This thread is open for any and all ideas and suggestions. If you feel your idea does not fit into the three specific threads created, please post it in here.
Our Authors
Paul Rogers on Global security
Li Datong on China from the inside
Fred Halliday on Global politics
Mary Kaldor on Human security
Danielle Archibugi on Cosmopolitan democracy
Demotix: photo partner
No pertinent politics can be acheived on the cheap whatever the processes involved (within relative & sensible limits). Even if we returned to the personal, independent represenation of earlier centuries funding is always critical & no restriction to the well-heeled contemplated. An open recording system needs to be designed so anyone can check should they wish to do so.
Whatever happens we must prevent our politics reaching a USA type situation where only the rich can enter politics. The present 'dodgy' situation is the result of a similar growth in the importance of money as opposed to service for its own sake or non-monetary reward. It is not possible to put the clock back; I wish it were. Perhaps all donations to political parties could, as a start, be channelled through a central, independent clearing house rather than being paid directly to the intended party.
A Party needs to propose a set number of concrete and deliverable policy proposals in their manifesto to qualify for a level of public funding for elections.
Parties are then fined for each manifesto pledge they fail to deliver.
One of the current "big issues" is that of payment for an "overnight lodging" for those MP's who live outside London.
Would a suitable form of accommodation be a large block of apartments solely for the use of MP's and available to them gratis?
With decent quality food, etc., available at a London price, a major element of controversy would be quashed overnight.
Whatever rules or constraints are applied to reduce or prevent disproportionate influence over politics by businesses or lobby groups, whether through restricting funding, or other means, it will be very difficult to produce a system without loopholes.
Business and the wealthy have money and influence that they will inevitably be able to use to get close to politicians to advise them or to be advised. Rules on state funding should recognise this.
With the current funding arrangements people get into local government because they were willing to agree to a party whip, and the party pays the costs from those with vested interest who to some extent at least determine the direction of the whip. In wards firmly held by one party or another the standard of those chosen can be very poor quality as representatives. They could not achieve election, or re-election, on their own efforts and performance.
It is very difficult for independents (David's) and those in small groups to break in, even though they might be far better qualified to represent the constituency. The established parties (Goliath's) gang up on them.
I feel that it is not enough to be "represented" - politicians should behave as delegates - subject to a recall election (triggered by certain % of constituents signing petition) if they betray their election promises, live off the income of an average citizen (what we socialists call a "workers' wage"). Perhaps they should be compelled to appear in parliament, as it always looks half-empty or almost-empty...
Democratic participation shouldn't end after election day - the people should be the sovereign power, not a parliament or a monarch. I favour the "citizens' initiative" and the "peoples' veto" to be allowed at every level of government to ensure that referenda can take place on desired or unpopular laws.
I agree that politics can't be done on the cheap - we need to find a sustainable way for politicians to raise quite a lot of money if we want a party political democracy. I can see two scenarios that I'd find broadly acceptable.
The first is that the parties go back to their grassroots. Donations are capped at a low enough level to force the parties to seek mass popular support again. State funding might also be provided, but only if it's tied to innovative development schemes, not for electioneering.
I always liked the idea of a democracy venture capital fund that would provide money to anyone who wants to improve the quality of democracy in the UK - the parties could bid for the money, but so could anyone else.
The alternative scenario is that we recognise that we live in a post-democratic age where national politicians are basically courtiers in London with little grounding in popular politics. If we accept that grassroots political legitimacy is dead and gone, then we need to provide much more state funding.
But the parties need to give us something in return. First they need to accept PR and give us real choice about who we vote for. Second, they need to federalise local parties and give them much more power to set policy for local and regional government.
The price of state funding should be pluralism.
Perhaps the key is not to look at how the state can be used to benefit the populace, but to realise the state is the single largest hinderance to development of society.
A complete break from 'representative' parliamentary politics into decentralised, localised 'communes' would provide face-to-face consensus democracy for issues relevant to specific areas. For wider issues, a federation of the affected communes (represented by a delegate perhaps) could be arranged. With all decisions necessarily being taken by consensus, since voting creates tyrannies of the majority and minority views (regardless of their validity of pertinence) are ignored. Consensus gives room for continued dissensus and continuous discussion and adaption on any issue.
This system, or one similar to it, ensures complete and direct involvement for all the people living under it. It completely destroys any notion of power of the state, and as such the corruptability of the state.
{Ed. It is true that majority voting can create tyrannies of the
majority. Other voting procedures, and especially the Modified Borda
Count, can do the very opposite: they can actually be used to identify
the common consensus. Peter Emerson.}
Set a low cap on national funding of parties - offset with relatively higher level in the individual constituencies - to encourage local interest, responsiveness and participation.
Allow proportionally higher level of spending for the challengers, since the sitting member has the inbuilt advantage of exposure during the current parliament.
