I think this is a good thing. David Cameron was right that providing the loans were legal the donors do have some right to anonymity, unless they were happy for their names to be revealed. But these are political parties and there is a new air of openess that we must have regard to.
From a political point of view it was also allowing Blair to get away with his shameless behaviour over peerages - no wonder he has never wanted an elected House of Lord's. He could hardly hand out the perage if they had to be elected!!
Read more at news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_...
3 comments:
All donors must have a right to anonimity regardless of party.
It is the whole honours system that needs scrapping,not just peerages.
Why on earth give honours to showbiz "stars" and greedy businessmen of any persuasion?
I know one could never stop contract awards going to companies whose chairmen etc give to parties but if we assume they are all doing it everyone will have to have a share even if it is prorated.
Kevin,
I am a big fan of the fact that these cases have exploded into the media, not only because they bring an end to any corruption within the present government, but also because they open up a wider debate as to how political parties should be democratically funded in modern British politics. Gone are the days when funding politics was the exchange for political participation (and social prestige) in the House of Lords. These cases do not show that you can buy political positions in the House of Lords in the modern world. In fact, on closer inspection, these cases show how unacceptable it is to buy political positions in modern British politics, and show that any last remnants of the trend are breaking up (having been spotted by an enthusiastic media). However, it is clear that what’s left is big businesses openly funding political parties on the basis of tacit agreements that certain sectors or companies will be favoured by the next government (one of the parties in question).
There are, of course, alternatives to this situation, namely state-funding. Some argue that state-funding and party donations should act in concord, which in my mind doesn’t really change anything (as all parties would get a set amount of money and the competition would be for parties in gaining, and for business in providing, extra money).
The problem with relying solely on state funding in my view is that (to avoid small parties demanding disproportionate amounts of money) parties would be funded in proportion to the amount of votes they get. As I see it this would mean that the party with the most votes (e.g. the Labour Party) would then gain a higher amount of money, allowing them to gain even more votes next time round (creating a snowball effect). Alternatively, boundaries would be drawn widely enough so as to accommodate all the major political parties, but this would be opposed by small parties demanding an equal say in politics.
Thus, funding politics is a difficult matter to sort out. But does this mean that true democracy in a capitalist society is unattainable? I do not think it does. The problem with the argument over the funding of politics is that it assumes that more money equals more votes. I think that at the moment this is true, but only because the political education of the country is so dire that voters are split into three groups: political enthusiasts dogmatic in their political approach, a majority of non-voters who (obviously) do not vote, and swaying, ignorant voters who vote by the appearance of parties and not their ideas. It is the ignorant voter that is swayed by a billboard picture of David Cameron on his bicycle, not the man that has thought carefully about, and been educated in, modern British political ideas. The object of party funding on election campaigns is to sway non-voters into becoming the ignorant voter in favour of your political party. In theory, money spent on billboard pictures of DC should not be swaying voters, it should be the ideas that DC is championing (easily available online for those interested) that gain Conservative votes. I propose a compulsory GCSE in politics for the nation, allowing Briton’s population to free itself from the tyranny of the politically educated, and the ignorant voter influenced by billboards funded by supermarket chains. Funding the advertisement of political parties would not be controversial if Britain’s population was educated in politics (hopefully fuelling an interest in the governance of the nation), and not excluded from Westminster by the machinations of our educational system. People do not need to see Blair or Cameron every day through their letterbox to know who to vote for, if they’re interested in the governance of their nation (which so many at the moment are not) they’ll find out themselves.
I have been considering this issue recently, specifically in regard to State Funding. As Michael has commented, there are considerable problems. Possibly one way to solve them (and this is only a preliminary idea!) could possibly be the State giving money to a Party dependent on the number of candidates they put up in elections. This would avoid the difficulty of the 'snow ball effect' as mentioned.
To prevent all parties simply putting up candidates everywhere (thereby advantaging the smaller party unfairly), there could be something similar to having to pay their deposit if they don't get a certain number of votes ... in this case it would mean the parties having to pay back the state funding for that particular candidate. A second string to this bow could include a percentage limit placed on how much could be used as a general fund nationally, leaving the remaining amount to be spent in the individual constituency. These two limitations would therefore prevent a smaller party from entering numerous candidates and concentrating the gained money on only their few serious candidates.
An initial idea. What do people think?
Post a Comment