Whatsthatsmell?

Public Funding of Political Parties, Part 4

As the MP has still not responded to my previous e-mail, and as I've had more time to think about it, and get riled up, I decided to write another one to him.  Just sent the following to him:

Dear Mr. Loughton,
I am disappointed to see you have not yet acknowledged any of the points I brought up in my last e-mail.  I hope it is due to being too busy, and not because you dismiss them outright.

I've also been thinking more about your initial response to me and I have a few questions myself, particularly as the Fleet Street/BBC/Westminster consensus won't ask them...

What "problem" are the parties seeking to address in seeking taxpayer funding for their operations?

What is to stop corruption and influence from other sources? 

What benefit does taxpayer funding of political parties bring to the taxpayer?

What benefits do the main political parties' continued existence bring to the taxpayer that there is sufficient justification to take money from us to maintain?  If it is self-evident, as your initial response to me seems to imply, I am missing the point altogether.  Perhaps I am a bit slow. 

I seem to recall hearing prior to the leadership election that Cameron's lot were willing to lose 25% of the Conservative grassroots in order to re-brand the Conservatives (they certainly lost me).  Why should the Conservative Party not live with the membership implications of the decision to publicly abandon core conservative principles in the same way that Labour should learn to live with the decision to abandon Clause IV?

Why wouldn't a parliamentary act supporting taxpayer funding of political parties look like collusion between the three "mainstream" parties?

Is Britain a better place for the quality of its political class over the past two decades?

In what ways, outside of the key marginals, are any MPs democratically accountable?  For instance, if you - or your party - were to vote on key issues against the wishes of a majority of your constituency, what is the chance of you or a member of your party (and hundreds of your parliamentary colleagues in similar relatively safe seats) not re-taking your seat in the next general election?  Would taxpayer-funding make parties more democratically accountable? 

Why shouldn't the parties choose to live within their current means?

If there is taxpayer funding of political parties based upon the Philips formula, what's the next step?  It strikes me that this will succeed in alienating even more people from the voting booth, making the potential pool of voters shrink.  Will Parliament just vote to increase the per-voter payment available under the Philips formula?

Is the current lead in opinion polls that the Conservatives enjoy due to the intrinsic qualities of the Conservative Party and Conservative Party policy? Or is it more due to the same type of factors that brought about the 1997 Labour landslide?

I know many of the points I put in my previous missive are the equivalent of asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, but I put it to you that the gutsy leadership it takes to vote for Christmas is the sort of thing that would energise a detached electorate.  It is exactly what made the Congressional Republicans in the US a majority throughout the 90s and up until recently; with the Contract for America they stated that they would, in fact, vote for Christmas, and if they ceased doing so, the electorate had every right to vote them out.  And it is this principle that has energised the conservative grassroots enough in the US to not only stump up the money to fund the Republican Party, but also to finance literally thousands of local, state, and federal political campaigns and movements.

And if the Conservative Party adopts the concept of taxpayer funding as one of its own policies, it will only go to confirm my growing suspicion that parliamentary democracy, at least here in the UK, is more akin to having the right to vote for the organised crime family that gets control of the protection rackets, rather than about bringing change and improvement to people's lives. 

As a reasonable person, I am, of course, open to persuasion otherwise (and have been known to make 180 degree changes in fundamental positions with enough evidence, and have contributed financially to my new positions).  However, if someone wants my money, they should sell me their product, not arrange a vote to force me to buy it.

I await your response, as I raise some valid and reasonable questions.

Regards,
James G

Public Funding of Political Parties, Part 2

So the MP wrote back and asked how I suggest political parties fund themselves and just what would interest the electorate.  I answered with the following:

Hi Mr Loughton,
Might I suggest that perhaps the mainstream political parties could elect to live within their means, then, if they can no longer sustain current levels of spending?  Much like individuals should choose to live within their means without recourse to taxpayer largesse.  A pretty conservative idea, I might add.

The USA puts a £2300 cap on political donations and the Democrats and Republicans seem to be doing all right. 

As for issues that matter to the voting public, I suspect that if the Conservatives adopted some of the following policies as planks in their platform they might actually find themselves endeared to people who feel disenfranchised from the current political system (rather than having to fight for and spend so much money on the 100 or so key marginals):

1.  Europe - re-establish British sovereignty by pulling out of further political union, and reversing past moves toward political union.  I think you could probably bring at least 60% of the potential electorate with you on that alone.

2.  Home Office & legal system - root and branch reform of the Criminal Justice system along with CLEARLY re-establishing the private citizen's right to self-defence.  Reform of the Police.  Elected Police Commissioners would be a good start.  How about elected judges?

