James Graham (London, Unlock Democracy): James Campbell's piece in the Spectator arguing against state funding of political parties is par for the course. A critic of Sir Hayden Phillips who is reporting on how political parties can be funded, he misses most points.
The party politics that Campbell describes - centralised, whipped and personality-based - is the form of party politics that is already funded by the state - to the tune of tens of millions of pounds. Perhaps the system of funding politicians in Westminster, from MP's expenses through to the Special Adviser system via Short and Camborne money, does need looking at. It is a debate however that politicians are determined not to have. Indeed, MPs recently rewarded themselves a £10,000 communications allowance on very dubious grounds. Bizarrely, many opponents of "party" funding such as NoPublicFunding, are keen to stress their support for existing parliamentary funding arrangements.
The real debate is not whether but how we want political parties to be funded. Campbell's criticisms would apply to a grant system or one based on money-per-vote, neither of which would do much to encourage engagement and would be subject to centralised controls. But they do not apply to an incentive-based system which would encourage parties to engage with the public. The Power Inquiry proposed a voucher system. The Neill Commission recommended tax relief. The New Politics Network has promoted a voter registration system and matched funding on donations up to, say, £20. Others still have talked about money-per-member. Most supporters of party funding are concerned with finding ways to ensure that the funding comes through at a local level.
All of these systems have one thing in common: if the parties fail to engage the public, they get less money. Thus Campbell's comparison with bailing out the car industry in the 70s with which he opens his article in alarmist terms does not hold up. He is also mistaken if he thinks that without state support the centralised party system will just die. The experience in other countries is that it isn't the party machine that dies without party funding, it is democratic control of that machine. The experience from the US is that where democracy dies, plutocracy is only too happy to fill the vacuum.
