respect intended. :-)

Anyway, with all due respect Jon, perhaps you might question why 81% of the party are against a policy that is being proposed by a party that until December was championing its small government beliefs on its beliefs page.

Look at any definition of Conservatism in a dictionary
I don't know if you missed the point, but I clearly said that everyone has their own definition, but when it was recently discussed here, most party members listed small government. Why do you think that is?

The size of the state is irrelevant.
So why did the official Conservative Party beliefs until December state that it wanted people to be big but the state to be small?

It's amazing, I joined the party because it clearly listed a small state as one of its core beliefs.

It wasn't me applying my own interpretation, or picking a random dictionarty definition, it was clearly listed in black white as an official core belief of the party. But as I have already noted, I accept that small state is no longer an aim of the Tory Party. I have left the party, so that not a problem.

Does that mean that, so as the Referendum Party effectively helped Labour in 1997, you are admitting that, thanks to FPTP, you are now by default helping Labour stay in office at the next election?
Well, as Priti has shown, doing exactly that is a shortcut to the A-List! So drawing back someone who is stealing votes and costing seats must be held in higher esteem by the party than the loyal activists who have pounded the streets for year after year.

There is nothing you can do to harm the party that would prevent the party from promoting over the loyal mugs.

[malcolm]

Must say Alexander I thought I was a cynical old bugger but compared to you I'm an open mouthed starry eyed idealist.
'If a political party can't derive its rescources from its membership it doesn't deserve to survive'. I think that's right and personally I wouldn't want a political party (including the Conservatives) to survive except under those circumstances either.
Other than Alexander I haven't seen a single post in favour of state funding. I'm really curious as to why anyone British would support it.So if you do please post

[Mark Fulford]

The unspoken aspect to this is 'are we going to comply with the European Directive on the Punding of Political Parties'? ... The Directive which wishes to make private donations to political parties illegal ...

William, you are referring to the European Political Parties Directive but, through your enthusiam to bash the EU, you are completely misstating its effect and powers. I'd like to think that you are at least being mischevious, but I suspect you're just badly informed.

The directive Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 only applies to European Political Parties – which are pan-European alliances such as the EPP. Specifically the directive does not apply to national parties. It does not provide any funds that can be used at a national level, nor does it direct funding rules for parties at national level. To quote the directive:

“The funding of political parties at European level from the general budget of the European Union or from any other source may not be used for the direct or indirect funding of other political parties, and in particular national political parties, which shall continue to be governed by national rules.”

There is an EU Directive on the Funding of Political Parties, under which private donations to political parties are made illegal.

The directive says nothing of the sort. The relevant clauses are that "a political party at European level shall declare its sources of funding by providing a list specifying the donors and the donations received from each donor, with the exception of donations not exceeding EUR 500;" and "not accept anonymous donations."

Parties will only qualify if they are in association with Parties from one third or more of EU member states.

No, the actual condition is a quarter. To gain funding, each alliance has to find support from a quarter of countries.

Parties that stand for withdrawal from the EU will not qualify for funding, or those considered xenophobic or unacceptable.

Once again, no! The only restriction is that a political party at European level must observe "the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law;".

[Richard]

Once again, no! The only restriction is that a political party at European level must observe "the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law;".

Which can probably be twisted to mean whatever you want. If a far-right European party claimed to stand for those values the European Commission would probably still find a way to prevent any funding.

That aside a very effective demolition of William's claims. I am no fan of the EU and am aware that there has been much deception over its purpose but I don't think it's the all-powerful monolithic conspiracy William believes it to be.

[Richard Carey]

We all may differ on our defintions, but I very much define myself as a small c conservative, hence why I am here

Thanks for clarifying why you are here, I *had* frequently wondered.

I am now clearly in opposition to the Tory Party itself and will stand against them in key marginals where I think the party can influence the result

As someone who has worked in and helped win marginals, I have to say the following: great, another lunatic minority party to try and split the vote and help elect the Labour or LibDem candidate. For all your self-proclaimed political savvy, you and yours are *not* helping, and don't seem to get how this works.

FPTP does not (despite being the least worst option) produce the response you would want based on your actions - be very careful what you might wish for.

