A report from Policy Exchange has calculated that new allowances and subsidies for politics - that have grown up over recent decades - costthe taxpayer £1.75bn over the course of a five year Parliament.
'Paying for the party' by Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky of Brunel University identifies three kinds of taxpayer subsidy to political parties:
- Direct financial payments from the State to the parties, not least Short money.
- Subsidies-in-kind (such as free party political broadcasts) and
- Indirect subsidies (such as MPs’ allowances).
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky lists some of the key costs:
- "By 2006-07, local councillors in Britain were receiving over £216million in salaries and allowances;
- The allowances of Members of Parliament amounted to £87.6 million;
- Allowances to of members of the House of Lords came to £17.7million;
- The cost of special advisers to the UK Government was £5.9 million in 2006-7;
- An estimated £6 million went to political assistants to party groups on local councils in England; Healthy additional sums were spent on allowances to members of the regional assemblies and of the European Parliament."
Unfortunately none of Britain's mainstream political parties want to make serious cuts in the state funding of politics although the Conservatives want to axe the much-abused Communications Allowance. David Cameron has argued for extra direct subsidy in return for a £50,000 cap on large donations and a reduction in the number of MPs.
Related link: Douglas Carswell MP's reaction to the report
9.30am: Francis Maude has just issued this response to the PX report: "This research demolishes the Labour argument that rigid state controls should be placed on local campaigning. Given the massive increase in backdoor state funding under Labour through the likes of the Communications Allowance, there can be no case in the taxpayer having to fork out even more money purely to prevent the Labour Party going bankrupt. Any reform of party funding must clean up politics and end the big donor culture. Given the succession of funding scandals under the Labour Government, there is a strong case for a comprehensive cap on donations - covering individuals, companies and trade unions. It is unfortunate that the Labour Party are the roadblock to reform, due to their unwillingness to end their murky funding from trade union barons."
UKIP oppose the extension to state funding of political parties. They may be small and disorganised, but please stop insulting them by excluding them from 'the mainstream' as they have councillors, mep's, peers and an MP.
How about stopping the smears as you clearly agree with ukip policy on this.
One of Cameron's first policy docs was the proposal of state funding in March 2006.
The greedy piggies of the political class are safe under all of the big 3 parties.
Sure Cameron might sacrifice a handful of them to appease the increasingly angry masses, but this token gesture aside, Cameron is happily gorging at the trough and as such, is as much part of the problem as New Labour.
Posted by: Chad Noble | April 23, 2008 at 09:22
Not sure that the electorate will be too happy about more taxpayers' money going to political parties after the way that politicians tend to abuse financial assistance of any kind.
Posted by: Letters From A Tory | April 23, 2008 at 09:42
Why doesn't Francis Maude address the Tory claim for more state funding?
Posted by: Alan S | April 23, 2008 at 09:52
Chad: I do agree with UKIP policy on this issue - that's true - but I stand by my contention that UKIP are not a mainstream party. They are only seriously competitive in the European Elections and without Kilroy-Silk they'll lose MEPs next year.
Anyway - let's not make this a thread about UKIP. We did that yesterday.
Posted by: Editor | April 23, 2008 at 10:10
Thanks Tim - definitely keen to avoid unproductive slanging matches, but i just thought you have been displaying unnecessary sour grapes recently, when considering as you note, that you suport UKIP policy on this, a little generosity might be useful if only to put pressure on your mob! :-)
Even 2 years after Cameron proposing the extension to state funding, I still find it hard to believe that the Tory Party has actually proposed to become a benefit scrounger, and sign itself off on permanent state benefits.
Posted by: Chad Noble | April 23, 2008 at 10:15
Francis Maude founded Policy Exchange with Michael Gove. It has smashed the case for extra direct state funding of political parties, a key Cameron policy. Francis Maude must address the issues raised in the report even though it he may embarrass him personally.
Posted by: In the know | April 23, 2008 at 11:09
Counting all MP allowances and expenses, and all councillor pay and allowances, as state funding of political parties themselves, strains credulity to breaking point. A council leader who has no other job (the norm in larger councils) is dependent on their special responsibility allowance to put food on the table. Is that a party political activity?
Posted by: David Boothroyd | April 23, 2008 at 11:40
PX and Maude seem to have ignored the existemce of pernicious Quangoes.
They are peopled at the whim of political nepotism, cost millions and are yet again an example of how the divide between taxpayers / electorate v the poltical elite is growing. They are also highly undemocratic in that personnnel are unelected and unaccountable, despite having an immnese and direct influence on the community.
One typical example of the arch Quangoist is, Nikki Gavron, the so-called "Deputy Mayor" of London's GLA.
Posted by: George Hinton | April 23, 2008 at 14:24