Party Funding Review

chikrodah · 19-10-2006, 10:56 AM

Let's send them our comments! :twisted:

Quote:

Date: October 19, 2006 Time: 11:15

Interim assessment published today

Sir Hayden Phillips today published an interim assessment of the work his Review has done so far on the funding of political parties.

The Prime Minister asked Sir Hayden in March to review the funding of political parties, to try to secure as much agreement as possible between the parties, and to report by the end of the year.

Sir Hayden said:

"I am publishing today an interim assessment of the work I have done so far on party political funding, which sets out the main issues as they appear to me; and the choices that face the public and political parties.

"I need to hear, and the parties need to hear, informed public reaction. I hope in considering the issues involved people will bear in mind four points.

"First, despite cynicism about and disenchantment with party politics political parties are of central importance to the quality of leadership, the prosperity and the reputation of our country. The point of party politics is a competition to serve the public interest.

"Second, despite recent controversies, politics in this country has historically, and in international terms, been remarkably free of corruption and abuse.

"Third, the way parties are funded, and how that funding is regulated, can help to diminish cynicism and restore confidence if it can play a part in encouraging better engagement between parties and voters over time.

"Fourth, as members of the public we cannot have it both ways. Party politics costs. While parties can reduce the amount they spend, they will still need to get some money from somewhere, whether from donations or public funds, or a mixture (as now) of both. We cannot expect to have a vibrant, healthy democracy for nothing. We must recognise this in considering any further controls on how parties can raise funds.

"Producing a sufficient measure of agreement between the political parties to provide a consensus will not be easy but it is not impossible, and we have now the best chance of securing it for many years. To achieve this will require political will. To make it of value will require public support.

"The interim assessment does not contain recommendations, and should not be taken as a statement of what I feel is the best solution. It simply seeks to explore the different possibilities."

The assessment contains four broad scenarios, which cover most of the key issues. These are not discrete options from which a choice must be made, but illustrate the nature of the choices and the arguments involved.

These are presented in terms of increasing degrees of change over the present arrangements. They are:
* Scenario 1: Minimal change: including some small changes to make the current system work more effectively;
* Scenario 2: Increased transparency and greater expenditure control: whether to provide more information about who funds parties, and reducing the amount parties can spend on campaigning at general elections or more widely;
* Scenario 3: Cap on donations: whether to set a limit on the amount people can donate to political parties; and
* Scenario 4: Greater levels of public funding: whether to provide more support for political parties through public funding, whether through a general subsidy, a targeted subsidy, or an incentive scheme such as matched funding.

For further information, visit the party funding review website - www.partyfundingreview.gov.uk.

Notes to Editors

1. Sir Hayden Phillips is Chairman of the National Theatre, Senior Partner at HansonWesthouse and Charities Consultant to TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall. He is a Director of St Just Farms Ltd, of GSL, and an adviser to Englefield Capital. He is Chairman of the Salisbury Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee, Chairman of Marlborough College Council and a Governor of the Wiltshire Historic Buildings Trust.

2. His previous career was in the Civil Service. He was Permanent Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department (now the Department for Constitutional Affairs) from 1998 to 2004, and Permanent Secretary of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport from 1992 to 1998. Before that he held senior positions in the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, the Home Office and in the European Commission. His report on The Review of the Honours System was published in July 2004.

3. Terms of Reference were announced by the Prime Minister on 20 March. They were:

To conduct a review of the funding of political parties. In particular:
* To examine the case for state funding of political parties including whether it should be enhanced in return for a cap on the size of donations;
* To consider the transparency of political parties' funding; * And; to report to the Government by the end of December 2006 with recommendations for any changes in the current arrangements.

Sir Hayden Phillips will work closely with stakeholders including, especially, the political parties and the Electoral Commission. He has been asked to aim to produce recommendations which are as much as possible agreed between the political parties with a view to legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

4. Further information is available on the Review website: www.partyfundingreview.gov.uk.

ENDS

5th Floor,
Steel House,
11 Tothill Street,
London SW1H 9LJ
www.partyfundingreview.gov.uk

mkpdavies · 19-10-2006, 11:48 AM

Reading that, it seems this is all a done deal to me.

Quote:

The point of party politics is a competition to serve the public interest

.
Give the man a goldfish.

Quote:

"Second, despite recent controversies, politics in this country has historically, and in international terms, been remarkably free of corruption and abuse.

Wait, he was serious! :shock:

Quote:

"Third, the way parties are funded, and how that funding is regulated, can help to diminish cynicism and restore confidence if it can play a part in encouraging better engagement between parties and voters over time.

