Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Parties

Why George Monbiot is wrong about party funding

Nov 5

Posted by James in Parties | 14 Comments

Dollar bill into a ballot boxI’m over my nuclear-powered loss of confidence in George Monbiot now: he’s right about too much else, and there are too few other people in the mainstream media making those arguments. But last week’s piece by him on party funding was well-intentioned but seriously off-beam.

He was responding to a 2011 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life which (Monbiot’s summary) recommended that “donations should be capped at an annual £10,000, the limits on campaign spending should be reduced, and public funding for political parties should be raised” – the last of which should be “a state subsidy based on the size of their vote at the last election”.

Instead, Monbiot argues, the only source of income a party could have would be membership fees and public matched funding for those. All parties would have to charge the same for membership, and he suggests £50 per annum. I’m a supporter of some form of state funding (of course, it already happens, largely in the form of Short Money: it’s just not transparent), but this model wouldn’t work.

As an incidental loophole, is he really suggesting that parties couldn’t charge for things like fringe sponsorship at conferences or even stalls? You might find sponsored fringe events distasteful, but charging for stalls surely isn’t unreasonable. And what about merchandise? I used to love buy Scottish Green Party umbrellas all the time, given that I seemed incapable of retaining one for more than a month. Would you ban that? How much is a fair markup on merch before it’s a bannable donation?

Then there’s the £50 rate. Again, looking at the Green position, we tier our membership fees: from £5 for students and the under-18s, then from £12 to £72 by income. Everyone with an income under £40,000 pays less than Monbiot’s figure. Should we be required to scrap that system? I quite like it. Or should we get less state support when a person on a low income joins the party?

Finally, such a system puts a big boundary around parties. You can be as enthusiastic a supporter as you like, but if you’re not also the kind of person who joins, you can’t give financial support. You can deliver leaflets for a party but you can’t chip in £100 to get more leaflets printed. It would even more clearly emphasise that politics belongs to the most committed.

The Committee’s original idea strikes me as a bit closer to an ideal model. In addition to caps on donations and reduced expenditure limits, they talk about a cost of 50p per elector per year, or a taxpayer contribution equivalent to between £1.50 and £3 per vote (the lower level for devolved institutions: the higher for Westminster, and the difference with the 50p figure is turnout), made in line with actual votes.

The problem with this is it does continue to divide parties by existing income. If you can’t afford the deposits it takes to stand in constituencies, either for Holyrood or Westminster, you can’t get any matched funding. That assumes the devolved figure would be for constituency votes rather than regional votes – you can be damn sure the rotating parties of government would argue for that approach. Also, for as long as we have any first-past-the-post element, a direct per-vote donation would contaminate people’s democratic choices. If I lived in a Tory/SNP or a Tory/Labour marginal where Greens couldn’t afford to stand, I’d be definitely want to cast an anti-Tory constituency vote. But then, despite being a Green member, I’d be funding one of two parties who are already massively well-funded. That’d stick in the throat, and it’d probably tempt me to abstain.

Personally, I’d still allow donations but with a low cap, perhaps £500 per annum, and I back some of the other changes proposed last year. But on the specific question of state funding, why not let the people decide directly? When you vote, you get a second sheet: who do you want to “donate” your public funds to? Show a list of all parties elected at any level in your area, and let the people decide who deserves a hand.

None of Scotland’s political parties are fit for purpose

Oct 22

Posted by James in Parties | 29 Comments

Last night’s showing on the BBC of Ant Baxter’s “You’ve Been Trumped” (iPlayer link for as long as that lasts) led to an awful lot of discussion on Twitter last night about the way the SNP, and particularly the First Minister, let down local residents in their haste to suck up to the bewigged billionaire. I even saw a fair few people say they’d voted SNP last time but after watching the film: never again.

The SNP did let down David Milne and Molly Forbes and the rest, of course: I couldn’t disagree. However, I couldn’t let Labour or Lib Dem folk pretend their side were innocent bystanders.

There was also a tone abroad of “so who do I vote for, then?”, which is another fair question. Obviously Greens backed the local residents and their unique ecosystem from the start (that word gets over-used, but it’s true in this case), and I’m always happy to recommend a Green vote.

But thinking about the bigger picture in discussion with Scott, it struck me that none of Scotland’s parties are properly fit to run this country right now. One day I’ll do a post about the achievements of each and every party, because I do see both sides (even with the Tories), but every one of them has at least one overwhelming flaw.

Leaving aside those not in Parliament right now, and leaving out many many more examples:

The SNP: weakness for the interests of the rich (not just Trump: 1, 2, 3, etc), failures on climate change (1, 2, 3 etc), regressive tax policies (Council tax freeze helps the richest most, LIT would exempt wealth and share income etc), snouts in the trough, Health Minister opposed to women’s rights, quiet u-turn on nuclear power.

Labour: authoritarianism, setting up the market in higher education, illegal wars, spending their lives complaining about the Tories or the SNP not delivering on issues they never delivered on in office, pretending Labour austerity is better than Tory or SNP austerity, snouts in the trough.

