This online forum is for people to participate in a dialogue on party funding.

State Funding (Mon 28 Aug – Fri 8 Sep 2006)

This discussion topic is now closed.

Following on from the discussion on a cap on donations, limits on expenditure and increasing involvement in democracy, this discussion is about how state funding should fit in to the package of measures, if at all.

Increased state funding has not been ruled in or out at this stage, so this is your opportunity to influence the Review.

Information on the existing support political parties receive from public funds is available from this factsheet

To help us in carrying out the Review, we would encourage you to give reasons for your view. We don’t think comments that just say yes or no to state funding without explaining further why will help the discussion. If you simply want to register a view without entering the discussion, please email us.

Do you think state funding should be considered? Why?
Do you think the existing arrangements for state funding should be kept or changed? Why?
Do you think there is a different principle involved for in kind benefits provided from public funds as opposed to cash benefits from public funds? Why?

XML feed

previous discussion | next discussion

Next steps...

Posted by Sir Hayden Phillips on 17/10/2006 - 10:40

I am delighted that you have visited this forum and posted your comments, so thank you for all your input and excellent comments over the course of this important forum.

During the course of this forum, my team and I have tried to bring out the central issues, although beneath them lies much technical complexity. Finding a consensus on a new way forward for party funding will not be easy.

By entering a dialogue with you through this forum, asking you further questions and listening to what you have to say, we have fed your views into our analytical work and my discussions with the political parties.

Discussion on State Funding

Posted by Peter Carl on 08/09/2006 - 16:04

Thank you your contributions to this discussion on state funding.

We have now closed this discussion.

If you want to contribute to the Review on this theme you can still send us your views via email.

The penultimate topic on accountability is still open for your contributions. This forum provides an opportunity for you to have your views heard, so please continue to share your views.

Peter Carl

My thoughts

Posted by Ant on 07/09/2006 - 08:14

Hello all,

The distinction between whether we vote for the person or the party has become very indistinct with the arrival of Proportional Representation in its various forms. To that point I would abolish party activity completely if I could, the time for the politicians to band together is in parliament, regional assembly or council, not before.

As to funding, it has to be that politicians must persuade their supporters to support them financially. For the state to pay for it all, or part thereof, takes away their most basic requirement, appeal to their voters, and then it becomes just a job.

State Funding

Posted by katherinewright on 06/09/2006 - 14:56

I agree with Peterbeukers comment about the way smaller parties are funded, fresh ideas and better actions towards the people are not realy if at all seen or heard.

At the end of the day I feel that the government already drains the tax payers pockets on many different levels, for the tax payers to be expected to dive into their wallets once more is outrageous.
Personaly I feel that the parties waste too much of their attention,time and money on advertising and not enough of any on the people.

If anything I feel parties should have a cap on their expenditures, 1. It mite encourage them to think more wisely about how to spend their money (to reiterate, not to get into debt) and 2. It may encourage them to concentrate more on how to gain peoples votes(the purpose the money is there for) not just making themselves look better than other parties.

State Funding would entrench politicians' Self Importance

Posted by owain on 06/09/2006 - 14:24

I strongly feel that state funding is wrong. As politicians have to earn our votes, their parties should earn their money. The best solution is tough caps on the amount parties can spend. Then they will have to stop poster campaigns and the like, and instead will have to talk to people about what they will do / are doing.

No To Direct State Funding

Posted by Will Hay on 05/09/2006 - 22:41

The idea that state funding would encourage efficiency seems illogical. If the main parties cannot manage the millions that pass through their hands efficiently now, to the point that they are in massive debt, how would they manage less any better?
All parties need to engage with the electorate. The only way they will do that is back on the streets listening to people.
State funding will not achieve that.
Enthuse people and money will start to come in. If the parties are so out of touch with the public mood then they have no right to survive on a state funded benefit.
To allow direct state funding of political parties will merely encourage the failures of today to keep on failing.
I would, however, be prepared to see longer election broadcasts with each party able to field 50 candidates being obliged to properly detail their platform, not just soundbites and insults. The broadcasters could be obliged to air these longer election broadcasts under their licence with no fee paid.

transparency is no weapon against corruption

Posted by Daniel Carins on 04/09/2006 - 15:11

Resignation against the ills of capitalism is not something I think the state should condone. Simply asking parties to be transparent so we can marvel at how rich donors changed policy in their interest strikes me as entirely ludicrous. Having some sort of minimum threshold (5% of the vote?) before state funding kicks in would ensure more effective targeting. State funding would also encourage efficiency - rather than a cash-rich party simply donating it all to marketing consultants, they'd be forced to spend it for the biggest impact.

We all benefit from democracy, so the point that state funding of political parties is a waste of tax-payers' money is entirely specious. It would probably even go further in forcing the point home that "we all do politics" than the current system.

No.

Posted by Geoffers on 04/09/2006 - 13:24

If political parties want my money they need to convince me to donate. They have not managed to do so. Now, instead of addressing that failure, they propose taking my donation through the tax system instead. This is simple theft, nothing more.

Any political party that cannot raise sufficient funds through donations should be allowed to die.

Closing stable doors

Posted by Don Jameson on 02/09/2006 - 08:26

Peter Carl: re your comment on 01 September 2006.

I accept that we are stuck with Short/Cranborne money and free PPBs and free election mailings.

I would happily ditch PPBs entirely, as a waste of voters' time, and I for one would be content to reduce the junk mail that accompanies any election.

I believe that Cranborne money must be reviewed in the light of further reform to the Upper House, should that ever actually happen.

I suspect that Short money is not always used for the purposes for which it was intended, and that the policy development funds are almost certainly generating anything BUT policies. However I see no prospect of parliamentarians halting that particular fleet of gravy trains.

Issues around state funding

Posted by Peter Carl on 01/09/2006 - 11:47

peterbeukers: You have put forward an interesting proposal. Under your proposal a small party needs to get 40,000 – 80,000 votes in a General Election to receive £4 million, which is the same as what the Conservative Party received in Short money in the financial year 2005-2006 (8,784,915 votes in the 2005 General Election) and 15,000 – 30,000 votes to receive £1.5 million, which is the same as what the Liberal Democrats received in Short money in the same financial year (5,985,454 votes, 2005).

Do you think this amount of support from public funds would be acceptable to the majority of the public?