Do we need state funding for political parties?
December 2007
There is a looming crisis in the funding of Political Parties, and it is not just about who donates to whom and how. Party membership generally is a fraction of what it was only a couple of decades ago, yet the number of elections Parties fight, and the expenditure on them has never been higher.
To pay for what has been decribed as a ‘funding arms race’ Parties are increasingly having to rely for their funding either on corporate donations, or on the support of a small number of very rich individuals. Neither is really healthy for politics in the long term.
Much has been done by the present Government to make Party and election funding more transparent and accountable. Donations of over £5000 have to be listed and the donors identified. There is now a complete ban on Parties receiving donations from overseas, and a cap on the amount each Party can spend during a General Election.
These reforms are quite right and overdue, but had the effect of giving the media a field day whenever a donation is declared. Other ‘loopholes’ remain exploited, like the Conservative Party’s use of ‘front’ companies to channel anonymous donations, and the effective ‘buying’ of key local electoral contests by channelling national money into local Parties and thereby avoiding overall limits. Clearly, to provide a reasonably level playing field and counter continuing abuses we need an overall cap on what Parties can spend throughout the period between elections both locally and nationally.
We should also respect the different ways Parties are constituted – it is no business of the State to define how Parties should be organised internally. Trade Union Affiliation to the Labour Party, for example should be clearly distinguished from donations.
But sooner or later, and especially if further constraints are placed on how funds can be raised, all Parties will find it impossible to fund their activities at anything like the present level, particularly between elections. So what? You might say. You might even think that the disappearance of Parties from the political scene would be a good thing. I would disagree. Having Political Parties able to present different policies properly to the electorate, and compete for elected places is essential for the health of the political process. In order to do that Parties need some funding - and the proportion of funding between Parties should not be too grotesquely unbalanced.
For all these reasons I think we should now look seriously at State funding for our Political Parties. But if we do look we should do so carefully. I would not be in favour of a block grant 'handout' to the main Parties - that would stifle active membership and could ossify Parties at historical levels of support. Funding needs to be related to Party activity – perhaps a grant for each Party member recorded, or as a recent Inquiry suggested, a fixed sum for each vote cast, assigned by the voter in the polling station.
Some people will baulk at the idea of spending taxpayers' money on Party political activities. Those who do might be surprised to know that, already, up to 40% of Party costs between elections, and up to 60% of costs at elections are paid for by the State - if we include the grants for opposition parties for research, the free Party Political Broadcasts Parties receive, and the free post all candidates at elections are entitled to for their election addresses. This funding though, is not really transparent and accountable. It goes out in blocks - far better in my view to be up-front about it.
Knowing how much could be raised, who was contributing to that total, how much the State was contributing and by what means would be transparent. Parties would still need to raise a substantial proportion of the funds they needed but we would know that when it comes to an election it would be argument organisation and work that would win, and not the power of the wallet to win by the back door.
What do you think? Email alan@alan-whitehead.org.uk