Voters reject greater state funding as solution to sleazy Labour

A YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph produces the rather unsurprising finding that Tony Blair's government is now thought to be sleazier than John Major's was once thought.  In 1997 only 19% of voters recognised Labour as sleazy and disreputable.  62% thought it of the Conservatives.  Today just one-third of voters think it of the Conservatives but 63% think it of Tony Blair's New Labour.

Other key findings of the poll:

• 65% do think that Labour raised money by offering peerages for loans;
• Exactly the same proportion think Blair knew that this was happening;
• 82% think that Tony Blair has failed to clean up politics;
• Only 25% support greater state funding of political parties in order to try and clean up politics - 59% think it wouldn't clean up politics or they don't favour the move.

The poll coincides with a report in The Times which suggests that "The Labour Party has run up the biggest debts in its history at £27.2 million."  "Almost half," Andrew Pierce reports, "is owed to a dozen rich businessmen who are demanding repayment."

The figure is not quoted in the main poll but Simon Heffer - discussing 'Dodgy Dave's' EPP shift - reports that "51 per cent of the public say they find the Conservative Party untrustworthy."

Donal Blaney, author of the Laws of the Public Policy Process series on YourPlatform, uses this week's law to attack David Cameron's failure to deliver the "months, not years" exit from the EPP:

"These are now dangerous times because trust, once lost, is very hard (if not impossible) to regain. David Cameron cannot get away from the fact that a vast swathe of the Party's membership in the Commons, Brussels and in constituencies will feel badly let down by what has happened this week. It may even be the case that many on the Right who had kept their counsel until now on Project Cameron may no longer feel compelled to do so anymore."

Comments

[Geoff]

65% do think that Labour raised money by offering peerages for loans

As I may well have observed here before - can someone please produce someone from this mysterious 35% who actually think he hasn't sold peerages? I would love to ask which recreational chemicals they are taking because they obviously work well...

[Ted]

Geoff

It always amazes me too - then I read Comment is Free and realise there are a lot of people out there with very diferent (loonie?) views of the world. Mr Hattersley talks about Mr Blairs probity.....

Bigger question is who are the one in three people who afer 9 years of failure, sleaze and ever higher taxation still intend to vote Labour?

Good though that the majority have said no to public funding.

[John Coles]

""Only 25% support greater state funding of political parties""

I have a feeling that this public attitude will not stop Mr Cameron joining with Blair to put the bite on the Exchequer to fund the Conservative party.

[Anthony Wells]

Geoff - there are only 9% of people that deluded! The other 25% don't know.

[Andrew Woodman]

The 25% must not know what a peerage it.

The 9% might be the jury from the case of the bloody knife in Blackadder goes forth.

[Geoff]

Andrew: interesting and topical that you mention juries.

Does this survey give us a prediction of the unfortunate split of a hung jury which therefore won't be able to convict "Lord" Levy?

I served on a jury several years ago and it destroyed my faith in the judgement of my fellow man. There are some very odd people with some very odd ideas out there.

Tim - thank you for the Heffer link. The papers don't make it out here to Gibraltar until lunchtime so hadn't seen it yet. I usually find myself nodding when I read his column but he ruins a perfectly good point about the EPP by expressing it in over the top Ann Coulter-like phrases. Shame.

[Chad]

I am really trying to get UKIP to not just reject the idea of extending state funding but to also clearly refuse any future entitlement to it.

Someone has to fight in the taxpayers' corner.

State (i.e. taxpayer funding) combined eventually no doubt with compulsory voting will permanently damage the democratic process as parties will become ever more isolated from their members, not depending on them for their existence.

This will effectively mean that we will be charged to vote and the parties will have no obligation to listen.

No small government supporter could endorse the extension of state funding of political parties and I am so pleased that it was overwhelmingly rejected by 80% of members here.

[Wat Tyler]

Naturally I'm pleased to see most people are against state funding. As we all know, parties need to spend less and raise what they spend from a broader membership.

Yes, yes, we can all agree with that. Certainly.

But then I find myself in a quandary. Like the rest of you Tory members, I keep getting letters and glossy brochures asking me to join various gold/platinum/super-platinum supporter groups, all priced accordingly. Cash for access maybe, but at least money from the wider membership.

