Dec 20 2006
Parties would profit from a little less money
Crisis, what crisis?
-
Subscribe
-
Widgets
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from The Rt. Hon John Redwood MP. Make your own badge here.
RSS Feed-
About
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Conservative Party Economy News
I agree totally except for the
Some excellent points, John.
I notice you don’t address a commonly encountered argument: “In a democracy, I am free to give as much money to whoever I choose, and they are free to spend it as they choose”.
Freedom is of course important, but it does have limits. I think there are two good reasons why the freedom to donate to and spend on party political campaigns should be restricted:
- In a democracy, it must be votes that determine policy, and not money. If those in power are dependent for survival on a small number of huge donations, there is a risk that policy will be influenced by the interests and opinions of the donors.
- Voters are, unfortunately, easily swayed by propaganda of all kinds. Our democracy is healthier if opinions are formed through reasoned argument, and not by whoever can spend the most on advertising.
To pay for our currently bloated parties with public money would be an odious development. I agree that the best course is to place limits on both individual donations and total spending.
Hi Jon, I’m greatly enjoying the blog. Keep it up! I am 100% behind you on the opposition to state funding, and am prepared to believe that much of the spending at the last election did more harm than good. I am not keen on limiting an individual’s freedom to spend his money how he likes which is what donation caps would do, but at least people could still donate to political pressure groups (the Taxpayers’ Alliance, Migration Watch, etc.) and it might be a good political move if it applied to the unions. Of course it seems pretty unlikely that Labour, since they are the ones in a position to legislate, would allow it to apply to the unions, and this leads me to my main point. Labour’s stock is falling and the Conservatives are experiencing a revival. Whilst I am not a political insider, it seems that Labour will be finding it much harder than us to raise money over the next few years. They will be looking to take advantage of their majority to pass legislation that will negate their financial deficit. Politics is a game, and while it is all very well thinking of what is the right thing to do re. party funding, one shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that there are far more important issues which can only be sorted out by a Conservative government. If more seats will be won by exploiting our financial advantage, we should not be advocating spending limits. Even if the money was spent badly last time, we could use it better next time, perhaps by targetting more of it locally, like Lord Ashcroft did in various marginals. Or am I being overly optimistic?
I think the percentage voting has dropped because Labour dropped everything they ever believed in to get elected and it was only sleaze that gave them such a landslide in 1997.It quickly became apparent that Labour are infinitely more corrupt so that extreme irritation turned to apathy and disillusionment.The right won the economic argument so there’s no real clear blue water there (at least as far as the media leads people to believe). Although Brown is being allowed by them to get away with his debt fuelled growth phase that we’ll be paying for,for years to come.
Kinda like Gordon Ramsey but without the swearing. Good stuff!
Well done, John. At least one MP is prepared to stand on the side of the electorate against the cartel that has become the major parties. Quite how Conservative Central Office thinks that more government funding for them is consistent with Conservative values is beyond me. IMHO if Central Office staff had taken a month off at the last election and we’d have more MPs nows and substantially less debt. It also isnt’t consistent for us to talk about devolving power and improving hospitals by cutting bureaucrats when our own Central Office is doing the opposite.
Excellent article, Mr. Redwood!
As to some of the comments above: The problem is not “limiting an individual’s freedom to spend his money how he likes”. It is preventing any individual from bribing a Government. Some have started calling Blair “the best PM money can buy”. Limiting the amount to the 50000, you suggest, would ensure that the donation become too small to corrupt a Government. I don’t know if it is necessary to put an upper limit on how much can be spent on advertising.
What’s the point of campaigning on local issues? Power has been concentrated in the centre. Nobody elected locally can do anything except follow edicts from Whitehall. And most of those edicts (e.g., on waste disposal) emanate from Brussels, effectively turning Parliament into no more than a rubber stamp.
You don’t need to be the political editor of the Times or an Oxford Don to see that the British Parliament has no real power at all. If parliament had any power, maybe the party leaders might occasionally attend a debate! The uselessness of parliament shows itself in one other way, too - in the quality of those who aspire to public office. Where are the Norman Tebbits, Tony Benns, Margaret Thatchers? Instead we get nonentities like Hazel Blears or former Communist student union enforcer Jack Reid. The true heavyweights can see that parliament is to all intents and purposes irrelevant, and seek other paths.
Sir,
Politically, you and I are miles apart; just so you know that before reading what I have to say.
It’s about time politicians started saying what you just said. I think I have only one difference with you: there should be no central General Election campaign, ever. All Elections should take place entirely at the constituency level, and only with funds raised at that same level. Debates, public meetings, door-to-door canvassing. Constituency level only. If this creates difficulties for politicians, or would-be politicians, then too bad. Nobody ever conscripted you (which leads into a whole new area of discussion …).
Thank you
If you start talking honest common sense people will start listening to what you have to say. Honesty is what people are crying out for, and I (and the electorate I suspect) have had enough of spin, lies, bent statistics and, let’s be honest, downright corruption. I am fed up with ethical foreign policies , policies without purpose, laws that are not enforced, Acts that frustrate the law and politicians who spout drivel on a daily basis for media headlines.
I can forgive imperfection, but I think our tolerance to hypocrisy from the government is at an all time low. The Labour government is beyond all redemption.
You propose some interesting and appealing ideas. I hope you get a chance to put them forward where it counts.
I agree 100%. Parties do not need enough money to pat Cherie’s stylist. We already get free delivery of the elction address & party politicals (I would happily have more of the latter) & can have a TV debate whenevr the incumbent is willing (I would happily have such debates betwen the other 2 leadrs with an empty chair for refusals).
I would reccomend this book http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Heinlein&y=0&tn=take+back&x=0&sortby=3
Dear John
I cancelled my membership of the Conservative Party when John Major allowed a massive increase in MP’s wages, pensions or expenses; I forget which.
If the political parties were only allowed the funding supplied by people paying a membership fee to join the party you’d would have to clean up your acts and get the public involved again.