David Cameron: No extra state funding of political parties without cap on union donations

Francis Maude made it clear in March...

David Cameron has made it clear again tonight...

The Conservative Party will not agree to any increase in state funding for political parties unless Labour agrees to a cap on the donations it receives from trade unions.

In a letter to Mr Brown, the Tory leader has requested an urgent clarification on Labour's intentions:

"There is no case for additional state funding for political parties without fundamental reform. The package currently proposed in these talks does not amount to the fundamental reform that is needed. In these circumstances I cannot and will not support any increase in state funding for political parties... A comprehensive cap on donations to political parties is essential. All common sense requires that to win public trust, no individual or body can remain exempt.  The cap must apply to trade union donations, whether directly or through affiliation fees."

Mr Cameron has agreed that there could be an extended transitional period to allow Labour to adjust to a world without union funding, but he is now hardening the Conservative position.  This will be a popular stance amongst the Conservative rank-and-file.  A ConservativeHome survey from May last year found that 81% opposed the idea that "a major proportion of funding for political parties should come from the state."

Mr Brown meanwhile is considering new legislation that would control spending between elections.  Labour MPs in marginal seats are anxious about the effect of Lord Ashcroft's target seats fund which is helping the Tory candidates attempting to oust them.

Earlier this week, in an article for The Telegraph, Michael Ashcroft  defended his position:

1. He said that he was not the only financial contributor to the 'target seats fund' but that "most of the money is given by others";
2. That decisions about which target seats receive help are taken by a committee that he chairs but also includes "the party chairman, Caroline Spelman, professional party staff and senior volunteers";
3. The fund was necessary to provide some counterbalance to the huge advantage afforded to incumbent MPs by a myriad of parliamentary allowances - a point made by Robert Halfon just over a week ago.  Ashcroft wrote: "At the 2005 election, Labour MPs coming to the end of their first term in parliament achieved an average vote share 3.3% lower than when they were elected in 2001. In Labour constituencies where the MP was standing down, the new candidate saw a drop in support almost three times as big. In other words, sitting MPs at general elections have a clear advantage over other candidates."  Sitting Labour MPs in the 100 most marginal seats have, he concludes, a £4 million-a-year head start.  The Tory target seats fund currently costs £2m.

11am, 21 October: The Observer on Geoff Hoon's support for caps on Lord Ashcroft's donations.

Comments

[David Boothroyd]

From a Labour Party perspective I will never accept any cap on individual donations that applies to unions. They are membership organisations where every member pays the same amount, and are fundamentally different from individual rich donors. I don't know what David Cameron means by this; if he insists on a position that is fundamentally unacceptable to the Labour Party then we may as well terminate negotiations now to save time.

[Tanuki]

The one thing I want to see David Cameron make clear is: The Conservative Party will not agree to any increase in state funding for political parties.

We then start the campaign to withdraw all existing taxpayer-funding of politcal parties. That's a spending-cut I think we'd have 99% of the population in favour of!

[matthew]

nonsense David. The organisation (the Union) determines that its members, and therefore itself as a single corporate person, will donate. There might be the option to opt out, but it's a million miles from an individual donation freely elected by a member.

[Tony Makara]

The question is why on earth are the unions still supporting the Labour party? Poverty has increased under Labour, class distinctions have widened and the unemployed are exploited for free Labour under the New Deal. The union leaders must be stupid, completely stupid. They could all withdraw their funding from Labour and finance a real socialist party, not the champagne socialists masquerading under the moniker of New Labour. It just goes to show that the unions are not as smart or as radical as they like to think they are.

[James Maskell]

If the monies given to political parties is disclosed properly, then whats the problem? As long as the money given by people such as Lord Ashcroft or the Unions for that matter, is disclosed properly to the Electoral Commission, then there wont be any risk of the problems weve found in the past.

[David Boothroyd]

The union executive is elected by its members; the decision to have a political fund is subject to a ballot of the members; paying into the fund is voluntary. At each stage the individual members are paramount. Trade union contributions to Labour Party funds may be paid in a single cheque but they are the grouping of millions of individual small donations.

If a cap is applied to individual donations then it should apply per person, whether donated through a group or on their own bat. That would be fair.

[bill grant]

then big companies should be able to give unlimited sums as they represent hundreds of individual shareholders?

[Yet Another Anon]

The honours system should be scrapped, loans to parties need to be more strictly regulated including setting minimum interest repayments and requiring that they be declared and that there are requirements for minimum repayment schedules. There is no need to cap donations and I see no need for further public money for political parties, perhaps though there needs to be some kind of system of selection for the leader of the opposition - perhaps requiring approval by opposition MPs as the PM is subject to approval by MPs generally, or in the event of some kind of directly elected executive, perhaps the opposition being those who came second.

In that case there might be justification for some statutory recognition of Shadow cabinet positions, it would also make it clear who could claim to be the Shadow cabinet and mean that the Liberal Democrats or anyone else to do so would have to earn that position.

[GADFLY]

THE REASON THE UNIONS SUPPORT LABOUR IS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE.THIS IS HOW IT WORKS.UNION LEADERS KEEP THE RANK AND FILE IN LINE BY THE POLITICS OF ENVY.THEY USE WORDS LIKE "FAT CATS""UNELECTED LAND OWNERS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.WHAT THEY OVERLOOK IS THEIR OWN PAY AND PERKS.IT IS ALSO A FAIR BET THAT MOST OF THEM WILL END UP IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

[James Maskell]

Gadfly, is it really necessary to resort to capital letters throughout the post? I recall youve had posts deleted for the OTT use of caps.

[Mrs Campbell]

No state funding of political parties and completely transparent accounting for the source of all funds - printed lists of donors/members. There are quite a few running with both the hare and the hounds...

[Malcolm Dunn]

For the first time ever David Boothroyd I agree with you. We should terminate negotiations now. The Labour party has proved time and again that the only thing it's interested in is party political advantage. The wishes of the electorate (as Douglas Alexander proved again today) can be damned. The Conservative party should not give the Labour party a figleaf of respectability by entering into any form of negotaitions on this subject.

[Matt Wright]

Labour have a very unpleasant track record on all this. They wish to twist democracy merely to serve their own party political ends. I am pleased that the Conservatives wish to scrap the recent so called communications allowance. This and other abuses of parliamentary allowances are being used to fund what are really party political campaigns by incumbent MPs.