I look forward to helping you lose your deposit in a marginal seat sometime.

[Richard Carey]

FPTP does not (despite being the least worst option) produce the response you would want based on your actions - be very careful what you might wish for.

The word "always" should have appeared after "does not" in the above post - apologies for the unintentional insult to our electoral system!

[William]

Mark says - William, you are referring to the European Political Parties Directive but, through your enthusiam to bash the EU, you are completely misstating its effect and powers.

I wish I was.

The problem with EU Regulations is that you cannot take the literal words to discover their significance. You have to take real world or theoretical situations and run them past the words, and see where it takes you.

For example Mark find me one political party which is europhile in Brussels and eurosceptic at home, and one which can reliably differentiate its funding and spending between the national and the european arenas, and explain how that would be done in practice.

The EU makes laws which have to be complied with. It also pushes programmes politically. I would refer you to the court case broiught before the ECJ for 18 months by 25 MEP's including Roger Helmer which challenged the Directive for being against the principles of the EU. The claim to be promoting liberty, democracy and so on is nonsense. Surely you are not taken in.

Parties which stand for withdrawal would not qualify for funding, whether your words say it or they don't, and the long list of lovely sounding words would exclude xenophobic or anti-social parties in the opinion the ECJ, as Richard can see.

Also one might ask why has it been made illegal to donate money to political parties in the UK, so loans have been used instead causing all the recent scandals?

The progress of EU power is not only legal. It is known that private funding is to be made illegal in time which is probably why it was banned, (even if it has not been yet by the EU - my mistake). I admit - but then again so does anyone who expresses any opinion on any EU matter as the rules are made so complicated.

You yourself obviously have not understood the significance of many of the words you quote, but then neither of us are full time lawyers, and even they can get it wrong on occasions.

Your primary charge does not stand. I am not misstating the effect of EU policy on the role of political parties, and the attempt to bring them under control.

I have no wish to bash the EU, just to withdraw from it.

[SimonNewman]

"The problem with EU Regulations is that you cannot take the literal words to discover their significance. You have to take real world or theoretical situations and run them past the words, and see where it takes you."

Also you have to realise that in interpreting EU Directives the intent stated in the preambles "Whereas..." take precedence over the actual articles, at least that's how the ECJ and the courts of the civil-law countries interpret it. EU law is teleological and the considered intent matters far more than the actual wording. Common-law lawyers (ie us Brits) have a lot of trouble appreciating this, it's so alien to our traditions.

[Mark Fulford]

William, you were demonstrated to be wrong on virtually every point that you made. Instead of accepting that you were wrong, you say that I don’t understand the directive and we "cannot take the literal words to discover their significance".

How are we, the poor reader, to choose between the actual text (which is unusually concise) and William’s Interpretation? Luckily we have some other information to draw on: The Results. Under the directive, Eurosceptic parties such as UKIP, the June Movement and the June List receive funding by being members of the Eurosceptic Independence and Democracy group. Your claim that "Parties which stand for withdrawal would not qualify for funding" is as incorrect as the rest of your argument.

[Chad]

look forward to helping you lose your deposit in a marginal seat sometime.

Who is your local MP Richard? Which constiturency?

[johnC]

'Also one might ask why has it been made illegal to donate money to political parties in the UK, so loans have been used instead causing all the recent scandals?'

Donations are not illegal, but following recent changes to the law they have to be published. This is why donors and parties have resorted to loans which remain confidential. Surely the solution is to abolish the rule on disclosure of donations and to return to the old system which worked perfectly well.

My opposition to state funding of political parties is based on the same argument as my opposition to the TV licence: why should I pay for organisations which promote views and opinions to which I am totally opposed ?

[Jon Gale]

Chad,

"any sentence that starts with "all due respect" has no respect intended. :-)

True :)

So, with all due respect, I'm not arguing for a bigger state - I'm a small state conservative, and i'm against sate funding, and yes the british Tory party is largely a small state conservative party. But you can believe in a big state and be a conservative as well (Charles de Gaulle springs to mind) and it is wrong for you to go around saying that anyone who does not agree with your libertarianism cannot be a real conservative.

