 | | | PROGRAMME INFO | | | |
| |
Political parties are essential to democracy and the time has come when they should be publicly funded.
says Anthony King, Professor of Government, at the University of Essex
| | |  Who should pay for political parties?Do you agree? Join the discussion by calling 0870 010 0444, lines open at 1.30pm. | |
LISTEN - Hear Anthony King discuss guns
The time has come when political parties should be publicly funded or, more bluntly, when you and I as taxpayers should pay for them.
That's not a view most people hold. It's not a view I once held. But I hold it now.
It goes without saying that parties - whether we like them or not - are essential to democracy. No genuine democracies exist without them.
They offer ordinary citizens their best opportunity to take part in democratic political life. They choose candidates to stand for public office. They formulate alternative policies. Above all, they make it worthwhile to go out and vote, because, in voting for a party, one can vote for a government.
Imagine a British general election without political parties but with, instead, thousands of non-party candidates about whom most voters know nothing: individual voters might as well cast their ballots to the winds.
But political parties cost money: for premises and staff, for conducting research and, to be sure, for mounting election campaigns.
Fortunately, in this country, they don't cost much - hugely less than in most of our larger neighbours in Europe, let alone in the United States.
The total annual expenditure of all the parties in Britain comes to only about thirty million pounds ... more in election years.
That's not a lot. But it's got to come from somewhere. So the question is: who should foot the bill?
Not so long ago, there was a generally acceptable answer. The trade unions - and, to a lesser extent, its individual card-carrying members - would pay for the Labour Party.
Business firms, wealthy donors and the mass of its individual members would pay for the Conservative Party.
The Liberals and the other parties would find money where, and if, they could.
That arrangement struck most people as fair enough. One side of industry paid for one of the two main parties ... the other side of industry paid for the other. A rough balance was struck.
It was rough, of course: Labour always complained that its resources didn't match the Tories'; and the other parties were left with virtually nothing.
But that arrangement has now effectively collapsed.
New Labour is less willing than Old Labour to rely on union money; the unions themselves are less willing to give money; and the party's individual membership has shrunk.
On the Conservative side, businesses give less and less - they don't want to be 'involved in politics' any longer - and the Tories' individual membership has also shrunk.
Who, then, is left to pick up the bill? There are two answers, both obvious.
One is 'Nobody': all the parties, not just the tiddlers, are now in desperate financial straits.
The other is 'Fat Cats': the few super-rich individuals who are nowadays prepared to fund the parties ... such as Lady Hamlyn, who gave Labour a million pounds last week.
That situation is simply no longer tenable. The parties are left impoverished; and the rest of us are left wondering - probably unfairly - about the motives of the individuals who give the money.
I've come to the conclusion that we - all of us, via the tax system - should see to it that our parties are properly funded ... and in a way that ensures that no individual or group can buy - or be thought to buy - privileged access or influence. No more Bernie Ecclestones, no more Michael Ashcrofts.
How that might best be done we can talk about later; in fact, there are lots of ways. For now, it's the principle that matters.
State-funding may not be ideal; but all the alternatives are worse.
Do you agree?
Join the discussion by calling 0870 010 0444
lines open at 1.30pm.
| | |
RELATED LINKS | | |
Testbed Productions
| | |
| | |