3.  Military - I will give credit to Dr. Fox, here; he has been a respectable Opposition when it comes to the Defence Ministry; however, re-establishing a proper Navy and building the rest of the forces back up should be a main priority of any party pretending to the throne.  The way the amputees were treated in the Leatherhead Leisure Centre would not have happened in a country that truly valued its forces (of course, a country that truly valued its forces would never send its wounded to a public leisure centre for therapy, either).  And the unprecedented success of the Help for Heroes charity should give an indication of how much people really do support our troops. A strengthened military capacity would bring back a sense of national pride in general.  It is not fascistic to be patriotic, and people are dying for an excuse to be proud of their country again.  [James's Note: Although I abhor most forms of Keynesianism, I see the political utility of Military Keynesianism.]

4.  Welfare Reform - why is it that the only place I hear about Cameron's Wisconsin-based plan is in the Spectator?

5.  Localism - Reintroduce true democratic accountability and responsibility as far down as you can.  Decentralise as much of Whitehall as is possible.  The current hospitals crisis and the state of the A27 here in Worthing are perfect examples of the centralising tendency being a spoils system for the political party that is in control.  But one point to ponder: how can any party be for localism and still be for greater political unity with Europe?  It is impossible to be in Europe the political entity and not of Europe.

6.  Green stuff - abandon this.  Almost everyone who is not part of the Chattering Classes gets the feeling that this is just another excuse to shake us down for more money.  And if the BBC has to remind us of global warming in every story it does, chances are there probably isn't much to the story.  Consider the source.

7.  Education reform - As much as I like my daughter's local school, we've been primarily responsible for teaching her how to read and how to do her sums.  We will probably be opting out of the state system by the time she is ready for high school because we just can't leave her education to chance, particularly as the education system is now being used as a substitute for the dole (how meaningful is a British university degree when 50% of people get to go?)  In my professional life, I've certainly encountered graduates who couldn't write a coherent paragraph using Microsoft Word.

And when Jeremy Paxman or John Humphreys sneers something like "You can't seriously be suggesting that we [fill in the blank]," the leader unapologetically will say "Yes, I seriously mean it, and we've had enough of you socialist morons telling us what to think..." (Using more diplomatic words, of course... :-)  )

Just about everywhere I go, if the conversation turns to politics, and unless the person I speak to is a Labourite/Socialist, there is a lot of anger or cynicism at how it appears that the political classes are lining their own pockets (and selling themselves pretty cheaply, at that) at our expense.  Many people get the feeling this isn't the same country it was 10 years ago; that it has gotten worse.

Might I add, as well, that I think both yourself and Mr. Bottomley have been outstanding constituency MPs to our area, possessing an excellent sense of customer service.  Compare and contrast with Labour and Liberal MPs that represent the London constituencies in which I lived before, and on that alone, the Conservatives would pretty much get my support.  However, I have real problems with the national party, and the prospect of a Conservative government does not strike me as being anything significantly different from what we have endured over the past 10 years. 

As a private citizen, I would have no problem donating money to a mainstream party that would take on even half of my shopping cart above.  I suspect a few others who currently do not donate to parties would do the same.  For the record, I kick a significant bit of money to both charities in the UK (Church and the British Legion) and political groups and campaigns in the US...I'm a dual citizen and take my role as an informed citizen of both countries seriously.  I do not currently contribute to any British political parties because the fight over the middle ground is meaningless...The "middle ground" should be redefined based upon the way the electorate really thinks, which is farther right than either Labour or the current Conservatives, not what the BBC tells us we should be thinking.

Regards,
James G.

Public Funding of Political Parties

Just sent this to my MP:

Dear Mr. Loughton,
I am extremely disheartened at David Cameron's failure to rule out Conservative rejection of further state funding for political parties.

If a mainstream political party spent more time trying to woo grassroots citizens with regard to the issues that really matter to the grassroots, rather than trying to convince Fleet Street and the BBC that they are green and fluffy and huggable, perhaps more individuals would be inclined to join the mainstream political parties.

I'm afraid, if the Conservatives support public funding of political parties, I shall no longer be inclined to lend my vote  to any of the major parties, particularly if Sir Hayden Philips' formula is adopted.

One almost gets the feeling that the political class is deliberately trying to keep "normal" people away from the political process by supporting state funding for themselves.  It doesn't matter how ridiculous or irrelevant a political party may become, more state funding for the mainstream political parties will make them even less accountable to the public than they are already.

Regards,
James G.