'Lord Ashcroft merely levels the playing field'

ConservativeHome has long believed that political parties should not be dependent upon the state or a few big donors for their income.  We support David Cameron's belief in something like a £50,000 cap on donations.  We'd like to see the Conservative Party fund itself from lots of small donations - ideally backed up with some sort of tax relief.  The Canadian Conservatives have been forced to pursue a retail fundraising strategy and it has helped to make them a party that is much more in tune with real voters' concerns.  Ideally, the money being pumped into the Conservative Party by Lord Ashcroft would be part of a strategy to diversify the party's funding base.

Putting all of this on one side for the moment, however, it's clear that Michael Ashcroft's generosity is an essential weapon for Conservative candidates in marginal seats who face very well-funded incumbents.

Robert Halfon, our candidate in Harlow, makes the point very well in a letter he sent to The Guardian:

"Dear Sir

Complaints about Lord Ashcroft funding of marginal seats is really just a Labour red herring.

As a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate fighting to overturn a Labour majority of just 97, I am faced with a huge inbuilt disadvantage.

Not only does the MP have £18,000 of taxpayer funds annually to 'communicate' with the electorate (not forgetting the £10,000 bonus recently added), he also has £7,000 postal expenses and a fully staffed office also paid for by the taxpayer. My MP regularly writes unsolicited letters to members of the public. Indeed, he has the third highest postage bill in the country.

So, with a £28,000 annual communications allowance, a huge postage allowance and Trade Union funds, Labour MPs have an automatic head start over any challenger. Support from Lord Ashcroft and others to Conservative Parliamentary Candidates merely levels the playing field.

Yours sincerely

Robert Halfon
Harlow Conservative Prospective MP"

The Guardian have not (yet) published the letter.

PS Today's World at One discusses Lord Ashcroft's target seats funding.  Click here and listen from 23 minutes in.

Comments

[Malcolm Dunn]

Robert Halfon is spot on. We are very lucky to have so generous a benefactor who as far as I'm aware does not force his own personal views onto the party (unlike one or two other donors).
The Conservative party made a big mistake when it voted for the communication allowance to be given to sitting MPs. Not only was it wrong in principle but also because the main beneficiaries are Labour MPs a tactical mistake too.
On a more general point it would be good to impose a limit on the size of donations given by individuals (or Trade Unions) but both are infinitely preferable to State funding

[Tony Makara]

The problem with state funding is would it be fair to ask the taxpayer to fund a political party that was sympathetic to terrorism or openly espoused racist views? I would not be against state funding for non-political individuals who wanted to play a part in public life in a non-political second chamber, but even then candidates would have to meet certain criteria.

[Alex Swanson]

"The problem with state funding is would it be fair to ask the taxpayer to fund a political party that was sympathetic to terrorism or openly espoused racist views?"

I don't think it is fair to ask the taxpayer to fund any political party at all. But if it were to be done, no exceptions should be made. After all, socialism has caused far more suffering in the world than racism, but I don't see anybody clamouring to exclude Labour.

[Damon Lambert]

There are also the Labour party leaflets masquerading as Council newspapers / info sheets.

Plus lets not forget both the very substantial sums spent by Unison and the lending of staff, all aimed at re-electing Labour(see one of my entries in the Books of New Labour Sleaze)

[Tony Makara]

Damon Lambert, very good point. These so-called local journals look like newspapers but when you look at them closely almost every single picture is a sickly photo-opportunity with some Labour councillor posing next to youngsters who have raised money for charity and such like. The back usually has a jobs page in which only state-sector jobs are advertised. These journals are nothing but propaganda sheets and paid for out of local taxpayers too.

[John Leonard]

I think Robert Halfon's letter is somewhat reserved although I support what he says. The Trade Unions receive taxpayers money and they in turn provide money to the Labour Party. This seems outrageous.

If it was a drug cartel passing money to a legitimate business who then passed it back to the individuals of the cartel for legitimate activities it would be seen as money laundering or racketeering.

Rather than question how much an individual donates to the party of his choice shouldn't we be questioning whether it is right that the Trade Unions receive any taxpayers money.

I for one see no reason why any political organisation receives taxpayers money unless they are elected representatives of the people of this country under our democratic system!

To me the issue here is whether we should allow yet another abuse of our democratic system by this Labour Government!

And I support Lord Ashcroft's view that it is utterly undemocratic and totally offensive to even consider using the taxpayers money to provide political party's funding.

