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!

Blunders for Mr Burnham to Avoid

 

Andy Burnham has successfully changed the mood music of our politics to inject a soupçon of  confidence and even optimism, but there are various potential stumbling-blocks  which could dent if not destroy his and our hopes.

 

Top of the list in my view is:

North Sea Oil

Rumour has it that he is “minded” to authorise more drilling in the North Sea Oil Field.  Anything which provides jobs (and the elusive “growth) is always a temptation for Labour politicians (the clue is in the name) but he should resist it - even the device  of attaching new drilling  to an existing licence.  

If sinking islands in the Pacific  and melting ice in the Arctic are too far away to convince us that climate change is real and highly dangerous, surely wildfires in our favourite holiday spots in France and Spain, not to mention on our own doorstep, should be sufficient to convince him  not to give way to the profit-greedy  lobbying of the oil giants.

Devolution to Mayors.

Enhancing the powers  (including tax-raising?) of local government is a Liberal principle greatly to be encouraged, but to concentrate those powers to an individual, powerful and possibly charismatic personality is hugely undemocratic.  Powerful personalities  with the “guts, grit and determination” to sort things out has been  the mantra of authoritarian regimes throughout history..  We need our local leaders  to be responsible and answerable to  locally elected representatives, responsive to local opinion.

That means local councils and councillors - boring I know, but likely to be more effective.

Trident

Mr Burnham has expressed more enthusiasm for Trident than I think is healthy.  It is hugely expensive, detracts from military expenditure which would be more useful (boots on the ground for peace-keeping and rescue purposes after natural disasters.)  If we must have a nuclear deterrent than something more modest, jointly with the France  (or pooled with the EU) and deliverable without US permission would be preferable.

Migrants in Small Boats

Mr Burnham had a ”photo-opportunity” in Dover over the weekend to highlight this issue, so he has already made this mistake.  He wishes to show that he takes this “problem” very very  seriously.  But it isn’t a problem and it isn’t serious.  Irregular migration via small boats is a small fraction of an immigration total that is falling rapidly and would almost disappear if there were legal viable routs for the people  who want to come here.

  Mr Burnham’s visit merely draws attention to what the Right Wing love to use to divide us.  They must be delighted.  Sir Keir Starmer's gaffe with “island of strangers" should have alerted Burnham to the futility of a “me too” in this delicate area.

 

Early prisoner Release.

Clearly Mr Burnham has not read my previous post in which it is suggested that Prime Ministers should not try to appear to have  a finger in every pie.  Early prisoner release is a “lose- lose” situation, the result of years and years of sending too many people to prison, and well before the misguided fourteen years of austerity (to which  Labour’s Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling subscribed) failing to provide the buildings to house them.

The current crisis should have been left to the Home Secretary to sort out as best she could and receive the deserved opprobrium.  

Andy Burnham's bounce

 

 Andy Burnham has got off  to a good start.   

He’s begun on a note of optimism and hope (in contrast to Sir Keir Starmer’s telling us, perhaps more truthfully, that things would get worse before they got better,) given a positive promise to abolish homelessness, and maintains momentum with a series of  6am treats (VAT on electricity bills abolished, bus fares capped at £2, and 20% off business rates for pubs and restaurants,. . . .and counting?)

 Mr Burnham is displaying his common touch. 

A friend of mine, lifelong Liberal/Liberal Democrat activist and experienced councillor, tells me she’s “quite excited.”  The Liberal Democrat spokesperson has declared the party’s support, and Tory pedantic bleats of   “Where’s the money coming from?” seem very “old style.”

 However, the composition of the new cabinet gives  pause for some misgivings.  

 I’m sorry that Ed Miliband has not become Chancellor of the Exchequer.  As a former party leader he is both a “heavyweight” and has  economic qualifications and previous treasury experience, - just the man to tame treasury intransigence  and focus this most powerful department to service the government’s aspirations rather than stick to stale orthodoxy. 

Shifting Mr Miliband to the Foreign Office also has a scent of moving the party’s most credible firebrand to pastures where he will have less time and opportunity to affect domestic issues.

It is good to see Miatta Fahnbulleh as Mr Miliband’s replacement  as Energy Secretary.  She is allegedly a powerful intellect, a qualified economist and clearly destined for the Treasury at some future date.

 John Healey as Chancellor is all very well : he sounds a nice man much respected in the party.  But as former Defence Secretary he will be more inclined to furnish further funds for the wasteful and prestige-prone military than for, say, overseas development.

It is sad that, as yet, there is been no mention by Mr Burnham of restoring the Aid Budget to 0.7% of GDP.  It would also be nice to hear some prime-ministerial support for  the UK’s other “world leading” area of expertise, the BBC, and save their boring us with desperate puffs of how good they are in order to escape de-funding,

There is  little sign of any attempt to reduce “churn” in the cabinet (the switching of ministers to different departments before  they’ve grasped the job.)  Why, for example, is  not Wes Streeting  returned to the Health Ministry, where he is surely by now beginning to find his way around, rather than to Defence.  Does he know anything about that?

However, one cabinet mister who retains her post and in my view shouldn’t is Shabana Mahmood, who remains at the Home Office and seems determined to continue the Tory Theresa May’s  policy of a “hostile environment” for immigrants. 

M/s Mahmood is herself a “person of colour” and of immigrant stock and seems to take that a as licence to be aggressive to immigrants,  or at least some of them. (No one seems too worried about escapees from Trump’s America who as settling in the  Cotswolds.)  Her proposals on “indefinite leave to remain” and the possibility of deporting people who’ve been settled here for years, and their children, are despicable.  I would have thought better of a Burnham Government.

There are also accusation of a fairly savage purge of  Starmerite former cabinet ministers, who have not taken kindly to their dismissal.  This could turn out to be an error.  The last thing the country  needs is factional discontent  in the Labour Party, which the largely hostile press would  do their best to amplify.  The entire party should knuckle down and support what  the vast majority of  them wished for.

  Mr Burnham’s over-all aim is to reverse the neoliberal creed  of Margaret Thatcher  which the establishment has followed for  the past forty years.By way of privatisations with inadequate regulation, deregulation of the banking sector, sale of council hoses, reduction of the powers of local government, low taxation priority over public services, is responsible for most of the difficulties our country faces. 

Good luck to him.

 

Post Script: since writing the above I have read today's paper and discovered that the reduction of the cap on our bus fares  is to be funded from the Aid Budget.  Oh dear.