But then I'm sitting here thinking I'm not that comfortable with much of DC's policy direction. What would I actually get for my money?

Given that I couldn't run to the super-platinum tete-a-tete with Dave, how about a power breakfast with Michael Gove? Would that influence the direction of party policy?

No, I thought not.

But if I can't influence our direction, why would I want to do anything beyond standard membership and the odd fundraising event?

Does anyone know?

[Julian Morrison]

Let's call it what it is: politicians on welfare.

[Chad]

Excellent Julian! :-)

How can Cameron/Blair/Campbell criticise those on benefits when they are seeking to sign themselves off on permanent disability allowance?

[Ted]

Wat Tyler

Was looking at the invitation to become a Party Patron with many of the same thoughts, though as much more of a DC supporter - I do contribute already above membership fees, I believe in membership funding, can afford it so should be no contest.

But disposable funds are limited - is it better to send £50 a month to my old home parish in Zambia to support their charity for homeless Aids orphans ?

which does more good - getting a Conservative Government which I believe will reduce social dependency, reduce domestic poverty and offer a better life through greater long term prosperity or housing, clothing and feeding children in need today?

Sorry too personalise it but much as I am against state funding in the end thats what voluntary giving comes down to - decisions. Because if we reject state funding, support maximum donations etc the membership of the party needs to think about providing £120 per annum on average - to cover local, national & election costs. With reductions for students & pensioners probably more.

Now if all I'm getting for that is the pleasure of giving - no voice, no real participation, my MP/MEP not really accountable, policy decided in back rooms - then there are plenty of better things I could spend the cash on.

The Party needs to recognise now that state funding is not the answer but increasing its dependence on the membership means change - it means giving more importance and input to the members, becoming more accountable. On the whole it is changing but not enough.

For example in the honetmoon period after DCs election if he had put A list proposals to the vote and there had been a short but democratic campaign with pros and cons explored and then membership had supported that would we be having the centre v local ructions?

[Ted]

Wat Tyler

Was looking at the invitation to become a Party Patron with many of the same thoughts, though as much more of a DC supporter - I do contribute already above membership fees, I believe in membership funding, can afford it so should be no contest.

But disposable funds are limited - is it better to send £50 a month to my old home parish in Zambia to support their charity for homeless Aids orphans ?

which does more good - getting a Conservative Government which I believe will reduce social dependency, reduce domestic poverty and offer a better life through greater long term prosperity or housing, clothing and feeding children in need today?

Sorry too personalise it but much as I am against state funding in the end thats what voluntary giving comes down to - decisions. Because if we reject state funding, support maximum donations etc the membership of the party needs to think about providing £120 per annum on average - to cover local, national & election costs. With reductions for students & pensioners probably more.

Now if all I'm getting for that is the pleasure of giving - no voice, no real participation, my MP/MEP not really accountable, policy decided in back rooms - then there are plenty of better things I could spend the cash on.

The Party needs to recognise now that state funding is not the answer but increasing its dependence on the membership means change - it means giving more importance and input to the members, becoming more accountable. On the whole it is changing but not enough.

For example in the honetmoon period after DCs election if he had put A list proposals to the vote and there had been a short but democratic campaign with pros and cons explored and then membership had supported that would we be having the centre v local ructions?

[TomTom]

I think political parties should be funded from the BBC Licence Fee - they provide cheap soap-operas for TV networks, have plenty of buffoons ready to take part in quiz shows and stunts, and provide a steady stream of programming and leaks and news items.

So often the whole thing looks scripted that it may as well become a BBC Production and the BBC should sponsor all the major parties.

[David Belchamber]

What are all the practical options for funding political parties? Elections are costly things, though probably expenditure should be capped at a certain figure. What about funding for minor parties (not individual candidates)?

[Richard]

If political parties can't get sufficient funding they deserve to die. If people like Polly Toynbee want to maintain the party system as it is then they should encourage the public to donate more, not force them to pay via their taxes.

