Oh dear, I'm writing to the government again.

[davywavy]

I mean, as exercises in futilty go, writing to a political party to express my opinion is like that time I tried to squat lift 330kg. All I'm going to do is hurt myself and the weight isn't going to move. But still: to be or not to be, eh?

Something which has caused to blood to boil, steam to come out of my ears and my head to spin around like a top lately has been the suggestion that political parties should receive taxpayer funding. Pretty much all the parties have hopped onto this idea and naturally I felt that I had to object because the vast majority of people are either too ignorant or uncaring to do so - the very attitudes which allow underhand political strategies like this one to thrive and the right and powers of the electorate to be steadily reduced and abolished.

I dropped them a line and registered my objections, and got a mail back this morning full of platitudes about how the Parliamentary report had returned a result which, co-incidentally, was the one the various parties had hoped for. Quel Surprise.

So here's the reply I sent:

Dear...

Many thanks for your reply. Whilst the proposals you reference are interesting, and indeed reference some genuine problems, I think they actually miss the underlying problem. It is noted that the electorate have lost faith with the parliamentary system: voter numbers are at a historically low level. However, I think that the conclusions drawn from this are inaccurate - I suspect that the compilers of the proposals talked to a lot of focus groups and opinion polling agencies, but not many actual people.

The fact that the electorate are losing faith with parliamentary democracy is not the fault of parliamentary democracy - it is the fault of the people within it, and political parties voting themselves the power to sequester more public funds for the furtherance of party objectives will not solve that. The policy of all parties in recent years has been to bring market forces to bear in most sectors of the economy, and it is telling that the one area that no party is prepared to let this happen is themselves.
If the electorate (your customers) have lost faith in the service you provide and aren't turning out in the numbers they used to, it is incumbent upon you to improve that service before starting to charge us more for it. If the public view the funding of political parties as possibly corrupt, proposing to dip into the public purse is most certainly not an effective way of changing this view, but instead will simply make the public even more jaundiced as to your motives.

There's a reason that Boris Johnson consistently tops polls of popular parliamentarians; the public know that he's human, but they also believe that he'll say what's on his mind. It's often funny and he's seen as someone who says what he thinks. This is a marked difference to most politicians of all parties, whom the public sees as dishonest, image obsessed, and required to toe the party line.
If you as a party want to re-engage the public with politics and democracy, you would be better served rejecting the Blairite presidential style of PR over content, creating a clear differentiation between political parties so the electorate can vote on ideology and ideas and not simply who has the nicest tie this week, and moving back to a point where the voter feels it is worthwhile getting out of the house on election day because they feel their vote actually makes a difference to the policies which will be implemented.
If you talk to people rather than consultants, you'll find that most people want to vote if they feel there's any point in doing so - and the lack of difference between the major political parties is the major reason they don't feel there to be any point.
Why else are single issue and extremist pressure groups growing in popularity? Because people don't feel that the things which concern them are being dealt with in mainstream politics - and that is the fault of the parties, not the voters.

In other words - and to use the terminology of market forces - until you improve the service you provide to your market (i.e. us), you have no justification in putting your prices up.
Oh, except that you can just vote for it to happen and we, the taxpayer, don’t really get a say in the matter. And that, obviously, is the very attitude from politicians which is driving us away from the polling booth on election day.

Regards,

Comments

Hmm

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

I don't often agree with you, but I mostly do here.
However, I don't think continuing with the current method of party financing (donations) is the way forward since it encourages, or at least creates the impression of, corruption.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Good for you. At least you haven't given up in disgust, as I have long ago.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I find ranting about politics is a good displacement activity when I'm supposed to be working, as I am now.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

At least it feels infinitesimally more productive than being a complete wastrel and spending your time posting to LJ rather than working... oops! ;)

Re: Hmm

[(Anonymous)]

So long as donations/"loans" are made openly, I don't see a problem. Party funding should of course be openly audited. Then, any correlation between donor &, for instance, subsequent peerage is bound to find its way into Private Eye sooner or later.

