Funding Political Parties

 

 

The shine on Andy Burnham’s reputation as a progressive willing to co-operate with other parties to transform our politics in the UK continues to become more tarnished.  His latest U-turn is to shy away from his proposal that  limits should be placed on the amounts individuals can contribute to their preferred political parties.

 For years it has been a  commonplace  that political office in the US, including the Presidency, is “up for sale.”  Advertising and other expenditure on campaigns at all levels in the US far exceeds anything contemplated in the UK.  But we are moving in that direction.

Expenditure on  general  election campaigns has been very disproportionate since the war, with the Tories , funded by big business, at the top, followed by Labour, funded largely by the trade Unions, and the Liberals and (and now the Greens) trailing at the bottom, now outspent by Reform. (Who or what funds them?)  

 The situation is rapidly worsening, with rich individuals, not all of them resident in this country  deliberately trying to influence our  politics. 

In this situation I find the limit per individual of £5,000 formerly proposed by Mr Burnham, absurdly high, even if its meant to be for a lifetime rather than per year. (I don’t know which.) I would suggest a limit of £500 per year per  individual or corporate entity to be far more appropriate.  That would still leave the parties unduly beholden  the “comfortably off” rather than those struggling to make ends meet.

Be that as it may, the situation is urgent and limits of some sort should be introduced to restrict the sale of political influence in the UK now, before the next general election.

Years ago a professor whose name escapes me proposed in the now defunct “Liberal News” the following method of financing our political parties.

 1.     Parliament would decide at regular intervals the total amount necessary  periodically for the funding of our democracy.

2.    2. This amount would then be divided by the total number of people on the electoral registers. Let’s say, for simplicity’s sake, that it is £20.

3.    3. Vouchers for  £20 would then be issued periodically  to all eligible voters. 

4.    4. The vouchers could only be cashed by a registered political party.

It was expected that the system would operate in this way:

1.     1. Party members and political nerds would promptly send their voucher to the HQ of their favoured party.

2.      2. Party canvassers would be incentivised to knock on doors and try to persuade the voucher holders of the merits of the party and hand over the voucher to send to their HQ (or ask the voter to do it themselves, having provided the address.) The alienated would be free to thrwo the voucher away if they wished.

 3.    3. Other financial contributions to political parties would either be strictly limited or forbidden.

Such a system would  encourage a closer examination of the policies of the parties  on a regular basis rather than the present concentration of sloganising at election time.

 Above all, it would be fairer.

I’ve mentioned before that my very first lecturer in what as then called “British Constitution “ at A level, a Mr Chekanovski (that spelling may be incorrect: it was a long time ago) cited “the British tradition of fair play” as one of the pillars of our system. 

 Come on Mr Burnham - fair play!