[Chad]

"What are all the practical options for funding political parties? "

Approach one:
* You listen to people
* You represent their values and aspirations.
* You create a bottom-up manifesto that aggregates your members' values
* They donate money to help you deliver that manifesto

Approach two:
* You don't listen to people
* You fail to represent their values and aspirations.
* You create a top-down manifesto that represents your views and expect the members to lump it as they have nowhere else to go.
* People stop joining and donating so you collude with the other parties to change the law to force taxpayers to fund your activities.

[Yet Another Anon]

I am really trying to get UKIP to not just reject the idea of extending state funding but to also clearly refuse any future entitlement to it.
No political party is going to put themselves at such a disadvantage, but rather take the money and campaign for the abolition of the system - no doubt the Conservative Party, Labour and the Liberal Democrats will be getting the lions share anyway.

[Chad]

Actually ukip will be at no disadvantage at all. Cameron's official proposals (March 2006) seek to deny any funds for the 1.3 million votes that did not result in a seat so UKIP would get nothing despite 600,000+ people voting for them.

So UKIP has a chance to claim clear blue water. UKIP have actually already clearly stated that they oppose state funding which puts them as the only on the top 4 parties to be fighting the corner of the vast majority of the country who oppose the extension of state funding of political parties.

I'm just seeking for them to complete the job and to not just oppose, but reject any entitlement that, in effect, they are unlikely to be offered anyway.

So UKIP are already in the public's corner on this. I just want them to deliver the knockout blow.

[Yet Another Anon]

Actually ukip will be at no disadvantage at all. Cameron's official proposals (March 2006) seek to deny any funds for the 1.3 million votes that did not result in a seat so UKIP would get nothing despite 600,000+ people voting for them.
But under some proposed scheme they might get funding and in face of a situation in which the big 3 have substantial access to major business backers and to greater state funding then realistically UKIP and other small parties would need every penny they could get.

Like it or not you have to work with the system, parties that don't agree with the current electoral system still stand under it and aim to change it, people opposed to monarchy who want to become ministers still take oaths of allegiance to the monarch, in the same way as in Ulster, Unionists opposed to the Good Friday Agreement and wanting re-establishment of the Stormont Parliament and who were hostile to power sharing still tried taking part. UKIP obviously is not going to sweep to victory in one election but if it makes a major advance next time around then it may well be getting a fair amount of funding and that money can be used to campaign for abolition of state funding because the other parties will be using the money to campaign for the retention of the scheme and for remaining in the Council of Europe, UKIP has to get money from somewhere to fund campaigns as all parties do but they will be subject to new restrictions as much as every other party is.

[Chad]

"UKIP has to get money from somewhere to fund campaigns as all parties do but they will be subject to new restrictions as much as every other party is."

Indeed, but the new rules are neither defined nor in place yet. Don't assume that Cameron's plans will be delivered as he wishes as there is a potential for a vital twist detailed below.

I made my submission to the funding review noting that the big 3 are bound to push through this extension of state funding for their own interests, so the only fair solution to keep a level playing field would be to force political parties to choose:

* State funding + caps on private donations
or
* No state funding + no caps on private donations.

This way parties can really choose whether they want to be indepenently funded or, as Julian noted, living off the state.

With this solution, the playing field will be level. Those who refuse to rob the taxpayer will free to (with full transparency of course) be allowed to take large donations from millionaires, whereas the parties living off the state will be limited to sat £5,000.

In the interests of democracy, parties should not be limited in their funding if they decide to stand on their own two feet.

The public can then choose whether they want to vote for a 'state' or independent political party knowing that one vote will cost them and the other will be free.

Remember, few people are against the big donors (and certainly find them preferable to taxpayer funding), just the fact that the parties tried to hide their identities.

[Chad]

..and even if the fair, small government approach is rejected and the extension of state funding is imposed on parties, of course UKIP can always been the party to pledge to repeal it.

UKIP is the only party of the top 4 to oppose state funding. It is therefore logical for them to pursue this direction.

[UKIP Fiend]

UKIP already have great big dollops of EU funding so whats the difference between EU taxpayers subsidising your party and UK taxpayers subsidising your party?

Perhaps we shouldnt mention how much UKIP gets in EU funding should we?