For all his wealth, in a democracy, a donor still only has one vote. Meanwhile, the rest of us can vote the scoundrels out.

As far as I can see, people are drawn to politics out of (a) a genuine wish to enter public service, or (b) a desire for power & women which would otherwise remain patently unfulfilled (e.g. John Prescott). If politicians were entitled to help themselves to theoretically unlimited wages out of my, the taxpayer's, money, this would add (c) venery to the list, making 2/3 of bad reasons to enter politics, rather than the current 1/2.

H

[(Anonymous)]

To be fair, the vast majority of party-affiliated MPs are indeed “required to tow the party line”. Most will have been selected as party candidates on the understanding that they will do just that, and for those sitting MPs who show signs of independent thought or off-message opinions, there’s always the whips’ office. So I would never expect anything less. This means that I also never expect anything more.

Those who consistently speak their minds on issues such as Iraq tend to languish on the back benches. And of those, it’s only a very small number who will do what Clare Short has done: throw in the towel and stand as an independent.

And though Short has an ego the size of her of own constituency, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, at the next general election, she is returned by voters who respect her as a politician who speaks her mind, and as a popular MP. Perhaps those former colleagues who have branded her a “traitor” of New Labour should think about that.

Disillusioned of Edinburgh

[zenmeisterin.livejournal.com]

I hope someone other than the office admin, instructed to click *delete* on anything that doens't look like blackmail, gets a chance to read that.

Re: Hmm

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

I agree that it should be up to each individual to choose whether to donate money or not, but with one important caveat. For true democracy, the system should as far as possible ensure that everyone has equal influence. Obviously, with uncapped donations, and corporations able to donate, the rich can influence parties far more than average people can - just look at how distorted the USA has become because of this.

So I believe that each voter should be limited to a maximum donation of £10 per year (which can be split across parties if they feel it appropriate). This still gives a potential funding pool of c. £300m p.a., and would force parties to truly engage with the masses to persuade them each individually to donate to them. It would also significantly reduce the power of the rich (whether individuals or through corporations) to unduly influence the democratic process.

Re: Hmm

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'd disagree with capping donations (or at least at such a low level 5-10k is a much more reasonable cap, if there's to be one); after all, who are we tell an someone that they cannot give their money away? Not just that, but what about fundraising parties and jumble sales - would people be prevented from spending more than a tenner on the tombola and bring and buy? I can't see that being workable.
There were noises made a few months ago about how donations to political parties should be tax-deductable and seen in the same light as donations to charities, which I thought a very positive idea for boosting contributions. Unfortunately this idea was dropped when the various parties realised that it would involve actual work. Shame, really.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

Where are we towing the party line to?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

If only I had some photos of cabinet minsters in an orgy with David Blunketts dog. I mean, there's bound to be plenty of them out there.

[applez.livejournal.com]

For my part, and the US experience, I don't know that public/tax financing of political parties is 'the best' or even 'a' solution ... but the the most troubling thing to emerge from the Abramoff scandal isn't so much the influence-peddling and wads of cash exchanging hands - it is that so much of it has actual received the varnish of legality. The money pumps themselves have not been made illegal, and as others have already mentioned, the resulting political distortion is apparent.

It seems no value can survive the corruption of the Almighty Dollar - even these Princes of Christian Principle.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

As my manifesto says, composed on the contrary wise page of an IPA beverage moisture resistor, what the parties should do is have funding caps based on the number of registered party members. So, with a party such as the Labour party, with traditional (and, indeed, in some cases mandatory) support from the Trade Unions, the cap of [random figure] £500 per member could be extracted at a small level across a wide base, to be disseminated across the constituencies that they feel need it. More top-heavy parties, such as the Tory, happily gain their donations guilt-free, in effect paying the maximum level for poorer/less generous party members. This would also stop parties with small memberships but big mouths and wealthy supporters such as Respect and UKIP from having disproportionate funding compared to independents (who are another kettle of fish altogether)

[(Anonymous)]

So, all you have to do, to acquire more money, is to sign up more people's names to the Party!