If political party's cannot raise sufficient cash it is because they are not performing in a way people want. If they can't do that they fold. As simple as that. That's Life, Thats' The Free Market, Thats Supply & Demand. No political party has a divine right to exist.

[George Hinton]

Well said by Robert Halfon.

He does ignore the publicity, free, engendered by cabinet ministers paying visits and the PR frenzy that develops should NuLab have made "an investment" in the local community.

Typical of NuLab to defend their advantages and to subvert the opposition.

[Andrew Lilico]

I don't agree with having any kind of cap on individual donations. Quite apart from the unjustified restriction on personal freedom involved, such caps would significantly raise the barriers to entry for new parties. Perot in the US, the "Natural Law Party" in the UK, Forza Italia in Italy, and many other new organizations could never have started without large donations from a few individuals.

Indeed, it is apparently precisely for this reason that the Conservative proposal is for a voluntary cap, and that state funding is so integral a part of the scheme. The £50,000 cap is what parties agree to if they want to qualify for state funding. One cannot really, as Tim wants to, support a donation cap and oppose state funding.

[John Strafford]

I was interviewed for today's "World at One" programme about Lord Ashcroft's involvement with the marginal seats. I made the same point as Robert Halfon. "World at One" chose not to use the interview or to make the point. I wonder why? Are they afriad of upsetting sitting MPs?

P.S I also agreed with Tim's point about the danger of too much reliance on one man.

[Iain]

I noted that the BBC'S World at One did a story on this, one must presume on the prompting of their Labour party friends. Not surprisingly they have not been moved to do a story on Labour laundering British Tax payers money through the Unions under the guise of Modernisation funds, to which Gordon Brown added another £2.8 million in September, just before he thought of calling an election.

[Dick Wishart]

Its just a shame that our Chairman didn't make these points when it was raised on question time last night, I don't know why she didn't because I was shouting loud enough at the television.

[Andrew Woodman]

I noticed some guy on Question Time last night trying to be clever after reading the Independent report on this and saying 'the longer period before the election will mean mr Ashcroft's money will run out'. Shows what he knows.

On the point about relying on one donor, hopefully it will be short term until we win these marginal seats and get the allowences and coverage current Labour MP's are getting. How they dare to complain with the amounts they get form the unions defies belief.

[Moral minority]

There should be no cap on personal or corporate donations to political parts. There should be no state financial support for political parties too. Tax relief for individual donations is a form of subsidy that should be rejected. Political parties are not charities and should not receive special treatment.

In the 1980s, there was a libertarian complaint against traditional Conservatives, i.e. they believed you should be free to do what you like with your private money but not your private parts. Under Cameron, the "uber-modernisers" have reversed that traditional Conservative view.

[Moral minority]

"Its just a shame that our Chairman didn't make these points when it was raised on question time last night, I don't know why she didn't because I was shouting loud enough at the television.".

First sign of madness, Dick!

I have to confess to being puzzled by Caroline Spelman's appointment as Party Chairman. Her broadcast communication skills, a key requirement, have always been poor. She would be better suited to working on a brief that would make use of her social conservative beliefs and talents.

[Iain]

Dick Wishart, if only it was just Caroline Spleman, but I am afraid I am left shouting at the TV at some inept Shadow Cabinet member's performance most nights.

There were so many opportunities to floor Harriet Harman last night, yet Caroline Spelman pretty much flunked them all. When Harriet Harman started on about 'investing' in the NHS, I though Caroline Spelman would immediately retort that the money Darling was 'investing' in the NHS was borrowed money, and only money they were putting back that Gordon Brown had cut from the English NHS a few months ago. But no, not a whimper out of the Conservative Chairman.

What gets me is that Caroline Spelman and company are professional politicians, as such they should surely have all this information to hand and be primed to respond, but no, it seems a bunch of amateurs on this message board seem to be better informed than some members of the Shadow Cabinet.

Isn't there anyone in CCHQ compiling crib sheets so that even the more inept Shadow Cabinet members have the facts to hand in order to respond, and to make a concerted Opposition attack on Labour and Brown?

[passing leftie]

Ashcroft has bought the Tory party. It's not some hands-off arrangement; he holds authority and power primarily because his personal wealth.

[bill grant]

isn't it wonderful listening to labour mp's winging and moaning when they have been receiving so much union money. now the tables are turned they bottle!!!!!