Yeah, as long as you don't force people to fund it via taxation.

Quote:

While parties can reduce the amount they spend, they will still need to get some money from somewhere, whether from donations or public funds, or a mixture (as now) of both. We cannot expect to have a vibrant, healthy democracy for nothing. We must recognise this in considering any further controls on how parties can raise funds.

What a load of ****. If democracy can't attract support, then you shouldn't force it. The reason it isn't attracting support is it's a sham. It's like buying a Rollex, only to find it's a cheap copy. Yet they want us to not only buy from the same shop that sold it to us, but join their regular monthly payment plan.

Quote:

These are presented in terms of increasing degrees of change over the present arrangements. They are:
* Scenario 1: Minimal change: including some small changes to make the current system work more effectively;
* Scenario 2: Increased transparency and greater expenditure control: whether to provide more information about who funds parties, and reducing the amount parties can spend on campaigning at general elections or more widely;
* Scenario 3: Cap on donations: whether to set a limit on the amount people can donate to political parties; and
* Scenario 4: Greater levels of public funding: whether to provide more support for political parties through public funding, whether through a general subsidy, a targeted subsidy, or an incentive scheme such as matched funding.

How about scenrario 5. No change. Though I think Scenario 2 sounds the fairest.

Aardvark · 19-10-2006, 12:52 PM

Equality before the electorate should be the principle. All candidates in a constituency should have access to equal public resources - one mail drop at public expense seems fair. One leaflet at public expense is arguably fair, but costly.

What we need to avoid, and to strongly object to, is the wholesale funding of larger parties based on electoral share. That's what will be recommended - £1-2 per vote cast will give the big parties the millions they need to continue with the present exercise whilst ensuiring that new parties with radical ideas will be totally excluded. The rich will get richer and the poor poorer as a cap will be place on individual donations.
UKIP, with its one millionaire will be effected if the cap is placed at £50k, whereas the Tories and Labour will have a hundred such donors.

I'm very cynical about this whole exercise. I think the big parties can't live without their helicopters and battle buses and the glamorous campaigns devoid of policies. It made me want to puke to think that Cherie Blair spent 7k of members donations on her hairdresser (how many miners had to join the Labour Party for that to happen?).

The real cap should go back on expenditure. If we believe in a FPTP constituency based democracy then all expenditure should be at constituency level. If you hire a hall for a press conference then it should go on the local tab. If you fill up your battle bus with petrol in Grimsby then it comes from the limit of expenditure in the Grimsby constituency. There should be no national campaigns and no funds allowable for them. TV time should be limited to policy debate and not as happened on the day of our manifesto launch, Labour announced a new slogan! This 'slogan' dominated the day's news.

If debates are held in constituencies then all parties should be invited. If a party is excluded from the hustings then the cost of the hall must be borne by all those parties who are invited. If a party refuses to attend because they object to the opponent's views then it is tough titty! Democracy means debating with the extremists as well as the centre parties.

If a candidate attends from another constituency then he either pays himself or his costs are borne by the host constituency. How many peoplewould have bothered with Blair's battle bus if they thought it would be they who had to pay for it? Would anybody have invited Cherie if they thought they'd get a hundred quid bill for hairdo taken out of branch funds?

If there was a strictly applied cap on constiteuncy expenditure we might see more activists on the streets and more people debating issues. The big parties would have to recruit ordinary members again rather than relying on millionaires.

Sadly it's a done deal.

harryaldridge · 19-10-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Equality before the electorate should be the principle.

Too right!

Quote:

What we need to avoid, and to strongly object to, is the wholesale funding of larger parties based on electoral share. That's what will be recommended - £1-2 per vote cast will give the big parties the millions they need to continue with the present exercise whilst ensuiring that new parties with radical ideas will be totally excluded.

Hang on a minute...Ideally there would be no state funding. But as we know this is a big stitch up. Paying per vote is a whole lot fairer than restricting funding to parties with 2 MPs! Out of all the options, £/vote is about the fairest.

Quote:

The rich will get richer and the poor poorer as a cap will be place on individual donations. UKIP, with its one millionaire will be effected if the cap is placed at £50k, whereas the Tories and Labour will have a hundred such donors.

Yep. Exactly right. This is purposely designed to discriminate against smaller parties, while protecting the big boys in the playground. I am not sure whether the cap is intended to apply to donations-in-kind such as leaflet printing, or just cash given to the party.

Quote:

The real cap should go back on expenditure. If we believe in a FPTP constituency based democracy then all expenditure should be at constituency level. If you hire a hall for a press conference then it should go on the local tab. If you fill up your battle bus with petrol in Grimsby then it comes from the limit of expenditure in the Grimsby constituency.

