Maude welcomes funding review

According to BBC Online Sir Hayden Phillips - commissioned by the Government to look into the funding of political parties - has set out four scenarios for the future of public funding:

1. minimal change
2. increased transparency
3. a cap on donations and
4. greater levels of public funding.

Francis Maude's response focuses on Labour's union dependency:

“We agree with the direction of Sir Hayden Phillips has set out thinking and will consider his options with care.  It’s clear that, if public funding for political parties is to increase, political parties must tackle the perception that donations can buy influence or favours. That’s why we support a cap on donations. The ball is now in Labour’s court.  For years the public has suspected that trade union cash buys Labour policy. It’s now time Labour severs its financial links with the trade unions.  Tony Blair’s position is so weak he cannot do this. So the pressure is on Gordon Brown to decide what is more important: cleaning up politics, or keeping the trade union bosses happy and Labour’s coffers full?”

All of the political parties are facing serious financial problems and are going to take any taxpayers' money they can to ease their financial problems.  Most voters object to any more state funding of political parties - particularly if it reinforces the detachment of political elites from grassroots members and local voices.

Comments

[John Hustings]

The last point is the key point for me. State funding is bad because it's just another way for the top brass to haughtily ignore the rest of us and do things their own way.

[malcolm]

Totally agree John.Now there's a suprise!

[leofwine]

Sir Hayden was quick off the mark.These things usually take ages.
I would guess that all party leaders, and all MPs will approve of a legitimised way into the public purse, they always do. Sir Hayden also puts in a plug for the wonderful freedom from corruption in British politics (no mention of honours for cash there then.)Just another bit of political flummery after all.

[RobD]

This report looks promising, assuming the cap on donations applies to unions as well as companies and individuals.

[Stuart Raven]

Party income should be limited to subs and donations and there should be a cap on donations anyway.

All names of donors should be in the public domain and in no circumstances should "honours" (joke word) be permitted to be awarded to a political donor.

Actually I'd like to see so-called honours abolished altogether. Until the Order of the British Empire was set up they barely existed except for aristocrats soldiers and diplomats.

[Andy Peterkin]

Public funding should be absolutely anathema to conservatives. Taxpayers should not be required to pay for the privilege of having political parties under any circumstances.

I would support the establishment of a Committee to examine in minute detail the justification for any political donor receiving an honour (i.e. more searching than the current process).

[toryabc]

The problem with Hayden is this-if more taxpayers money is to be given to political parties, then that means that there will be no market testing of the policies with financial backers and the parliamentary party will take an even stronger vice like grip on the voluntary party, whereas in the present situation, if backers are unhappy/discontented then they will pull the plug as they did under IDS, since to be honest they are the only ones the parliamentary party seem to take note of.

In addition there is the issue of how exactly this would work, and the very real danger that all manner of minority parties eg UKIP etc will then receive vast sums of taxpayers cash, which will then enable them and their like to be much more challenging to us.

All the donors that I have met, across the spectrum of giving, are dead against this, mainly because they believe it will make the politicians lazy. If you cann't get a few thousand party members to put in the money to fund the party then how can you get the votes you need to win the next election?

The real agenda is no doubt to try and end the link of Labour with the Trade Unions, but cann't really see this happening,, do turkeys vote for Xmas?

[Dave B]

Very much agree with toryabc's point

"If you cann't get a few thousand party members to put in the money to fund the party then how can you get the votes you need to win the next election?"

Any increase in state funding for polical parties will just strengthen central office control of the party and make it ever less necessary for the, straight from university to central office to westminster, policy bods to interact with the public.

Don't like the sound of Mr Maude's "It’s clear that, if public funding for political parties is to increase..."

Who says public funding HAS to increase? Not me, and I HOPE not the Conservative party.

[Alexander Drake]

I hope that option 4 is selected. It will be easier for the Conservative Party to win government. If that means a few bruised egos, tough. British politics isn't 'amateur hour' anymore.

[Richard Carey]

The full report on this should make for very interesting reading (well to a political anorak like me, anyway!)

I have to say, of the four options presented, greater transparency is the most appealing to me, and I see no argument against it. Why shouldn't I be able to give my own money to political parties, provided I and they accept the need to be open about my "contribution to public life"?

I'd be concerned about any top-down nature to state funding. As someone who can't give large sums, I'd rather donate to my local branch, or my local Association, rather than centrally. A small cheque to your local branch helps fund quite a few newsletters, mailshots etc.

Alexander - I agree, we still do need to become increasing professional in our approach, especially on the ground. Believe me, I'll happily take whatever funding is legally, ethically and openly given to help fund local campaigning. I am, however, concerned about what the status would be of things like the funding streams that Lord Ashcroft kindly provided direct to target seat campaign teams ahead of the '05 GE. I also think that the discipline that these funding routes demanded in requiring a clear and early "business plan" from campaign teams that applied was useful in and of itself. Amateur hour is over.