[Jon H]

RE andrew woodman,

luckily for us tories, i don't think ashcroft's money will run out anytime soon! :)

[Bruges Group NG]

Passing Leftie

Do you apply the same logic to UNISON and AMICUS ? Not only do they fund the Labour Party, their union's officers sit on local parties MP's selection committees.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Passing Leftie, remind me,how many government contracts have been given to businessmen who've donated to Labour? How many Labour donors have been rewarded with places on government enquiries,quangos etc.And worst of all how many Labour donors and flatmates etc have been made ministers?
HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

[Editor]

Andrew Lilico: One cannot really, as Tim wants to, support a donation cap and oppose state funding.

These would be my ideal ingredients, Andrew:

1. No direct state funding of political parties.
2. Less funding of incumbent MPs in terms of constituency communications.
3. Cap on individual donations but some sort of tax relief/ matched funding for small donations.
4. No overall cap on a political party's spending. If they can raise it from enough domestic voters, they should be able to spend it.

I think that combination would be fair although I can't see it happening. There are too many vested interests - including existing MPs and the trade unions.

[passing leftie]

Do you apply the same logic to UNISON and AMICUS ? Not only do they fund the Labour Party, their union's officers sit on local parties MP's selection committees.

No. There's a big difference between representing the interests of millions of memebers of the working class in the party of Labour, and one rich guy buying himself the whole kit and kaboodle. Unions do not have undue influence nowadays.

Now, if you mentioned Lord Sainsbury, that would be another matter.

[Louise Bagshawe]

I am, I hope, on bbc's politics show on Sunday discussing this very issue. My Labour opponent has the cheek to complain about target seats funding - he uses his "communications allowance" to put out leaflets and letters just before elections.

I have posession of some of those flyers, sent out by remarkable co-incidence just before the election that wasn't. They are branded red and yellow like a Labour leaflet and have the MP claiming credit for our train station!

I showed these leaflets on tv, paid for by taxpayers' money. ConHome readers may be interested to see them. We have also supplied them to the Sunday Times.

Meanwhile, Labour grants the unions £10 mil in govt money and they promptly donate £9 mil to the Labour party - as I said to the bbc, this is state sponsored money laundering.

There is a reason Labour refuses to take the funding deal. They don't want to give up their institutional advantage.

[Alan S]

I agree with the importance of everything you say but two wrongs don't make a right do they? David Cameron supports £50,000 caps but, in the meantime, accepts much, much more from Lord Ashcroft. Do you agree that the sooner the party is not beholden to Lord Ashcroft the better?

[Malcolm Dunn]

No, Alan S.I don't.What has Ashcroft ever received for his largesse from the Conservative Party apart from abuse from a few of the more mindless Conservative party 'supporters' or Labour supporting stooges like Tom Baldwin?
Please don't do the dirty work of the Labour Party for it.

[Iain]

Louise Bagshawe, I think you will also find that the Labour MP's ( any MP's for that matter) who were the biggest spenders of their parliamentary postage allowances, were, in the last election, Labour MP's in marginal seats. If memory serves some were racking up postage bills of £20,000 or more, far in excess of other MP's.

[Cllr Tony Sharp]

Johann Hari writing in the Independent recently launched an attack on Lord Ashcroft claiming such financial support damages democracy. Robert Halfon's points build nicley on my comments responding to Hari's piece. More power to Michael Ashcroft's arm when it comes to balancing the scales of candidate funding.

[Yet Another Anon]

I agree with the importance of everything you say but two wrongs don't make a right do they? David Cameron supports £50,000 caps but, in the meantime, accepts much, much more from Lord Ashcroft.
Parties have to deal with the rules as they are, the Labour Party has had multi million pound donations since Gordon Brown took over and no doubt would continue to accept such donations saying that David Cameron could do what he liked so long as he was within the rules.

[Andrew Lilico]

Editor@16:11

I see the scheme, and I can also see that it could be made practicable. But I think it would be wrong. The reason is that it would mean that only mass membership political parties could hope to make a significant political breakthrough. The problem with that is that, by definition, any truly new political grouping does not have a mass membership. New groupings consist of only a few people. So if those few people are not able to raise very large donations from wealthy donors, they will not be able to make an impact. This means that the incumbent political parties have a regulatorily-induced advantage. That seems to me to be wrong. I don't see why a new political movement, like Forza Italia, could not be of benefit to the political system - indeed, with voter participation falling there could even be space for such a movement in the UK now.

