Are the Conservatives about to reject more state funding?

"There should be not a penny more state funding without a single, comprehensive cap on donations - including companies, the unions and individuals.  The public will be highly cynical if political parties award themselves lump-sum handouts without fundamental reform.  Any additional state funding should be there to assist and encourage parties to re-engage with the electorate, for example, through tax relief on small donations and a matched funding scheme for those who do not pay tax.  State funding must not reduce the dependence of parties upon their own activists for fundraising.  Nor must it be allowed to increase the distance between the parties and the electorate."

That is what Francis Maude will say about state funding of political parties in a speech to Politeia later today.  The "there should not be a penny more state funding..." line implies that the Tories would walk away from a deal that didn't include a cap on union funding.  That would be news that would be welcomed by the vast majority of Tory members and the right-leaning press.  Let's hope the Chairman really means what the says.  He goes on to explain the unacceptability of the current Labour-union link:

"Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have proposed a cap of £50,000 a year.  We think this is a level at which no one will seriously fear that a party is subject to undue influence.  This would cause us some financial pain, but we are willing to undergo that in order to win back the public's trust in the political process.  Labour by contrast have entered a resounding veto on any such cap.  They maintain that the trade unions are a special case.  Well, in one sense they are.  The proportion of Labour's funding provided by a handful of trade union leaders is around 70%.  And there is nothing remotely covert about what is given in return.  It is all there to be seen.  To pay for the 2005 election campaign, Labour reached a deal with the unions called the Warwick Agreement.  The unions stumped up £12 million to fund Labour's election campaign.  And in return, there was £10 million of taxpayers' money for the Union Modernisation Fund, extra rights for strikers, and a deal which means civil servants still get to retire earlier than those in the private sector.  This has all the hallmarks of a straightforward commercial transaction.  It is precisely this kind of trade - cash for policy, or in the case of the Union Modernisation Fund union cash in return for taxpayers' cash - that has eroded public confidence in the integrity of the political process.  Reform of party funding that failed to remedy this would be shockingly cynical and a terrible wasted opportunity."

18DoughtyStreet.com's ad against state funding of political parties can be watched below.

Comments

[Ted]

Good one Francis!

[Jennifer Wells]

I really hope this is true. Many Tory activists will strongly support a U-turn on state funding by the Cameron leadership.

[Richard Carey]

I have to say that I have been highly sceptical of the case for outright state funding of political parties, as it would be a little galling to see my taxes go to opposition parties at the same time as working hard for ours! However, I would be prepared to listen to the argument for some of the “matched funding” type of arrangement that seek to reward engagement – for example, limited tax relief on small donations, in the same vein as tax relief on charitable donations, would signal that putting your time and money into local democracy is a positive thing, while allowing you to keep control of where and when your money goes.

But more on topic, I am pleased to see Maude sticking to his guns on the donation cap. Incidentally, I would be more concerned about the “quid pro quo” that Labour demanded previously for accepting such a cap – the right to regulate all of our campaigning expenditure, not just in election periods. Local parties engaging with the electorate and working hard on peacetime campaigning is a good thing in itself (as well as being a huge electoral asset for us), additional bureaucracy on local parties is not.

I do believe that the future of our own party’s finances should involve an increasing proportion of our income being raised locally through more vigorous fundraising and spent locally on professional, efficient campaigning. This vision would of course require some voluntary levelling arrangements between target and non-target seats to ensure we deliver vital campaigns where they matter politically, something that would actually benefit from the buy-in that this would require from members. This would present a good challenge to those of us in local associations to raise our game in order to rise to this, and would be in keeping with our policy focus on localism and responsibility.

[Simon Chapman]

This sounds very promising indeed

[comstock]

To pay for the 2005 election campaign, Labour reached a deal with the unions called the Warwick Agreement. The unions stumped up £12 million to fund Labour's election campaign

That is the way Labour is supposed to work, though ..... Funded by ordinary working men and women to get their voices heard in parliament.

More union funding, not less!!