While I agree totally with Jim D that “the state is the single largest hindrance to development of society”, short of a (wholly desirable) socio-political revolution what is needed in the UK is fundamental reform of the way in which political parties, ‘business interests’ and the national electorate interact.Steps towards this could be the discussion and introduction of a reforms aimed towards achieving genuine accountability such as Charlie M’s idea of MPs acting as delegates rather than representatives, living off the income of the average citizen.What is needed is a restoration of the faith of the public in the integrity of political parties (and in democracy generally); this could be a through Madeline J’s suggestion of political party funding being channelled through an independent clearing house rather than being paid directly to the intended party and/or Robbie H’s idea of parties proposing a set number of concrete policy proposals in their manifesto whose achievement/ implementation would be a prerequisite to receiving funding.
Most important of all is the need for a major drive to inform the average voter of how parties and politicians are funded and paid and how this affects transparency, accountability and democracy so that a profound and genuine public discussion can take place.
David, I cannot claim credit for the idea of "representatives as delegates" nor the average income policy. Both are longstanding socialist demands, stemming perhaps from the Paris Commune of 1871 in which both policies were implemented.
We have the technology to allow voters to question the parties in great depth. Perhaps an 'official' process should be provided, funded by government, to allow voters to make better decisions, based upon the party responses to such a debate.The system would need to work better than this one!
Over the course of a parliament both the labour party and the tories will receive well over £15million pounds in membership fees. how is that cheap? why do they need more than that to get their message across? all they need is a website with their manifesto on it; anything other than that is an attempt to brainwash us supermarket style into purchasing their product by misleading us.
parties relying on only their membership fees would have the added benefit of allowing funding commensurate with their public support.
this is why i created the following petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/partyfunding2/
My general approach is that the majority of money spent should be directed to promoting democracy and interst in the process, rather than on promoting any one individual. Hence, spending might be directed to hosting town hall debates (to which all prospective candidates would have equal access), etc.
Spending on promoting any one candidate would then be limited to their own spending (personal wealth, or 'student-style' loan, repayable if elected. See further on separate thread).
Whilst not wishing to open the debate beyond the limits set, I wouldn't allow any party spendning on the promotion of individual candidates (including leaders - we are already getting too far into presidential style politics as it is).
I know - there's always someone who wonders about the question. But: the question is about both those who "aspire to serve" and those who "serve". Which seems to me to be about two separate classes of people: candidates and elected representatives. The funding arrangements for each class are likely different in a desirable future world. Can we separate them out in some way?
I see a problem: the public level of awareness concerning the issues and problems now before us is abysmally low. We cannot be proactive in politics if we have no idea what we are talking about. The level of concern which originated movements like the Chartists, the Rochdale Pioneers, the early Building Society movement, the Suffragettes, the 1945 general election ... seems to have gone. The American author David Orr describes the need for a new confident, well-informed, participative citizenry (all three components are essential - otherwise we end up with the 'Ulster says No' syndrome)
I see the problem, I make modest contributions to its solution with 3rd level students ... but I don't know what else can be done! We get (do we?) the governments we deserve.
Is there a definition of "politics" we should be working with here?
{Ed. We offer the attached guidelines:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/deborda/guidelines_and_schedule
Peter Emerson.}
We are asking the wrong questions because we lack clarity of vision of what we are trying to achieve. We should start with defining what is wrong with the present system. We should follow that with defining what system of politics we wish to have in the internet age. We should then, and only then, work out what the steps are that we need to take to eradicate what is wrong on the way to achieving the end result we seek. If we do not do a root cause analaysis of what is wrong with the present system we risk treating symptoms rather than causes. If we do not have clarity of vision for our objective for the future we risk going down blind alleys.
No one likes to step back and start again but sometimes we have to recognise that we have started in the middle and do not have a grasp of where we have come from nor where we are going.
{Ed. Which is why we produced the guidelines. They're on:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/deborda/guidelines_and_schedule
Peter Emerson.}
Taking MPs as the template, my proposition is that they be paid a combination a a national 'salary' in respect of their role in national politics and a constituency 'wage' which would be linked to the whiole population of the constituency, not just the electorate. (The principle can apply regardless of whether we have single-seat or multiple seat constituencies.) A proportion of the constituency wage (25-33%) would be subject to review 2 years after a general election, with a participation threshold of 40% of the electorate. They can opt to dock the 25-33% because of poor performance, or to double to reward real effort. If less than 40% take part, the MP loses half the designated proportion (lack of engagement). THe reduction or increase would apply for the rest of the term only, not a new one. Research & support staff costs would be a flat allowance but reverse indexed to relative disavantage in the constituency, so MPs representing disavantaged areas would get much more for esearch & support than ones representing wealthy areas - the indices being determined by an independent body.