[JRL]

Point 1: This is a key test of integrity of the 'political elite' with the electorate. Right or wrong if state funding goes ahead it will be (in my view rightly) portrayed as the shop staff putting their collective hands in the till. Labour have wandering hands in this respect anyway, with their raid on the National Lottery funds for what should be paid for by the taxpayer.

Point 2: I've not seen the point mentioned yet, but for all the indignant huffing and puffing over state funding (personally I am against) and over the limitation of party spending, no-one has made the point to the electorate at large that the party spending issue isn't one that can be controlled. Look at what happened in the USA...if you limit the spending abilities of parties to the extent that they feel constrained from getting a message across, then other organisations will spring up the communicate those messages as unofficial but cooperative proxies. So organisations such as "The People For David Cameron" and "Labour Will Win" or such-like would no doubt appear before elections, for those who would like to to pass their cash. How would such groups be regulated then, is the question for those in favour on party spending limitations ? Limitations there would get seriously into questions over free speech.
My view is: no state funding at all (including no short money), force transparency on all donations by law (even to the extent of donations to any politically aligned organisation), no limits to party spending, and independent scrutiny over politicalisation of the civil service and the use of civil service positions (e.g. press officers) for propogation of party propoganda as opposed to government information. The civil service in general operates along strict lines of knowing what is a 'government issue' and what is a 'party issue', so why does this government get away with what they currently do with their political appointees ? Naivity on my part with respect to the civil service point, you may think, but if we don't try this then we shall never know, and if we don't try then question over more transparency on political appointees needs to be addressed, leading, potentially, to a more US-like appointee system.

A long post, but I've got it out of me now, if anyone has read this far...

[JRL]

Does Labour have an 'advantage' over use of the civil service for party political purposes, as any government party would ? Yes. But the answer isn't state money (Short money). The answer is transparency over and independent oversight of appointees within the service with respect to political interference. And, equally important, transparency over what our civil servants do - e.g. the Tory party spends its own money on the Michael Forsyth tax commission, but Labour has it's planning expenses fudged into the government planning budget paid for by the Treasury. Now that's OK for Labour to do that as they are in government, but as it's government money, then the people have a right to know, so such planning information should be completely susceptable to freedom of information requests. Any planning Labour want to do and keep quiet about, they can pay for out of their own funds, the same as anyone else. Rant over.

[Mike Christie]

We should be looking at reducing party costs and cutting spending limits for campaigns before we look at raiding taxpayer's money.

Why should the tax payers fund Prescott's ego-bus, Cherie's hair and all the party leaders dashing round like headless chickens and jumping into helicopters at the first sign of an angry voter?

The absolutely blatant scam of Labour giving the unions tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer's money so they can 'modernise' whilst reaping substantial donations back from the unions urgently needs looking at. It looks like pure money laundering with Labour giving themselves millions of pounds of taxpayers money.

[malcolm]

I think Alexander you will find yourself in a small minority on this blog and in a tiny minority in this country at large. I suspect this country may be very different from Australia. In Britain (largely but not exclusively) thanks to Blair contempt for the political class is the highest it has been in my lifetime. The media are also generally contemptuous of political parties and will raise hell if state funding of parties is brought in because our corrupt PM has been selling peerages.
I'm not at all sure that the Conservatives will benefit but am fairly sure that in this country where voting is not compulsory if state funding is brought in even fewer people will bother to vote.

[UK Daily Pundit]

Francis Maude would do better to give up his outside interests, instead of colluding in yet another pick-pocketing exercise by the Westminster Mafia.

Francis Maude: Remunerated directorships

[George Hinton]

The problem with Hayden Phillip's review is like all governmental enquiries the answer is known, the information must then be massaged and knocked into shape to meet the pre agreed criteria.
Having posted on the web site i was not impressed by the way it was run or the manner in which comment was recorded and debate shaped.
Clearly the taxpayers are going to be robbed to keep the idle bastards in power and jobs and expenses and pensions, to rule over us with an increasing unconcern, as they no longer need our direct money transfers, they can just rob the Treasury, and ignore the will of the people.
A pox on the lot of them, one can only hope for revenge at a later date.

[George Hinton]

The problem with Hayden Phillip's review is like all governmental enquiries the answer is known, the information must then be massaged and knocked into shape to meet the pre agreed criteria.
Having posted on the web site i was not impressed by the way it was run or the manner in which comment was recorded and debate shaped.
Clearly the taxpayers are going to be robbed to keep the idle bastards in power and jobs and expenses and pensions, to rule over us with an increasing unconcern, as they no longer need our direct money transfers, they can just rob the Treasury, and ignore the will of the people.
A pox on the lot of them, one can only hope for revenge at a later date.

[Putting the record straight]

Quote "All of the political parties are facing serious financial problems"
Not true. UKIP do not have massive debts and they voted at their recent annual conference that political parties should not be funded by the Taxpayer. Why the hell should the political dinosaurs be bailed out and entrenched by raiding other peoples money? Oh, I forgot, they are all statist parties who believe in subsiding substandard organisations who are failing miserably in the market place.