Sunday, March 19, 2006

Party Funding Reform Is Now a Certainty

So what are we to make of the latest revelations in the Loans for Peerage affair. I must admit to being a tad disappointed that the combined talents of Her Majesty's Press have failed to identify the other people who make up the £14 million donated to the Labour Party. Perhaps they are relying on Mr Harriet Harman to their dirty work for them on Tuesday. Now, you ask, why should the Labour Party make their names public? There's no law requiring them to do so, and neither the Conservatives nor the LibDems have offered to do so. Correct. But neither of those Parties stand accused of hiding the existence of the loans from senior party officials, and neither stand accused of taking loans for honours. I don't think this issue will go away until we know who the other loanees are. The Independent reports today that Sir Gunaan Noon is another one, and his name has also been removed from the Honours List. The tragedy now is that any political donation of a loan of a substantial amount will be seen as tainted. There's absolutely nothing wrong with either donating or loaning money to a political party, but if you had the money to do it now I suspect you would run a mile. And that's why the bandwagon for state funding continues to roll. Ken Clarke and Digby Jones on Sky this morning both advocated it. In Ken Clarke's case this is particularly noteworthy as he is heading up David Cameron's Democracy Commission. Tomorrow the Conservatives will outline plans to 'clean up' the system. One proposal will be to limit donations to a figure probably under £100,000. I look forward to hearing where they think they money will come from to make up the shortfall. I certainly wouldn't want to be in Jonathan Marland's position - he's the Conservative Party treasurer. I suppose symbolically it would be quite appealing for David Cameron to stand up and say "I am announcing today that the Conservative Party will no longer accept any donation of more than £100,000." He would be cheered by the electorate and it would reinforce his 'change' agenda. The challenge would then be to Labour to do the same. They can't, of course, because of the dominance of the trade unions in their funding. But on the other hand, think of the message this sends to those donors who have kept the Party afloat in the past through their generosity. If Michael Ashcroft had not been around during the Hague years the Party would have gone under. It's as simple as that. But whatever is announced by David Cameron tomorrow, one thing is clear. Funding reform is coming and we'd all better get used to it.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Iain, if I remember rightly, Jonathan Marland has already said that he is no longer seeking donations of more than £50-100,000 to try and reduce the party's reliance on big donors.

Lib Dem Member said...

Channel 4 News, Thursday night. Party President Simon Hughes said we would happily reveal the names of people who had loaned money to the Lib Dems. He didn't have the names with him, but he would happily do do.

Anonymous said...

Norman Fowler also backs state funding.

Bob Piper said...

..."But neither of those Parties stand accused of hiding the existence of the loans from senior party officials"

Dromey isn't a 'senior party figure' he is a 'lay treasurer' who signs off the annual accounts. In any event, hiding the loans from a 'senior party figure' isn't any offence at all. Hiding loans from thev bloody electorate should be the offence, and they're all guilty of that.

'Tomorrow the Conservatives will outline plans to 'clean up' the system'. The words horse, bolted and stable spring to mind.

Rigger Mortice said...

what tees me off is that if it goes to state funding then the taxpayer will be bailing the politicians out.Why should they?The reality is that new funding scandals will come along except they'll then be part funded by Jo public.
What gets me about these loans is that TB came in on a tide of promises to be whiter than white.
It also gets me how slow we've been to get stuck into him-but with DC in the seat you wonder whether he's too clever by half.
We need more punch and judy and less consensus.

Mark P said...

The Lib Dems have published the names of the three people who gave them loans - details were on Friday's Newsnight.

As was the most exciting close up camera shot of a teabag I think I'll ever see. Very bizarre camera work to go with their report on parties and loans.

Pulsar said...

Ken Clarke & Norman Fowler are in favour-nuf said!!!

Cllr David Morton said...

I don't belive in state funding of parties per se. However I would live with allowing "gift aid" on dinations to political parties. In effect a party could reclaim 28% tax on donations as a charity could. This would retain a clear link between activism and individual support and the ammount given by the state.

In return a maximum cap on individual donations.

Howver in reality you could solve this problem by lowering the national limit on general election campaigns. So much national expenditure is "arms race" stuff. we are doing it because veryone else is. the prime example being the seriously expensive billboard advertising.

Pulsar said...

If the "flip flops" are proposing a "cut in the nunber of MP's to free up cash for greater state funding"-how long would it be before there were demands for a massive increase in Parl. allowances to cover increased costs in dealing with larger constituencies?
Nationaling politics cannot be the answer!
Surely "Flip" Osborne has something to say from a revenue point of view-or doesn't that matter anymore to the Con. leadership?