Tories: economically incompetent, generally incompetent, greedy and incompetent, blatantly cruel, anti-education, anti-environment, anti-women, most committed to sucking up to Murdoch, the NHS again, snouts in the trough, essentially everything except some of Ken Clarke’s now-abandoned justice agenda.

Lib Dems: snouts in the trough, ready to lionise truly appalling people, u-turns on fees, VAT, electoral reform, climate change, NHS privatisation, etc.

Greens: simply too small, too stretched, and nowhere near the votes we’d need – it’s not plausible to say Greens are ready now to run the country instead of the four parties above. We can’t even afford to stand in the constituencies, for a start.

As a result I think politics here is desperately in need of a realignment of the sort which is commonplace elsewhere in Europe.

In Greece, as the country comes under enormous pressure, the landscape is shifting to try and respond. The centre-right ND absorbed a somewhat more rightwing Orthodox party, SYRIZA went from a minor party to lead the polls, etc. In Italy the Five Star Movement has come from nowhere. In Canada the New Democrats have overtaken the centrist Liberals, and there’s talk of a merger.

Scottish and British politics alike can be characterised as static, stale, partisan, corrupt, and inadequate (although the UK-wide problems are worse: one reason I’ll vote Yes). The revolving doors between government and business twirl far too predictably, and participation withers. Perhaps the referendum, whichever way it goes, will lead to a political realignment of some sort. We desperately need it.

Uncomfortable allies all round on the #indyref

Oct 21

Posted by James in Constitution, Parties | 1 Comment

The SNP make great play of Labour’s cooperation with the Tories and the Lib Dems as part of Better Together. I see why they do it: the Tories are less popular than Labour in Scotland, so tying them together has some strategic logic. And yes, those parties have all formed UK governments I broadly disapprove of, in addition to their support for Westminster.

However, treating the No campaign as a unified block implies that the Yes campaign should be treated the same way. And because the SNP are the largest organisation supporting a yes vote, that blurs the boundaries between the party and Yes Scotland even further.

For better or worse, that kind of thinking now means the whole of the Yes campaign will be seen as pro-NATO rather than pro the people deciding on NATO membership after independence has been achieved. This is bad news.

But it also allows the No campaign to lump all us independence supporters in together as well, to treat us as a homogenous group. That can’t help: for one thing, it’d mean we’re all on side with perjurers. You don’t have to be Alastair Campbell to see the downside there. This would also make me indistinguishable from the independent (ex-Tory but pro-indy) Midlothian councillor Peter de Vink, who’s rabidly anti-renewables, or from the grasping and anti-women Alex Neil. I don’t want to be associated with the SNP’s policies on the economy, social justice, or the environment. Yes Scotland isn’t associated with them – it doesn’t have a policy agenda beyond independence – but this kind of rhetoric undermines that argument.

It also means that my previous mix of feelings when I see cybernat bullying on Twitter has changed. Before, I felt sad to see the tone lowered, but during an election Greens were competing for votes with the SNP a little cynical part of me hoped there might be political advantage in it for us. Now we’re all trying to to get a Yes vote (I include only those Greens who support independence here – perhaps about two thirds of the party, roughly) I feel much more aggrieved. I worry that the “ure no true scotsman if you dont vote yes” approach could drag the whole campaign down.

Now, there are plenty of people outside the Greens who I’m proud to work with to secure independence. I have a lot of respect for many in the SSP, and also for plenty of SNP members, activists, MSPs and Ministers. The very impressive NATO debate made me feel quite strong political kinship with the likes of Jamie Hepburn and Natalie McGarry. I like the prospect of some non-partisan co-operation with them, and with people of no party who support the objective.

Because co-operation on an issue doesn’t entail unity on all the others. Caroline Lucas worked with Douglas Carswell on STV, despite being at the left and right ends of the Westminster spectrum respectively. And don’t forget the devolution referendum. Were the three party leaders above really indistinguishable because they wanted a Scottish Parliament in 1997?

It does no-one on either side any favours to lump all their opponents in together, and it cuts both ways. I doubt it helps the cause to tell a Labour-voting waverer that her party is indistinguishable from the Tories.

It’s a pompous hope, perhaps, but it’d be great to see all those campaigning on the referendum working under these two broad umbrellas while recognising the diversity of of our own views and the other side’s views too. The referendum is a simple question: should Westminster have a continued role in making decisions about Scotland’s political future? Whatever the result, those other diverse views will be put to the test at the next election, not during the referendum.

Who cares what the SNP thinks about NATO?

Oct 18

Posted by James in Constitution, Parties | 9 Comments

Okay, I do. But not because it’ll directly determine whether an independent Scotland would be in NATO. Changing policy would be a bad sign on that front, admittedly, but then so too is existing Tory, Labour and Lib Dem support for Nato.

In the event of a Yes vote, the Yoonyonisht Consphirashy will presumably not pack up their bags for Westminster and leave Scotland in the SNP’s hands. They’d stay to fight the elections to an independent Holyrood, and they may well win, just as Churchill won the war but Attlee won the peace.