In addition, I honestly don't see what problem there is supposed to be with a wealthy donor determining the policies of a political party. It doesn't much matter *why* political parties have the policies they have. What matters is (a) whether their policies are good ones; and (b) whether they will actually carry them out.

Put the matter a different way: Just from the individual perspective, I am involved in the Conservative Party for two kinds of reasons: (1) I believe that the Party's philosophy and approach and policies are closer to my own than are those of other parties; (2) I believe that I have more chance to influence Conservative Party policy in the direction I prefer than I would with other parties. Since you and I, Time, are allowed to influence Party policy, why shouldn't Lord Ashcroft?

[William Norton]

Alan S:I agree with the importance of everything you say but two wrongs don't make a right do they? David Cameron supports £50,000 caps but, in the meantime, accepts much, much more from Lord Ashcroft.

Ancient Persian proverb: lick up the honey and ask no questions.

Loiuse Bagshawe:I am, I hope, on bbc's politics show on Sunday discussing this very issue. My Labour opponent has the cheek to complain about target seats funding - he uses his "communications allowance" to put out leaflets and letters just before elections.

Here's an idea. Whilst on air ask the Labour spokesman to explain the rules on using parliamentary allowances for party purposes and if it is official Labour policy to expel anyone who crosses the line. Might raise a giggle.

[passing leftie]

Passing Leftie, remind me,how many government contracts have been given to businessmen who've donated to Labour? How many Labour donors have been rewarded with places on government enquiries,quangos etc.And worst of all how many Labour donors and flatmates etc have been made ministers?
HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

Compared with the troughing of certain Tories in the last administration, this is nothing. Do you remember money in brown envelopes, cash for questions, Aitken, Willets, Archer, and back to basics hypocrisy?

What you are discussing is the kind of political patronage which occurs under every government. I don't like the way Labour has cavorted with the rich, but there's nothing wrong with Union money going to the Labour party.

[James Valentine]

Unless Robert Halfon can argue a better case than this, is he entitled to win Harlow? His argument about the benefits of incumbency applies to all sitting MPs, whether Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative. Yes, it is always difficult to challenge an incumbent, don't I know it. But as a Labour PPC I don't think I have a God-given right for millionaires to help me.
Are all the Conservatives' PPCs as drippy as Mr Halfon? This gives me hope...

[Moral minority]

Passing leftie has a brass neck!! He should remember the trail of Labour sleaze.

9/11 and the burying of bad news
Bernie Eccleston
Keith Vaz
The Mittal scandal
Mandelson's lies
Stephen Byers
The Millennium Dome fiasco
Prescott and the Casino magnate
Lord Levy and cash for honours

The list goes on...

[Moral minority]

James Valentine will no doubt from the taxpayers' "donations" to Labour, laundered through the trade union modernisation fund. He also forgets all the millionaires who funded Labour in exchange for Peerages and knighthoods. Does he remember Bernie Eccleston too?

Valentine is typical of the hypocritical, lying, low life Labour scumbags who must be consigned to dustbin of political history.

[Traditional Tory]

who as far as I'm aware does not force his own personal views onto the party (unlike one or two other donors).

Ashcroft refuses to disclose his views on policies. Personally, I think this evasiveness is a cause for concern.

Tim Montgomerie was absolutely right in what he said on Radio 4. There are many Conservatives who find the Ashcroft input deeply unsettling.

[Iain]

leftie the Labour party have no right to moralise to anyone , not when they have the likes of Lord Drayson as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Procurement, whose company cornered the market for a vaccine ( perhaps with confidential information gained from the Labour Government), was making large donations to the Labour Government when the decision about the vaccine contract was being made, which he got. Sold his vaccine company for a large profit, and then appeared as a Labour Lord and Minister.

Not only are policies for sale with Labour, but Ministerial positions as well.

[Richard Carey]

Tim Montgomerie was absolutely right in what he said on Radio 4. There are many Conservatives who find the Ashcroft input deeply unsettling.

Presumably they're not on target seat campaign teams, then!

In my view, Ashcroft's "influence" has always been on organisation, and has been entirely beneficial in shaping us up operationally. At the 2005 GE, where he was offering funding independently to target constituencies, the condition on his funding was only a coherent and well thought-through business plan from the local campaign team. Not sure how many Conservatives could find that unsettling!

