party funding - second go

Okay, so how do you want your politics funded?

Its easy isn’t it?

Just stop big donations or lower the cap on spending even further. But let’s look at the possible unintended consequences before we go for the easy route to ‘cleaned up’ politics. 

Justin Fisher can be our guide (paid subscription required).

Lets start with the obvious, with fewer people wanting to be members of political parties they can’t survive on membership fees alone.  You might say “good, if you can’t persuade the public to stump up the cash then you don’t deserve to survive” and there’s a kernel of truth in that.  But spare a thought for what might come in our place.

Fisher has a thought:

The most likely candidates are single-issue organisations funded by rich benefactors, not collections of like-minded individuals or plucky independents.  Advocates of the free-market principle should ask themselves if the Referendum party represents a good model for the future.

But we know that there is public disquiet about the current state of affairs and change is afoot.

A cap on individual or organisational donations is the route favoured by the current Conservative leadership (something they previously saw as an infringement on personal liberty), but they acknowledge this isn’t likely to be even in its consequences; it would hurt them less than the Labour Party, where trade union donations would probably get caught in the mix, and as a result this approach is unlikely to get bipartisan support.

So how about capping spending? Here’s our guide:

The common perception is that parties have too much, and that money spent on election campaigns is wasted (billboards are often singled out for no good reason).  But the idea that parties only raise money for elections is wrong.  Political parties are permanent organisations, with recurring costs such as salaries and rent that account for 80% of expenditure.

Fisher also points out that parties (as a result of devolution) are now fighting more elections than ever before.  But he goes further and says we need to think about why people give money to parties and (rightly) says it ain’t to pay for the ongoing costs that parties incur - “donate to the Labour Party to pay our rent” doesn’t do it for me and I can’t imagine that it works for anyone else either. 

Fisher makes another excellent point about the consequences of reduced amounts of income for parties:

… parties target their resources on key seats.  This is perfectly rational behaviour - the parties’ first priority is to win elections; increasing turnout is a secondary concern. Yet a key complaint of those who abstain or who are disengaged is that the election feels as though it only takes place in target seats.  Further restrictions on spending will exacerbate this, since fewer resources will leas to even greater targeting.

We see this in local elections already.  The Greens put up candidates in Blackheath - for example - but did no campaigning there, instead they put all their resources into Brockley and Ladywell.  The Lib Dems and Conservatives similarly chose the seats they felt they could have the most success in and didn’t do much in places like New Cross.  Regionally I know that the Labour Party were trying to put their resources into places like Lambeth, Croyden and Camden and didn’t provide any assistance to Lewisham.

So, if you want politicians to woo you for your vote then the parties need enough money to pay for the leaflets and the infrastructure that creates an election organisation.

We could of course say that politics is part of the common weal, that we all benefit from a healthy democracy and that we should all pay for it through our taxes.  There is already an element of state funding for political parties - there’s money that goes to parties in opposition to help pay for their research work and there’s the ‘in kind’ funding of Party Political Broadcasts - but it could be extended.  The Phillips Review of party funding which is looking at the issue - and wants our views on what proposed - says this about state funding:

it would help ensure financial stability and underline the real public interest in healthy political debate. If allocated according to votes cast at one or more previous general elections, and in relation to elections for the devolved administrations, it would, depending on the threshold set, assist smaller parties and not just the big battalions. It could also encourage voter turnout in safe seats.

Here’s a final point.  Fisher’s essay also takes a look at how parties spend their (occasionally) ill gotten gains.  

As you can see from my bad photo Labour and the Tories spent pretty much the same amount of money (far right column) but when you look at where it was spent things get a bit more interesting.  The Tories went big on advertising and unsolicited mail, whereas we spent our money on overheads, rallies and events and transport.  The Lib Dems had less money to play with but spent theirs on advertising, unsolicited mail and transport.

Others will be in a better place to judge, but if money gets tighter then I would guess that what there is of it will get thrown at targeted mailings, and central canvassing. 

All of which may mean you see less of your local politicians (unless you live in a target seat), and that they then receive less of your support and are less accountable for their actions.

If this means anything at all to you I’d urge you to take a look at the the review of the funding of political parties web site, read the interim conclusions that they’re mulling over and respond to the questions before 20 November 2006.