I agree. The tories spent £4.5m tareggting 800,000 voters in marginal seats. The spending cap should be per set contested, with a certain proportion of that having to be spent in the constituency.

Quote:

If debates are held in constituencies then all parties should be invited. If a party is excluded from the hustings then the cost of the hall must be borne by all those parties who are invited. If a party refuses to attend because they object to the opponent's views then it is tough titty! Democracy means debating with the extremists as well as the centre parties.

I think this is already the case. If one of the candidates is excluded or not invited, the other parties EACH have to pay the FULL cost of the venue etc.

Quote:

Sadly it's a done deal.

It sure is! One of the gratest democratic nations in the world reduced to stealing from citizens to fund parties.

Hartlepool · 19-10-2006, 01:18 PM

Our Leadership need to make big noises about this,constantly,they must not be allowed to test the water,drop it out of sight and then say,it's all agreed,us big three are ok,the rest of can............

To remain silent,waiting in line for a fair deal on this will just kill us all off.

chikrodah · 19-10-2006, 01:54 PM

They say they want our comments; let's send them. If we can get enough people to send in points of view, we can flood the system. The consultation period finishes on 20 November 2006. Send your comments to review@partyfundingreview.gsi.gov.uk.

chikrodah · 19-10-2006, 02:08 PM

Geoffrey Kingscott responded to the initial review:

Quote:

I contest the basic assumption that modern democracies must operate through political parties. This has been true, but this mould is beginning to break. Parties represented broad coalitions representing general patterns, but now that society is becoming more atomised, this may no longer be true. State funding may therefore entrench a dying system and stand in the way of natural evolution. There is waning enthusiasm for political parties, but growing involvement in single issue campaigns. Funding for political debate (both for and against) on issues may just be acceptable, but there must be no funding for those dinosaurs, the three major political parties.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

19-10-2006, 12:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,692	Equality before the electorate should be the principle. All candidates in a constituency should have access to equal public resources - one mail drop at public expense seems fair. One leaflet at public expense is arguably fair, but costly. What we need to avoid, and to strongly object to, is the wholesale funding of larger parties based on electoral share. That's what will be recommended - £1-2 per vote cast will give the big parties the millions they need to continue with the present exercise whilst ensuiring that new parties with radical ideas will be totally excluded. The rich will get richer and the poor poorer as a cap will be place on individual donations. UKIP, with its one millionaire will be effected if the cap is placed at £50k, whereas the Tories and Labour will have a hundred such donors. I'm very cynical about this whole exercise. I think the big parties can't live without their helicopters and battle buses and the glamorous campaigns devoid of policies. It made me want to puke to think that Cherie Blair spent 7k of members donations on her hairdresser (how many miners had to join the Labour Party for that to happen?). The real cap should go back on expenditure. If we believe in a FPTP constituency based democracy then all expenditure should be at constituency level. If you hire a hall for a press conference then it should go on the local tab. If you fill up your battle bus with petrol in Grimsby then it comes from the limit of expenditure in the Grimsby constituency. There should be no national campaigns and no funds allowable for them. TV time should be limited to policy debate and not as happened on the day of our manifesto launch, Labour announced a new slogan! This 'slogan' dominated the day's news. If debates are held in constituencies then all parties should be invited. If a party is excluded from the hustings then the cost of the hall must be borne by all those parties who are invited. If a party refuses to attend because they object to the opponent's views then it is tough titty! Democracy means debating with the extremists as well as the centre parties. If a candidate attends from another constituency then he either pays himself or his costs are borne by the host constituency. How many peoplewould have bothered with Blair's battle bus if they thought it would be they who had to pay for it? Would anybody have invited Cherie if they thought they'd get a hundred quid bill for hairdo taken out of branch funds? If there was a strictly applied cap on constiteuncy expenditure we might see more activists on the streets and more people debating issues. The big parties would have to recruit ordinary members again rather than relying on millionaires. Sadly it's a done deal.

19-10-2006, 01:18 PM	#5 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,642 Party: Other	Our Leadership need to make big noises about this,constantly,they must not be allowed to test the water,drop it out of sight and then say,it's all agreed,us big three are ok,the rest of can............ To remain silent,waiting in line for a fair deal on this will just kill us all off.

19-10-2006, 01:54 PM	#6 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,525	They say they want our comments; let's send them. If we can get enough people to send in points of view, we can flood the system. The consultation period finishes on 20 November 2006. Send your comments to review@partyfundingreview.gsi.gov.uk.