• Party funding should be reformed with reduced limits on general election spending, caps on donations, the winding down of corporate, institutional and trade union donations and some increase in state support
• The link between honours and party funding must be broken by taking awards completely out of the hands of ministers, including the Prime Minister
• Investigation of breaches of the Ministerial Code should be made more transparent and placed in the hands of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. However, the final decision as to whether or not a minister should resign must rest with the Prime Minister
• The work of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments should be put on a statutory basis and its recommendations should be binding on ministers, senior civil servants and
special advisers
• MPs should no longer vote on their own pay and allowances. The implementation of review body recommendations should only be overturned by primary legislation. To avoid the need for major one-off adjustments, changes in MPs’ pay should be based on a representative benchmark
such as the change in average earnings or in public sector pay
• The current MPs’ pension scheme should be closed to new entrants, with a new system based on defined contributions
• There should be greater clarity in separating out those elements of allowances which do not go directly to MPs (such as staff salaries and stationery) and those that do. The direct payments should be subject to greater clarity and more rigorous audit.
• The Communications Allowance should be abolished
I think all of these have merit, apart from one caveat on the party funding proposal. The Commission says there should be "consideration of a scheme to link taxpayer financed support to votes won at the previous General Election." There is quite enough taxpaper "support" in party politics as it is. I know I sound like a broken record on this, but how can anyone who calls themselves a Conservative advocate an increasing involvement by the State in party politics? Just at the moment that politicians are held in most contempt by the public, the Conservative Party comes up with a proposal which means the State dipping its dirty little mitts further into the pocket of the already hard done by taxpayer. Purely because it can. Disgraceful.
It's a shame that this proposal deflects attention from an otherwise good and robust report.
22 comments:
Certainly some interesting points in the proposals. I think that the cap on spending for General Elections is a must - as a Labour member I also think that the Labour Party should have a very strict limit on how much can be spent on internal elections. Am I right in thinking the Conservatives already have a limit?
The funding of political parties is an interesting and challenging topic - we can resist state funding of them, but we shouldn't be shocked that the parties then spend a lot of time rooting around for money from a variety of sources. The big change has been that rather than business solely funding the Tories, New Labour has made some inroads into that area.
But changes have to be made if we are going to have any chance of restoring public faith and confidence in the political system. I get the feeling this will be a long term pursuit.
They just cannot keep their snouts out of my trough.
mercutio may have the floor for me.
The system doesn't need reform, it just needs politicians to follow the rules and act with a bit of honesty and integrity.
I know it's a big ask...
I can see it now- disgraced political parties wishing to shore up their own dwindling power-bases by pilfering (lawfully, of course...) money from the tax-payer! Priceless! If state-funding DOES go ahead, i can't see any option but to introduce PR for elections and base money from the tax-payer going to ANY political party with over 5% of the 'national' vote ( be that BNP, or the 'Radical Muslim Mujahadeen of London'). State-funding is the last straw for 'democracy' in this country. If parties cannot inspire the populace to join them- hence give money to them- that is thrir problem- not ours. Btw: as a 'conservative' voter, i won't renew membership of the Party. I don't want my money going toward a party where i agree with 20% of the actual things they are waffling about at the moment!
"consideration of a scheme to link taxpayer financed support to votes won at the previous General Election"
Leaving aside your ideological reluctance to take more tax, if this were a tax-neutral proposal (ie the cost comes from savings in MP allowances) it is actually an encouraging idea. Your vote would count more than to-day, because it would add something to the ability of your favoured party to fund campaigns. That should encourage a higher turn-out. As long as it's cheap (or cost-neutral) I don't see the problem.
Any volunteers to stand for the "Vote for us and if we get more than 5% of the vote we will pay back to ourmembers all the money we get from the goverment" party.
Assuming state funding is based on votes won at the previous election, it is biased against small parties, and that is another reason to oppose it. Our electoral system already gives a huge advantage to the two main parties, we don't want to make it even bigger. It also seems a bit sleazy for the one of the two main parties to propose a scheme that gives them an advantage over the smaller ones.
I was just thinking about the Prime Minister deciding who can remain a minister. It's a bit of a technicality, but presumably for ministers who are in the Commons rather than the Lords, Parliament could force the issue. If the Commons voted to expel a minister then obviously they would have to step down.
I am viscerally opposed to state funding of political parties and would not be able to vote for any parliamentary candidate who supported it. Political parties should be funded by - and only by -their members, who should understand that their membership implies willingness to provide financial support. The ideas of venal politicians spending taxes ground from the faces of the poor benighted taxpayer on getting themselves and their party elected is, frankly, quite sickening.