Personally, I've welcomed his operation being back in-house - it will unify funding streams and reporting for campaign teams, giving them more time for the work on the streets that really matters.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Or indeed Lord Sainsbury who of course was only invited into the Government because of his enormous talent wasn't he Passing Leftie? The millions he used to bankroll the Labour party had nothing to do with it!
Yes Passing Leftie, there were a few Conservatives who behaved very badly in the 1990's and deserved every punishment they got. The difference is that new Labour corruption stretches to the very top and is all over your party even now. HAVE YOU NO SHAME?
Traditional Tory, a typically cowardly post from someone with absolutely no evidence to anything who can only spread innuendo.
Fortunately what you think or don't think really doesn't matter. You must know you're irrelevant.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow Conservative PPC)]

Mr Valentine forgets that Ashcroft funds are primarily given to Parliamentary Candidates not MPs. Moreover he ignores the huge funds donated to Labour candidates/MPs by Trade Unions.

[Scotty]

Louise Bagshawe, well said!

As other posters have already pointed out, Labour's hypocrisy on this issue is priceless.
I do not like the way that Lord Ashcroft is yet again being made a personal target by Labour, they have a lot of form on this already!
Lord Ashcroft has been a supporter of the party for many years and is now playing a vital role very similar to Rannard in the Libdems. The fact that the Labour smear machine is once again turning on him suggests that his imput in key marginals is being very successful.
I was going to suggest that the party come out fighting on this issue in the way that Louise has. The issue needs to be tackled and explained, at the moment incumbent MP's have a great advantage over other candidates in constituencies. The input of people like Lord Ashcroft levels the playing field for some Conservative PPC's in the marginals, I am sure that the government is extremely sensitive to local issues in those area's and that it influences decisions.
The extra money now allocated to MP's and the millions put into the Union Modernisation Fund needs to be put in the spotlight and investigated more diligently, are you listening in the media??

[Matt Wright]

Robert and Louise are right. Certain MPs are abusing their taxpayer funded expenses to send out masses of unsolicited mail and barely disguised political literature. These funds are not meant to be used for political campaigning. Not only are they sending this stuff out but the pattern of deliveries strangely coincides with the run up to by-elections and other elections and key political timings.

[James Valentine]

Personally I think that the funding "arms race" between the parties is bad for democracy, and brings politics into disrepute. The current negotiations on party funding seem to have stalled. Let's hope that our political leaders resolve this issue in good time before the next election, so that all candidates can compete on a fair basis.

[Traditional Tory]

Many ordinary people have been members of Trades Unions and relate to them, whether or not they approve of donations to the Labour Party.

The unions helped set up the Labour Party in the first place so if you don't like unions you probably won't vote Labour anywhere. Leading Conservatives seldom fail to condemn the TU/Labour link which, like it or not, is relatively transparent. We know pretty well what's 'in it' for the unions, which, it should be said are much more subject to democratic and legal control than they were in the the past

The same can hardly be said for Lord Ashcroft's shadowy relationship to the Conservative Party.

Since Ashcroft is not prepared to reveal his motives for - as many will see it - 'buying' the party, it is likely that observers, other than those hopelessly biased towards the Cameron regime, will draw a range of negative conclusions.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Another utterly disgraceful post.Lord Ahcroft has revealed his motives many times.Read 'Smell The Coffee'. You really are a coward Traditional Tory.

[catgate]

Can anyone justify political parties at all? It is just the collecting together of people to force their views and will on to the people.
Until party politics are abandoned in favour of True Democracy the Country and the World will always be at the mercy of vested interests.

[Traditional Tory]

Another utterly disgraceful post.Lord Ahcroft has revealed his motives many times.Read 'Smell The Coffee'. You really are a coward Traditional Tory.

I would calm down, Malcolm. You know, you really should play the ball, not the man.

If you claim to know Ashcroft's secrets despite the fact that he routinely refuses to disclose his views on policy, why not share them with us?

[Oberon Houston]

Labour MP's in marginal constituencies are looking to change the law in order to help them stay elected.

What irritates me is the use of public money to fund the 'modernisation' of the unions. Large amounts of this money are being used to increase "communication effectiveness", i.e. upgrading their call centres. The Labour Party can call on these resources during a general election, and indeed only 10 days ago mobilised the unions to make, yes, their call centres available in readiness for an imminent election (see The Times, 2nd Oct).