The problem, as SNP MSP Marco Biagi rightly points out today, is that there’s a “false narrative that voting Yes means endorsing only the SNP vision of an independent Scotland.” Of course it doesn’t: if it did, I’d run a mile. I have a decent amount of common ground with them on health, justice, and even equalities, but I don’t want to live in a tartan tax haven built on burning all our oil and emptying the North Sea of fish as quickly as possible.

Marco’s fighting for an SNP that sticks to its guns (sorry) because they’re his party and that’s the policy he still believes in, not because he believes that decision can possibly be set for an independent Scotland by Alex Salmond before the Scottish people elect MSPs the next time.

It’s part of a wider problem, one that Jeff addressed here last month. Winning a referendum on the principle that those living in Scotland should make all the key political decisions is one thing: I think a cross-party and non-party campaign can do that. Winning a post-independence election on what to do with the full powers of a normal independent state: the SNP machine has form at general elections.

However, wherever a non-SNP voter who’s open to independence (remember: it can’t be won without them) accepts Marco’s “false narrative”, they are more likely to vote No depending on their attitudes to the SNP leadership and SNP policies. The referendum cannot be won without at least a clear division between the two things: assuming the party don’t accept Jeff’s logic above.

The First Minister should stand up and state clearly during the debate that the SNP won’t determine whether an independent Scotland stays in NATO: the Scottish people would do in the first post-referendum election. It’d be a brave move, and it’d reduce the importance of a debate is being billed as, to quote Marco again, “a leadership defeat or a U-turn“.  More broadly, every time an SNP politician is asked a question that presumes they’ll win that post-indy election they have an opportunity to explain that the Scottish people will be sovereign, not the SNP.

Putting the distance between the wider Yes campaign and the party which delivered the referendum can reduce the risk to the Yes campaign of losing the support of some of those people who’ve long wanted to leave this nuclear alliance. The same goes for the monarchy, the currency, the BBC, and tax rates: those are arguments I hope the SNP lose in an independent Scotland, or positions they change their mind on, but we need to get there first, and that means narrative clarity about what’s being offered.

The Goldilocks referendum

Oct 15

Posted by James in Constitution, Holyrood, Parties, Westminster | 13 Comments

Today’s much-trailed deal on the referendum is a good one, and it deserves a broadly non-partisan response today. Alex Salmond has persuaded David Cameron to give Holyrood the power to let the over-16s vote: this is a good thing. David Cameron has persuaded Alex Salmond to give up on the second question: this is a good thing too.

Remember also the progress on the wording? It seems a long time ago, but even last year the talk was still about  “open negotiations” rather than a clear question, and when that changed at Holyrood, UK Ministers spoiled for a fight. That fight is quite rightly off.

A sunset clause for 2014 is also a sensible move. I originally argued that the best timeline would be a public and relatively quick process to set a draft constitution, followed by as early a question as possible. That open public process has not been agreed, but now there are two years to try and secure it: that time may be necessary. On the flipside, although it would hardly be credible for the Scottish Government to delay if the polling looked bad, it’s best for that not to be an option.

The spending limits remain the last major element of uncertainty, with the SNP position set out here looking a bit like a low-ball: do they really want a limit below the donations their campaign’s already received? The limits do need to be tight enough to prevent Brian Souter or Lord Ashcroft from buying it, as the First Minister argues, but big enough that the campaigns can do what they need to do to get the message out, as the Electoral Commission are apparently arguing: all sides need to motivate their supporters and drive a substantial turnout.

Importantly, though, there is ( or “will be”, if you believe the press offices’ conceit) an agreement. No matter what your position on the outcome, no-one except the lawyers should want a referendum to be derailed afterwards by wrangling in the courts. And this means that there will be a vote, and barring reports of electoral misconduct or wafer-thin margins, we should get a nice clean result. Relatedly, it’s also one in the eye for Ian Smart’s long-term conspiracy theory that there simply will not be a vote. Oh yes there will, as they say.

It’s also good for the collective reputation of politics and politicians for two governments with two very starting points on this issue to have come to an agreement rather than it being collapsed into a blamestorming session. It’s genuinely impressive on both sides, which is why it’s a shame some refugee from The Thick of It had to tell the Guardian that they planned to “bomb [Salmond] with reasonableness“.

Now it appears we have a honourable process and a good outcome with a clear question, an outcome that’s neither too Nat-tastic nor one where the Yoonyonisht Conshpirashy has its thumb on the scales. Both governments have mandates, and there was no responsible alternative to this  real compromise, done in the national interest, whether you see that nation as Scotland or Britain.

Don’t believe the myth that Salmond never wanted his devo max insurance policy – but also don’t believe that Cameron’s comfortable with the timing, nor the extension of the franchise and the precedent it sets, despite the polling evidence that younger voters may favour his team.

The referendum can now go ahead on a fair basis. The phoney war is over. The long campaign proper is beginning, and it will take a bit more of this spirit to ensure the public aren’t turned off by it. Both sides need to try inspiring the public rather than scaring them, and keeping the focus on the genuine choice that’s to be made rather than slipping into the politics of fear. Bring it on.