Really, I can't see any way this plan could go wrong.

H

[(Anonymous)]

They could hire cold callers from Toucan Telecom.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

"Hallo, Mistermiss, my name is John Smith, yes indeed, calling from sunny Glasgow today how are you yes. I am ringing to let you know that you have won an exciting free membership of the Liberal Democratic party, bastion of truth and order in this bamboozled land and all you have to do to take advantage of this exciting free offer is to say or do anything now. Even faint, involuntary movements will be taken as assent, yes. Hanging up counts as acceptance for both you, you immediate family, and that person you sat next to on the train yesterday. As a member of the Liberal Democratic Party you will get many benefits, yes indeed. The smug moral superiority of a party which has never actually been elected and so has no unfortunate history of reneging upon it's promises is just one. The ability to portay yourself as both martyr and hero for your opinions without them having been tested by application is another. What is that you say, sirormadam? No? Why, thank you! I have inputted your acceptance of Liberal Democratic Party membership into our system and you will be delighted to learn that your taxes will now go towards funding the party in perpetuaity. Thank you, yes indeed."

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Not entirely what I was saying. In this system party spend would still be funded by the membership. So if you did fraudulently exaggerate your number of official paid up party members - not everyone who wears a sticker, it would mean that you could spend more on your campaigns, but not that a single penny would come from the government. Other than investigating fraud, of course, but it's not like the system for voting's perfect at the moment.

[(Anonymous)]

It seems to incentivise undesirable behaviour, namely, more lying by politicians, whilst disincentivising desireable behaviour: creation of political groups outside the mainstream (with very small memberships their budgets would be impossibly small)

Worse yet, it epitomises the technocratic 'people problems can be fixed by more rules' spirit of Nu Labour. Keep it simple, let politicos file proper accounts exactly like real businesses most do.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

This is a major thing which struck me earlier - by funding politcal parties from the taxpayer based on how many votes they get, and banning political contributions by single, wealthy source, it effectively scuppers any realistic chance of creating new parliamentary political parties, and so maintains the status quo - good for the current parties, but bad for democracy as a whole, I'd say.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Or, alternatively, means that rich people get to have more of an effect in spreading their message and determine how the country should be run.

Er, moreso than they do.

And for every wealthy hardworking industrialist such as 'Digger' Jones, or Philip Green (based in Malta for tax purposes, is it?) there's an amoral pedler of filth, fear and pornography with thinly veiled vested interests in opposition to large tranches of society, such as Paul Raymond, Dirty Desmond and Murdoch.

After all, if spending money in election campaigns didn't work, people wouldn't do it.

What an uncapped system is basically doing is creating an oligarchy by subjecting democracy and rule of the people to market forces.

Admittedly, in practice voting is done largely by lots of old people and exicted students, but it only really matters in about 10% of the country anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Desireable behaviour <> creation of RICH political groups.

Group 1 has twenty members, including a billionaire. Group 2 has a hundred members, none of whom earn more than 20K. Why should Group 1 have the opportunity to have a louder voice? Does wealth make political right? (no pun intended)

Also, without restrictions, what advantage does the account filing have? I don't think we'll actually see people saying; "Well, they're spending too much/little money; I won't vote for them."

[(Anonymous)]

"After all, if spending money in election campaigns didn't work, people wouldn't do it."

Ah, that'll explain why Jimmy Goldsmith never bothered, then

H

[gwaunquest.livejournal.com]

what funding are we discussing? If it's tea and crumpets at the local church hall to say thankyou to the door to door distributers then the party has to find it's own way to pay for the jam.
If it's a standard of media coverage nationwide so that ALL parties (including the "Free Mars Bars for Everyone" party) get EQUAL opportunity to spread their message then it should be centrally funded and limited to the same amount for everyone.