So here we ALREADY have PUBLIC FUNDS being used to promote the Labour Party via the unions. As others have pointed out, MP communication allowances are also being blatantly abused by Labour MPs.

To all this, add in the postal voting scandals (banana repiblic comparisons), cash for peerages, the scandal of changing the smoking ban LAW in return for money (Ecclestone) - a far worse piece of sleaze than asking questions for cash, a weak electoral commission and we end up with a crisis created deepened and perpetuated by the Labour Party, not Ashcroft. What a bunch of cheeky chancers honestly.

[Scotty]

Trad Tory, a rather unfair and snide post more fitting in the ALastair Campbell school of spin and smear!

Over the last 12 years there have been many large donations made to the party in power, this has often led to very lucrative government contracts for companies connected with these donors.
Lord Ashcroft on the other hand has supported the Conservative party both financially and with expertise through some tough years. From the leadership contest through to the policy reviews we have drawn from a wide range of talent inside the broad Conservative tent.
Lord Ashcroft is simple an active and passionate Conservative member working hard like many others are for a Conservative government!
It is always makes me curious to see you look for the worse in this party while ignoring the blatant abuse of power from the party in government, why is that????

[Graeme Archer]

Hear, hear Oberon! You're quite brilliant.

Catgate (good name) wrote: Can anyone justify political parties at all? It is just the collecting together of people to force their views and will on to the people.

Well - I can have a go. Funnily enough this was the almost-topic of a fun debate I went to at conference, organised by C4 I think. The panel debated the point of political parties.

I think there is a good point to them. I do not believe that they rose by accident, and I'm not (sufficiently) marxist to believe that they were proactively created in order to practise a deceit upon the public. Nor do I think they only perform their original purpose, to represent various sectional interests.

I think the positive contribution they make to our democracy is to protect us from the whim of passing demagogues. Yes, yes, I know that Blair is actually a quite good example of a demagogic manipulator, but thank goodness he had to operate through his party. The machiavellian he was, he tried to turn it to his electoral advantage (his constant struggles with his party) - but the fact is that he didn't have the ability to bounce the country into something vile by grabbing the reins of a plebiscite and having us vote for something disgusting we might later regret.

Of course this tempering of the demagogic whim also happens because of our electoral system, but it is the party that is the sort of manifestation of that urge to smooth out the spikes that could arise through a more individual-driven system.

Now I know I'm being a hypocrite because I'm a fan of voters' initiatives. But I would not like to find myself in a party-less democracy. We all, here, complain a lot when the leadership doesn't appear to be amplifying a message which could have flown unchecked from one's own ego. Think about what would happen if they did! And think what would happen to your own voice - my own is pretty feeble, and without the machine of party I think there would be almost zero chance of having anything that I vaguely want to see happen actually turned into a legislative programme.

The quid pro quo is that the party is not my internal voice and I have to make compromises with it in order to stay a supporter. Conservative Home most days notwithstanding - I think this is a good thing!

Incidentally - sorry, long post, I should have used this tomorrow - this is also why I get nervous when I hear media types telling us that the way to get young people involved in politics is to turn up the volume on single issue campaigns. It's people who obsess about single issues that I *least* want to have involved in a platform for government. Even when I agree with them, I sort of sidestep back away from them. Single issues can too easily become monomaniacal obsessions. Human life is messy and inter-related; I associate single issue fervour with teenagers who've not thought through the complexity of an issue sufficiently. Which might just be my own unkindness of course, or a reflection of my vapid fruitfly attention span.

[Matt Wright]

I'm fascinated by this "there shouldn't be parties" argument and the similar ones by Independents at local govt level (the latest LGA magazine had some such similar article in it). The simple fact is that when people come together they form oragnisations in order to get things done. When you get more than a few Independents they form a group on a council and operate a whip of a form no different from parties on such councils. If they didn't they wouldn't get anything done (although its often the case they don't anyway). There are other good reasons why people operate in parties, chiefly that not only can they organise to get things done but they can be clear to the public about their shared beliefs. Again thinking of the council level, I know of Independents that have party affiliations but don't tell their electorate. Also increasingly, so called "Independents", are actually standing according to agreements with a party as part of political tactics. When such Independents are elected they start voting with the party they had the agreement with. Better just to be straight about the values you agree with and affiliate with a party in an open and honest way. I suppose in summary if parties didn't exist today, they would be invented tomorrow.