Secondly, Michael Howard was the one who wanted to disenfrachise the party members, and was in favour of ID cards. Luckily he was prevented from both. He was also against EU withdrawal, and sacked Howard Flight. But would you say Michael Howard was not a conservative? Why do you have a problem with Cameron if you were OK with Howard?

[William]

Thank you Simon Newman. He's determined not to see it though! He's a research scientist where things have to cut and dried.

I failed my law degree so am much better qualified to understand how words are manipulated to political ends!

[William]

OK confidential loans were made illegal.

why?

[William]

confidential donations - correction

[Chad]

Hi Jon,

I wasn't a Howard fan and didn't vote all in 2005.

I joined the party after its election defeat in June 2005 to help play my small part in making the party electable by getting it to fall back in line with its clearly stated values.

I felt I could join as I looked at the beliefs page and found that I agree with them, but felt the party wasn't itself actually pledging in policy terms what it was clearly stating in belief terms.

The party had become disconnected from its own values.

In short, I connected with the beliefs, but the policies did not seem to match them.

I thought Cameron would actually bring the party back closer to its stated beliefs, but with a fusion of conversion policies too, the much discussed 'and' theory.

Unfortunately, Cameron has taken the party even further away from those party beliefs (small state etc) with which I connected with, and thus felt the passion to join and help beat Labour.

The change I felt the party needed was to reconnect the party closer to its core values not further away or to rewrite them.

These core values fuse well in 'and' or 'paired-policy' terms as I noted in my Fusion blog and platform article.

So you see, I was hoping for the party to reconnect with its core values, and embrace the conversion ones, not move further away from the core.

[Chad]

I should have added that I had been for some time prior to June 2005 in correspondence with a great chap called Randy Piper in the US, a committed 'progressive conservative' which seemed to neatly fuse the core and conversion issues.

This progressive conservatism was really what I thought Cameron was seeking to deliver. I was wrong. I accept that, and completely accept that he is driving for a larger, not smaller state.

[johnC]

'confidential donations - correction'

Following the recommendation of the Neill Commission on Standards in Public Life, the
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 required all parties to declare donations over £ 1,000. Loans could remain confidential, but had to be on normal commercial terms.

It seems to have created more problems than it solved.

[SimonNewman]

"Thank you Simon Newman. He's determined not to see it though! He's a research scientist where things have to cut and dried.

I failed my law degree so am much better qualified to understand how words are manipulated to political ends!"

I'm a law lecturer, and though I don't teach "EU Law" per se, most law these days comes in the form of EU Directives and subsequent UK implementing Regulations, so most of the law I teach is now EU-derived law. I've seen how law looks like one thing to a common-lawyer (including presumably the UK ministers' legal advisors who agree to it), because of what the Articles say, while in practice turns out to be completely different - because to Civilian lawyers the 'real' law is the purposive statement in the Preamble. The Eurosceptic press often express this as a sort of bait & switch conspiracy by Europe against us, but it's more like two people conversing in different languages that only sound similar, with mutual misunderstanding. Unfortunately however with the weight of the ECJ being Civilian and firmly wedded to the EU's teleology, it's Britain that loses out.

[Mark Fulford]

Thank you Simon Newman. He's determined not to see it though! He's a research scientist where things have to cut and dried.

Since Simon has only commented on my post, I'm guessing that comment is aimed at me. If so, it's not only gob-smackingly hypocritical, it's also as poorly researched as the rest of your fluff.

Of your original arguments, precisely which bits are you still clinging too?

William, with an e-mail address at bun.com (a domain owned by News International), I'm starting to wonder how seriously to take you.

[William]

I am pleased to hear from someone who sounds like they are more acquainted with EU Laws than me and Mark Fulford.

Mark wants everything cut and dried so things can be simply understood as to how the EU works. Wouldn't we all? And he is getting a bit worked up that I dare to offer interpretations of the situation when I am obviously not the world's expert.

If he won't take it from me, maybe he will from Simon Newman.

Directives have the force of law, but are not always enforced - to begin with. There is also a political aspect. The EU knows how much they can push things along at any given time. Parties have been banned in Belgium and Holland already for example, but if that happened in Britain at the moment there would be an outcry.

I am sworn to self censorship here and cannot develop my theme further.

