In the news in the last few months have been a number of stories regarding party funding and its relation to the democratic process. This issue is only likely to get even more exposure as the next General Election looms.
While the most recent item has involved the pulling of funds from David Cameron’s Tories by Sir William Cowie in protest to his “arrogant, Old Etonian” style of leadership, the most damaging event in recent months has undoubtedly been the cash for honours scandal, which saw the apparently coincidential awarding of peerages to every single labour donor/lender of over £1 million. While the trading of money for influence is as old as the hills, trends home an abroad seem to be suggesting that the money equals power relationship is continually being honed within the democratic process.
In the past, political parties could rely on party membership (and in the case of Labour the Trade Unions) for a sizable chunk of their kitty. However, in the face of declining party membership and voter identification (likely to be exacerbated as the major parties battle for the centre ground) party chiefs have been understandably scoping around for alternative forms of revenue. Whether this is in the form of the £4800 a-head dinner (£5000 is the declaration threshold) that caught out Tony Litt seemingly hedging his bets before the Ealing Southall by-election, or in the undignified Tory grapple for a sizable cut of millionaire eccentric Branislaw Kostic’s estate, winning and keeping power too often relies on the actions of a wealthy minority – and they’re going to want a return on their hard spent lolly at some stage.
If the experiences of our American cousins are anything to go by, the personal finances of candidates are also likely to come into play more and more in the future. Stateside, the general consensus is don’t even bother trying to make an even half-serious run at the Presidency unless you’ve got several million George Washington’s tucked away somewhere. What’s more, with the the costs of running a campaign rising steeply (the 2000 Bush campaign cost $95.5m, rising to a whopping $269.6m in 2004 – Kerry trailed at a modest $234.6m) candidate wealth is likely to become an even bigger factor. Already, Hilary Clinton’s war chest totals $177.2m, and no fewer than 10 of the 17 candidates are millionaires.
Back at home, a disproportionate number of MP’s have either hit the million mark, or have substantial assets to their name (Boris Johnson, Mohammed Sarwar and Lynne Featherstone spring to mind.) With no cap on personal expenditure in UK campaigns up until the last three weeks and the increasing cost and sophistication of election techniques, the common man might be priced out of politics sooner that we think.
Is this inevitable?
A recent inquiry into party funding and election expenditure in the UK by Sir Hayden Phillips proposed that apart from the small administration fee opposition parties currently receive, there should also be a substantial state subsidy, with parties getting 50p for every vote they received at the last election (a similar scheme already operates in Germany.) Along with spending limits and a cap on private donations, this might go some way to help sap the influence of the super rich. In reality, however, it would be hard to see the main parties pass laws that might curb their ability to raise money and extend their influence, so whether such proposals become a reality remains to be seen.
Until then it seems that the old Scar Face adage might just hold true
No comments:
Post a Comment