Party Funding

Reluctant Hero · Party Funding

There needs to be a serious look into funding as we are seeing new stories every week in the paper about different c**k-ups.

These people either have total disregard for the rules governing funding or they just don't have a clue about their obligations.

Peter Hain and George Osburne are the latest to be caught up.

We should either do away with all rules and people can raise money from whoever they want and don't have to disclose it. Or people should be given a set amount they can spend, whether it is for an election campaign or running an office etc and they cannot spend over that amount.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7185622.stm

Cymro

Labour and the Tories are desperate for state funding of parties to come into being in the UK. Personally I'd be dead agaist this. How would they descide on how much each party gets? Would say Plaid Cymru and the SNP get the same amount of money to spend in Wales and Scotland and Labout and the Tories would? What about parties without any MPs, MSPs or AMs?

Every party should raise their own money. I'd go as far as stopping Union funding of parties. The rules aren't difficult in terms of who can give money. It's only people who try and hide where their money has come from that get into strife.

As you can imagine given it's a Welsh MP and the Secretary of State for Wales that's involved in this it's pretty big news. Labour have tried to defend themselves by saying that Plaid Cymru MPs have got into trouble for spending public money on the Assembly Election campaign recently. This is ofcourse true but it was made clear that this happened AFTER Plaid Cymru sought advice from the relevent people in Westminster who informed them it would be fine. It was the rules that where unclear then, however with Hain it's at best huge lapses in how he works his office, or at worst an attempt to hide something. Two hugely different issues.

Rinty

It is a problem stopping unon funding of labour. The labour party came about as a party to represent the unions in parliament. Stopping union members deciding to fund the labour party, other parties, or campaigns would be wrong in my opinion.

In the Scottish elections this year my party, Solidarity received official donations from the FBU. Money put aside from members contributions to support parties who support their cause.

There is already a massive state funding of political parties through research money etc at parliament.

I would look at how we campaign. I cant believe that Jack Straw needs £100,000 to stsnd a campaign for an internal election. I recently took part in an internal election for a national post and I had a 500 word statement and my reputation as my campaign. The statements of candidates were circulated to all members who then voted. Why isnt this Ok in the Labour Party?

Also, when there is a general election we are flooded with stuff no-one reads and I feel that this sort of thing needs stopped. Every party gets at least national free delivery of a leaflet, some parties get free space on TV.

I would strip it down, ban lampost posters and billboards, allow leafleting organised by party members with a set limit as to what can be spent. Limit the spending rather than the donations.

If there is less to spend it on there is less ,money needed in donations. If parties have less donations from businesses and interest groups they are under less pressure to deliver that groups needs, making it more democratic.

In Scotland we saw the SNP refuse to back a bill on parliament on railways, even thought the bill was their party policy. Months later it emerges that their main funder was Brian Soutar of Stagecoach group! It is easy to see that the donation of a large stakeholder in privatised and dergulated public transport would like to see his money used to oppose publicly owned railways.

I am more interested in what these donors want and what they expect for their money, than whether it was declared on time or not.

In Glasgow we had Labour receive a donation from Willie Haughey who then had his land purchased to make way for a new motorway, at hugely over the price of the land. Even if this is not linked, it looks like it could be and undermines peoples belif in parties.

Cymro

I see what you're saying with regards to the obvious risks of essentially allowing business people to 'buy' opinions from a party, but that will happen anyway. In the same way Solidarity got money from the FBU in Scotland. Now I don't see FBU members being happy to see their union donate money to your party if your party turned round and said "we support the closure of Fire Stations, and merging Fire Officers with other emergency service officers". In essense they 'invest' in Solidarity on the understanding you'll stand up for their rights.

I'm all for Unions but I don't believe they should favour 1 party over another, though clearly they could oppose 1 party over others dependeing on the position of the party in relation to the Unions position on issues. Labour are historicaly the party of the Unions I accept that, but for me I'd argue an Union is better working with a whole range of parties and politicians regardless of political persuasion.

Clearly though Labour or other parties such as Solidarity aren't going to support the stopping of funding by Unions given their reliance on said money.

I agree with you though in terms of why does so much money need to be spent on internal elections. It's American style Politics at it's worse.

Problem is I'd imagine if you put restricions on how much you could spend is that parties will find a way around it. For example, a Pressure Group comes into existence funded by ex Labour Party funders campaigning for what Labour stand for.

I just think that breaking of rules on purpose should be punished a lot harder, then and only then will the likes of Hain stop taking the piss.

Oh and ban political parties from going into debt (excpet mortages for HQs if they require) to people or banks. The fact Labour are in so much debt has a lot to do with the way they behave in my opinion.

agentmancuso

RadgeJougal

Well, there are unfair rules - undemocratic? - regarding party political broadcasts. You have to stand a lot of candidates to get one. I understand the time problem, but the likes of Mebyon Kernow (yes, I know, haha - have a laugh), cannot get one, even if they stood in all the constituencies in Cornwall.

agentmancuso

RadgeJougal

"By any intelligible criterion it is none of the kind; it's a slightly different part of England."

Highly arguable from legal, historical, linguistic, social etc positions. But that's another thread.

The point is that if they stood in every seat they couldn't get one. Which is unfair. I think they should be entitled to one on regional TV (as opposed to UK of course).

By the way, Belgium does this already, as I expect you know.

agentmancuso

RadgeJougal

And I would exclude people that stood in only one constituency...

Rinty

"In the same way Solidarity got money from the FBU in Scotland. Now I don't see FBU members being happy to see their union donate money to your party if your party turned round and said "we support the closure of Fire Stations, and merging Fire Officers with other emergency service officers". In essense they 'invest' in Solidarity on the understanding you'll stand up for their rights."

There is a difference in organisations offering financial help to parties who share policies with them and using money to bribe a party to change policies, especially a party in goverment or running a council.

Lots of lobby groups like help the aged will circulate a manifesto ahead of an election to see what parties agree with what points on it. This informs their members. That is different from property developers funding elected officials while planning apllications are pending.

I'm not so bothered about people giving money to parties, its what its for that is the problem.

BTW, The FBU also funded some SNP candidates.