[Matt Wright]

Comstock said - "That is the way Labour is supposed to work, though ..... Funded by ordinary working men and women to get their voices heard in parliament".

It's not "Labour" that should be funded by ordinary working people its political parties chosen by those people. As for getting their voices heard they haven't got a good deal!

Matt

[malcolm]

I hope this is true although I do not support any extra state funding of political parties under any circumstances.Why should the taxpayer waste money on matched funding? Why should any political party which cannot rely on sufficant funding from its members survive?
I hope Francis Maude does not choose to oppose State Funding for narrow party advantage reasons but rather because it is wrong thing to do.

[Mike Clarke]

A political party that cannot attract sufficient funds from its supporters does not deserve to exist. No state funding for political parties, not even of the "matched funding" kind, is acceptable!

[Richard Carey]

Why should the taxpayer waste money on matched funding?

Okay, it's devil's advocate time...

Out of curiosity, would you place tax relief on individual voluntary donations into the same bracket? My tax is still my money, something this government forgets. Hypothetically, if I wished the equivalent to the income tax that I had paid on a small amount of money I had freely given to a poitical party to follow my donation, is that not a reasonable recognition of my participation in democratic politics as a social good?

[Annabel Herriott]

Surely the problem with Union funding, is that not all union members belong to the labour party do they?? And if that is the case, are those members that happy to give nulab such eyewatering amounts, some of which must be their subs.

[Lord Cashcroft]

You mean they have enough??????

[Matt Davis]

Not often that I agree with Maude but I most assuredly do on this.Having said that the best solution still remains no state funding of political parties whatsoever. But since Labour have already perverted that principle, both through their dodgy deals with the Trade Unions as well as their levy of their Councillors allowances it looks like the genie is already out of the bottle on this one and a cap on donations is the best we can reasonably hope for.

[Elaib]

Sorry,
I cannot agree with you that this is a U-Turn. 'No state funding unless...' is rather different than 'No state funding...'.

If there is full transparency over £1000 pounds donations then what is the problem? No state funding...period.

[Soupy Twist]

This looks like a step in the right direction to me. One for which ConservativeHome should take some of the credit.

However, we're not all the way there yet -- so keep pushing!

[James Maskell]

I oppose all state funding for political parties. This includes using Councillor allowances to pay for election expenses, which is a form of State funding through Council Tax. How does Maude feel on this issue? Perhaps this could be a question at the next Challenge the Chairman...

[Ken Stevens]

There should not be any general State funding of political parties. 'Market forces' should apply - if a party cannot sustain itself by popular support then there is no rationale for propping it up with taxpayers' money. That would have a better chance of getting parties to reconnect with the ordinary public.

[George Hinton]

Maude gets my backing, if that is what he says.

[Bruce Standing]

There should be less state funding of political parties and MPs. A glossy full colour Newsletter is delivered in my constituency from the Conservative MP. You might think the cost of designing, printing and delivering the newsletter is covered by the local wealthy Conservative Association. You would be wrong. The leaflet is funded by the IEP (ultimately the Taxpayer). The MP has refused to say how much the leaflets cost or who pays for distribution. Expenditure of this sort hardly makes for a level playing field, or help reduce taxation.

[Denis Cooper]

No state funding of political parties, no tax rebates, no matched funding, no free broadcasts either. I accept that each candidate could have his personal general election address delivered free to every household, because that applies equally to all candidates including independents - and they usually lose their deposits...

[malcolm]

Matched funding is your money too Richard. I object to any of my tax going to political parties for whom I have a deep loathing such as Labour or the BNP. Equally I would not expect some ignorant,deluded Labour supporter to have to pay his or her tax to support the Conservative Party.Nor do I see any reason for political donations to be tax deductible. If for example ,a person gave to the Lib Dems what exactly is the benefit to the British State of making the donation tax deductible ? The exchequer would lose valuable money and if the Lib Dems were ever successful we would become part of some EU superstate! In other words Britain would be hit by a double whammy!

[David Bullingdon]

Malcolm, you are in an EU superstate, and unfortunately it was the Conservative Party who put you there.