Further, as I have said before, MPs' remuneration should be throughly reformed so that all 'allowances' and similar scams are abolished. They should be paid a good salary, determnined independently, and their offices, staff, resources etc should be provided centrally by the House of Commons based on seniority and need - front-bench spokesmen, chairmen of Select Committees and others getting more support than a wet behind the ears backbencher. But all MPs should have access to adequate office facilities, including research support. Expenses should be paid only on the basis of costs necessarily incurred and for which proff of the expenditure can be supplied. That's how every other em,ployee, public or private, has to operate so it is not exactly news.
Additionally, no MP or other politician should be eligible for any kind of honour for five years after they retire from public life. No politician should havve any part in recommending, or scrutinising the appointment of, any other politician to an honour. That would remove the 'Buggins' turn' gongs that clog up the bi-annual lists.
Politicians need to realise that they have a hill to climb in terms of regaining any kind of public respect, and that they are often their own worst enemies in this regard.
Does anybody in the country change their vote because the red battlebus and entourage is better than the blue one or vice versa?
The real question to ask is why do they need large sums in any case? The notion that more of our hard earned cash be stolen to fund this 4 week orgy of lies and insincerity is just too depressing for words.
I agree with La Breeze. the system needs no reform. Parties should raise funds from supporters, if they can't then that indicates that they have no support and therefore deserve to either go bust or to scale back their ambitions. There need be no limits on individual donations, though those donations should be a matter of public record.
Taxpayer funding must not happen as 1) it breaks the link between a party and its supporters and 2) it acts as a bar to new parties entering politics and 3) there is a danger that extremist parties would be paid for by thetaxpayer.
anonymous- I am completely with Iain here, and i suspect for the same reason: it is not a question cash, it is a question of principle. I just do not beleive that any political parties should be supported by the state.
I agree that state support is not the way forward, but tax relief on political donations (as happens with donations to charities) could be one way of boosting the amounts received by political parties from individual donors. I realise it amounts to the same thing as state support but maybe less objectionable given that the money all originates from the private donor.
Good point from simon - if a tax is levied, then it can only be justified by Proportional Representation. Otherwise it is taxation without representation.
In Local Council elections I have never voted for a party, always the 'best candidate'. (Read, loser.) In this way, I have been disproportionately misrepresented for years.
Equally, in National Elections, the taxpayer would have no say who is 'put in' his local safe seat. Or if another party is going to bother to contest it. Even paid-up members have little say.
Then you get something like the Labour Deputy leadership contest, which cost £2m. Was it even necessary, given that Gordon had abolished the job of Deputy PM.
I can't see how public funding would make the system any more democratic or accountable, unless you consider the spectre of Watchdogs and Complaints Commissions, for which even more taxes would be required.
If all political donations were to be paid into a central clearing house where the details were transparently logged and the money then sent to the intended recipient, all these problems would just go away. I suspect that some of the dodgy donations would go away too...
Colin at 2:13 pm has it dead right...
There you have it. A list of all the corrupt, destructive things New Labour has done to our political democracy in the last decade. Wouldn't it be simpler to outlaw New Labour?
I agree Iain
Taxpayers funding the hiring of "The Scream" masks and grim reaper outfits to follow their opponents around the country to get "spoiler" TV shots would be a disgrace.
A cap is the only way forward.
Politicians get huge "free" exposure on the media via news and current affairs programs. Spending more money on an argument does not improve the argument.
Forcing parties to raise small sums from the 'unwashed' (!) is the surest way to keep them honest. Ian is 100% correct. The Conservative Party should embrace this if for no other reason that by keeping in touch with a wide base of supporters will maximise support.
I do not support state funding of MP's but I would support local funding for political parties. The Whip system would have to be abolished also. MP'S should represent the people who voted for them at Westminster, they should not be representing Westminster to
the electorate.
Quite right, Iain. There should be no taxpayer support for machines whosxe only purpose is to gain and retain power. It is party politics that has done so much to taint the public's view of politics as a public service. We must not encourage it by forcing taxpayers to fund self-interested organisations that they they may not even support.
nothing on English votes English laws Ian, has Cameron bottled it?
JamieC said...
"changes have to be made if we are going to have any chance of restoring public faith and confidence in the political system."
There is no chance of any restoration and nor should there be. The three main parties have hijacked the political system for their own benefit. They are all enemies of England and beyond salvage.
Post a Comment