First, a disclaimer - sometimes I get really interested in the big political stories of the day and sometimes I happily let them pass me by. I’ve never really understood why this happens with some stories but it does and the funding scandals over the last few months have been the perfect example. I haven’t followed every statement or analysis, every nuance or comment from the pundits – whether this distance makes for a more enlightened take on the subject you can decide…
I really, really struggle to see why this should be such a big political issue. It reeks of the sort of problem that 100% of the non-political classes could agree on in 5 minutes but politicians are determined to offer a multitude of ifs and buts and pretend it’s more complicated than it is. Everything is seen through the prism of how it’ll affect their own party’s finances rather than how well it sits with any fair and noble approach to politics. Put simply this isn’t anywhere near as difficult or as complicated as we are constantly told. How does this sound:
The only objection which might carry any weight here is what this might do to the way parties campaign and the nature of politics as a whole – there’s a real prospect that this would dramatically reduce the monies parties have available to them at general election times. This might mean they’d have to have less flashy adverts and billboards, less glossy mail shots and internet campaigns. That in turn might continue the disturbing trend of fewer and fewer people getting engaged in party politics. If that danger is demonstrated to be real then we will have to consider state funding, not something I’m particularly keen on. If the danger isn’t real then the parties will just have to adjust the way they campaign.
See – easy isn’t it? Cassilis for PM……
Update: Tom Freeman endorses much of this in the comments but is too gallant to point out that the idea of routing all donations via the electoral commission was first suggested by him back in November last year and I neglected to credit him - sorry Tom.
I really, really struggle to see why this should be such a big political issue. It reeks of the sort of problem that 100% of the non-political classes could agree on in 5 minutes but politicians are determined to offer a multitude of ifs and buts and pretend it’s more complicated than it is. Everything is seen through the prism of how it’ll affect their own party’s finances rather than how well it sits with any fair and noble approach to politics. Put simply this isn’t anywhere near as difficult or as complicated as we are constantly told. How does this sound:
- Only declared individual donations should be permissible - no organisational donations at all. That means no think-tanks, no businesses, no unions and no research groups.
- Eligibility to donate based on reasonably strict residence criteria – e.g. residence in UK >75% of last three years.
- Route all individual donations via the Electoral Commission (or similar) and every single donation (above a certain level) should be viewable on a website for all to see.
- Cap those individual donations sensibly – no need to register <£100 so tin-rattling can still go on but no reason why we can’t have an upper limit of £40-£50k per-annum.
The only objection which might carry any weight here is what this might do to the way parties campaign and the nature of politics as a whole – there’s a real prospect that this would dramatically reduce the monies parties have available to them at general election times. This might mean they’d have to have less flashy adverts and billboards, less glossy mail shots and internet campaigns. That in turn might continue the disturbing trend of fewer and fewer people getting engaged in party politics. If that danger is demonstrated to be real then we will have to consider state funding, not something I’m particularly keen on. If the danger isn’t real then the parties will just have to adjust the way they campaign.
See – easy isn’t it? Cassilis for PM……
Update: Tom Freeman endorses much of this in the comments but is too gallant to point out that the idea of routing all donations via the electoral commission was first suggested by him back in November last year and I neglected to credit him - sorry Tom.
Labels: Politics
6 Comments:
less flashy adverts and billboards, less glossy mail shots and internet campaigns
I think the phrase I'm looking for is 'well boo hoo, sob sob'. Political obsessive that I am, I really can't say I know what interests 'ordinary' people in politics, but I somehow don't think it's the fancy ads.
Your ideas make sense, I particularly agree with routing money through the Electoral Commission.
On eligiblity, I'd add that donors should have to be be on the electoral register.
Well far be it from me to be the Piper but there is a defence of Union donations .
If only individuals can donate then 'money' will protect 'money' and the workingclasses will be priced out of democracy.If each individual 'proletarian' decides then each one might decide to foregoe their contribution even if they approved of the political effect of Union power and benefitted from it.
Its an extension of the whole point of unions which is that inividually workers are ( very much were ) the prey of Capital and they need to organise negotiate and fund the parliamentary arm of the movement 'collectively'. Thats why freedom of contract can be against the concept of collective bargaining.
Personally I think this arguement has become very much weaker now but it was strong in the past and is deeply embedded in the history of the Labour party and in some areas in the minds of its mass support to this day. Even I can see there is an argument that organised labour should have a financial stake in the poltical system whuch will otherwise be the exclusive preserve of organised capitalism.The difference being that an individual get most of the cash in the latter.
I am actually quite pro trade union and feel they played a heroic part in the development of the country. Perhaps the time has come to leave that world behind but there is certainly an argumnent that it has not.
Thanks Tom. I've added an update that might interest you. And yes being on the electoral roll is a must - might point I guess is it shouldn't be enough.
NM - if I ever derive any income from this blog you could make a case for a cut. My very own resident contrarian... why only a few weeks back you laid the blame for many of the ills of the 80's at the union's door.
Hey, can I have a cut for been Newmania's very own contrarian? There's not going to be much to divvy up between us Liam.
Speak to my agent Bob - let's just hope we don't get paid by the letter otherwise neither of us will ever earn what the voluminous NM could bring in...!
Sir, your gallantness far exceeds mine.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home