[William]

cool it fellow. the steam's rising from my PC. Lunch break.

[Jon Gale]

Chad,

Thanks for explaining that anyway.

[Mark Fulford]

Mark wants everything cut and dried so things can be simply understood as to how the EU works. Wouldn't we all?

No, I’m actually more interested in preserving the integrity and quality of this site. Your fact-less arguments are so easy to knock down that they make Conservatives appear stupid.

And he is getting a bit worked up that I dare to offer interpretations of the situation...

Worked up? You're interfering with the enjoyment of an otherwise perfect glass of wine, but that's about as far as it goes.

...when I am obviously not the world's expert.

I do love British understatement.

If he won't take it from me, maybe he will from Simon Newman.

Careful Simon, you’re now the new linchpin of William’s argument.

[William]

Your fact-less arguments are so easy to knock down that they make Conservatives appear stupid.

We wouldn't want to shock people would we?

[William]

From Dan Hannan in Telelgraph -

Belgian political parties are supported, not only by taxpayers' money, but by the legal apparatus of the state. They run newspapers, appoint their supporters to government posts, even administer part of the state's social insurance system. A few years ago, the Flemish nationalist party, Vlaams Blok, started doing uncomfortably well at the ballot box. Immediately, the cartel parties challenged its right to public funding, arguing that a party that threatened the unity of the Belgian state forfeited its right to that state's money. Private donations had been all but prohibited in Belgium following the Augusta scandal in the 1980s (which, needless to say, involved yet more illicit party funding), so cutting off state funds would have left the Flemish separatists penniless. As things turned out, the ban was overtaken by events: Vlaams Blok was declared racist and closed down.

Which, again, should tell us something. When the state pays for political parties, it assumes that it can tell them what to believe. In Belgium, separatism is a no-no. In the Netherlands, a court recently ruled that a Calvinist party should have its grants removed because it did not champion sex equality. In the European Parliament, parties must accept "the values of the European Union".

[William]

from wikipedia -

There has been controversy over the proposed European Political Parties Directive, which seeks to provide state funding for Europe-wide political parties. This has been seen by some as an attempt to put Eurosceptic parties (which would not meet the funding criteria) at a huge financial disadvantage [4]. 25 Members of the European Parliament petitioned the European Court of Justice, arguing that this directive contravened the EU's stated values of pluralism and democracy. However, the case was rejected after eighteen months [5].

[William]

From democracy in europe

the european political parties directive
"This is exactly how the communists maintained themselves in power in my country. They didn't ban elections – we had elections every four years. They just banned their opponents from contesting the elections."
Michal Kaminski, Polish MEP

The European Commission has introduced a directive (the European Political Parties Directive) which calls for state-funded political parties. To qualify for funding, parties would have to:

1) contest elections on the same manifesto throughout Europe
2) have a minimum level of support in at least 7 countries
3) "accept the values of the EU, as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms"

These criteria are self-evidently designed to bar Eurosceptic parties from receiving this funding. Believing that government should take place at the level of national democracies, Eurosceptic parties are unwilling to merge into pan-European movements. Neither could they agree to accept EU "values" (ie laws) being imposed on member states regardless of the views of national parliaments.

[Mark Fulford]

William, I’m not here to defend state funding. I simply sought to correct your misrepresentation of the directive and its powers because you were using falsehoods to trash the EU.

The Wikipedia article is absolutely correct. Nobody ever disputed that Hannan, Helmer, Kaminski et al saw the directive as an attempt to disadvantage Eurosceptic parties. Nobody ever disputed that they took the EU to court. Nobody ever disputed that they lost. The remaining question is whether the Eurosceptic fears played out in reality? Were Hannan and Helmer right? The answer seems to be “no”. UKIP and other Eurosceptic parties have made pan-European alliances; they are eligible to receive EU funding; the have not been disadvantaged. Are you aware of any party with an MEP that has been denied funding?

[Richard Carey]

Who is your local MP Richard? Which constituency?

Not quite sure why I'm rising to the bait on this one, but: I'm a member in South Holland & The Deepings constituency (MP: John Hayes) in Lincolnshire, seeing as you're curious. It doesn't really have any bearing on the point you quoted, however - I work on campaigns all over the place.

