Party political funding is the reform behemoth that refuses to die.
Several times it’s been through the wringer of inquiry and report to being roundly ignored in the last decade –the 2000 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, the 2006 Sir Hayden Phillips inquiry, and most recently Sir Christopher Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life.
The proposed reforms to party funding never secure parliamentary support, as they fail to reach agreement from all three main Westminster Parties. The Phillips inquiry collapsed over deciding the best way to deal with Labour’s funding from trade unions, while Sir Christopher Kelly’s proposal, of £23m a year in state funding of political parties, met with disapproval from all corners of Westminster, reluctant to commit to such spending of taxpayer’s money during a period of austerity.
Last week Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called for a revival of the behemoth, writing to Ed Miliband and David Cameron asking them each to nominate party representatives for three-party private talks, aiming to set out some form of political funding agreement by Easter.
According to The Guardian, this agreement would “cover individual and company donor limits, the treatment of union affiliates, spending caps at elections and the distribution of existing state funding between parties, currently estimated at £7m a year.â€
Additional state funding has been ruled out from these discussions, and this means the agreement will not include much reduced donation limits – such caps, minus funding from the state, could entail bankruptcy for the parties.
Much reduced donation limits from individuals or an organisation is the most frequent sticking point for the Labour Party in these discussions. Heavily dependent on trade union affiliation fees for income, any moves which limit or alter how these are made threatens Labour’s continued existence, whether it’s severely capping the amount a union can donate or proposing that political levy-payers have to contract in, rather than opt-out, when joining.
So while ruling out additional state funding and thus much lower donor limits means Miliband is likely to be more sympathetic to joining Clegg’s talks, another worry about party funding could be looming for Labour – this time from within.
A quarter of motions to the GMB’s annual conference in June are debating the trade union’s future relationship with Labour. The GMB describes the actions of so many of its branches raising this issue as “unprecedentedâ€.
Giving around £2 million each year to the party, the GMB is Labour’s third largest donor. Of its 600,000 members, around half are either employed by the public sector, or in private companies contracted to the public sector. Comments by the Labour leadership in January regarding public sector pay constraint have ignited the union members’ ire; particularly Ed Balls’ statement in a speech to the Fabian Society that he could not promise to reverse the coalition’s spending cuts if Labour were elected in 2015.
In a statement on Tuesday, the GMB’s executive noted the concerns of its membership and said:
“The executive expressed concern and disappointment with recent statements made by senior party officials and registered their growing frustration at the lack of a cohesive policy to protect working people from the ravages of the Tory-led coalition Government.”
Being attacked by union activists while trying to woo middle-Britain back to Labour may not feel like being in ‘Red Ed’ Miliband’s best interests for positioning himself and his party to win the next election, but only a fool would dismiss these calls by the GMB’s activists.
Labour can’t try and defend the trade union link and its generous funding on one hand, while that crucial link and all its cash is slipping away from the other. Miliband is going to have to choose exactly how he wants his party to have a future; just have to wait and see if it will be a well funded one, with committed union activists campaigning on the ground, rather than skint attempts at triangulation with the Daily Mail reading masses.
#1 by Ben Achie on February 15, 2012 - 5:51 pm
This issue basically underscores what Alex Salmond has been saying about the failure of the metropolitan elite to effectively represent the electorate. If the public don’t really feel represented, then they won’t put their hands in their pocket.
#2 by Barbarian on February 15, 2012 - 6:29 pm
The best argument for state funding is that it should remove all outside influence, be it from unions or private business.
If you look at countries around the world, historically nearly all parties in democracies are influenced by money.
I think there is now a case for state funding. But it has to be limited, to prevent some of the overkill that goes on. Let’s make the prospective candidates reconnect with the constituents that they want to represent. When was the last time someone from a party knocked on your door?
We see too often how business can influence government, from the banks to transport companies – although politicians will always deny there is any influence.
I’d rather there was a bit of state funding to try and politicians working for people rather than power and influence. No party is immune.
How do you allocate the funding? Perhaps equal amounts for the two (or even three) biggest parties, with proportionally smaller amounts for the minority ones. How they spend it is their business.
#3 by Angus McLellan on February 15, 2012 - 7:46 pm
What they’re asking for is *more* state funding. There’s already a fair bit of money out of your pocket going to the major parties. For example, last year the Electoral Commission handed out more than £1.5 million to political parties. They get quite enough money already.
#4 by Indy on February 15, 2012 - 7:04 pm
Oh have a heart. We have knocked every door in our constituency dozens of times over the past decade or so. But only made contact with about 40 per cent of voters over those years. Because when you go up a street knocking doors here is what will happen. Half of them won’t be in and of those who ARE in, half of them will be making their tea, or on the phone or getting ready to bath the baby or sitting down to watch their favourite TV programme or just about to polish the silver or they have a sponge cake or soufflé in the oven just about to reach the crucial point
You have no idea how hard it is to a) get people in and b) to get them in when they are also in the mood to talk to you.
So just remember that the next time you ask in that breezy way when was the last time someone from a party knocked on your door?
We try, we try!
#5 by Barbarian on February 15, 2012 - 9:39 pm
I’ve worked in business-to-business sales, and I also did some canvassing about…erm…28 years ago. I know pretty well how hard it is to get people to listen.
Activity generates results. If you only get 40%. then that is a better result than you get in sales.
But a party that actually shows some interest just might get results. The only person that has knocked on my door was a Labour councillor (who I’ve had a public spat with) 9 years ago. He at least made the effort.
If you persuade one voter to change to the SNP, then they might get others. Every vote gained means the opposition need two to counter it.
#6 by Indy on February 16, 2012 - 8:20 am
Yes well that is what we are doing Barbbarian.