[Chad]

Thanks Richard ;-)

Anyway, with the big parties colluding over state funding, thus making it, in some form, inevitable despite the majority opposition, how about this as a way foward:

Parties will have to make a choice, either:

a: The party decides to receive state (taxpayer)funding along the lines of Cameron's proposals but with private donations limited to no more that £1000 per year.

b: The pary decides to reject any entitlement to state funding and in return it has no limits placed on the size of donations.

This way, parties that decide not to take from the taxpayer will still be able to compete.

Introducing state funding that will only reward a few parties and limiting donations will be very bad for democracy.

Let the people decide whether they want to vote for parties that seek to fund themselves from taxpayer funds or those who are funded privately.

All donations/loans will be declared, so if a party is funded by one millionaire for example, the people themselves can decide if that is preferable or less desirable from the taxpayer having to pay.

Restricting who gets the funding and the donation size will seriously hurt small parties and is completely undemocratic.

[William]

The EU will advance whenever it can towards ever closer union and retreat only to accomodate opposition. So here is a little small scale opposition to help the cause of preserving Britain's freedom.

The EU has the power to withdraw funding from the parties it gives it to if they stand for withdrawal or xenophobic policies and so on. The fact that it has not done so this week does not mean it will not do so next week.

The fact that this can be done to European level parties does not mean it is without effect at national level. How can a party be europhile at european level, and eurosceptic at national level, for example? The power the EU has taken to itself at European level to control political parties, provides leverage over national parties.

Parties that want to please the EU would introduce state funding, ban private donations and control selection of candidates centrally. That is what is happening in the UK, totally by chance of course, and the EU and its views has nothing whatsoever to with it as Mark so rightly says!

I would love to believe that the EU funding policy is no threat to the freedom of political parties. The real test or proof that Mark so badly craves will come only when a political party is about to remove a member state from the EU. The power equation is until then all theory.

Yours,

Purveyor of falsehoods (only to those who cannot see the threat to national freedom).

[William]

Mark Fulford...you were using falsehoods to trash the EU etc.

which you have kindly corrected and I am eternally grateful for the information you have provided on this. I did believe that the EU state funding directive applied directly to national parties, but I was wrong.

As for errors, my learned friend mentioned above, Mark did not seem to appreciate how to read the Directive correctly according to David the helpful law lecturer who came in to advise.

However at least Mark Fulford had tried to read the Directive himself. I was taking internet reports from the likes of Hannan, Helmer, Wikipedia and I too wrongly interpreted what I was reading.

The fact that EU nations including Britain are moving to conform with the EU state funding requirements is however most puzzling - e.g. banning confidential donations, proposing state funding of parties and so on - as it obviously is not based on legal enforcement as you say, but on something else - maybe on the urge to gold plate - to be seen to be being good boys and girls in the eyes of Brussels.

Or is there the realisation that national and european parties are not divisible in practice, so the easiest way to cope with the Directive is to comply with it nationally as well, to avoid confusion between the national and the European.

In a way this kind of power is far more frightening than pure legal power would be.

The EU doesn't even need to impose laws to enforce its will. It only needs create laws which indicate the way things are going to go, a bit like the gates in a sheep dog trial. In the confusion caused by the dog, the sheep start to walk through the gates...they decide to walk towards the laws themselves.

As there is no reporting how the EU affects national decision-taking in the media, we are left to try to struggle out an understanding on this by ourselves. I think there must be a fear of repercussions on the part of journalists to tackle topics such as this.

The sheep are as a result getting confused. The legal gates are waiting. It will only be time and we, the sheep will walk through them.

If only the sheep knew that the next stop was the slaughter house.

Our loss will not be death (presumably) but it will be the loss of our country, and our 1000 year democracy, for a life within a bureaucratic totalitarian state. I think the phrase 'trashing the EU' is a little unedifying, Mark. Portraying?

[William]

Mark, accusing someone of falsehood implies that they have an intention to deceive. This I deny. It was a genuine mistake. Usually it is considered incorrect to immediately assume evil intention on the part of others. But I forgive you, because the information you have provided has been most helpful.