Thanks to Andrew Smith for another guest post. Andrew is a Scottish born communications professional in London, who has previously blogged for us about the referendum campaign and, well, the referendum campaign. You can buy his debut novel here, or read his blog at www.blackberrybanter.
Since the local tremor from the Falkirk Labour Party’s candidate selection became a political earthquake, the issues of party funding and donations have been at the top of the news agenda. Following a difficult week, Ed Miliband had what may have been his best PMQs outing to date, during which he reiterated support for the largest overhaul of the Labour/Trade Union relationship for a generation and called for an individual donor limit of £5000.
SNP MP Pete Wishart berated the entire spectacle of PMQs, tweeting “Hope the Scottish people are observing this rotten Westminster and concluding that we want nothing whatsoever to do with it”, which made me think about whether funding is a Westminster issue or a UK wide one. I tweeted him back to ask if the SNP favours a cap on political donations, but he must have missed it as he didn’t reply: funnily enough neither did any of the other four SNP MPs who I tweeted the same question to.
It could be because they were all away from their desks all day, but the SNP isn’t exactly free of funding controversy. In both 2007 and 2011 roughly 50% of their total election spend was provided by the same person: Brian Souter. Souter’s views on homosexuality caused many to question if he was the sort of person any party should take money from, but that aside there were other issues. The party was accused of changing transport policy shortly after the first donation was made, to one that favoured Souter, and then the Scottish Government nominated him for a knighthood shortly after his second one. In both cases the SNP has denied influence from Souter.
This isn’t an anti-SNP point: their defence is presumably that elections cost money and that Labour has an in-built financial advantage due to union funding. This is fair, their spending in 2005 and 2010 general elections was far lower (£193k and £315k compared to the 1,141,662 in 2011). However, with the possibility of Westminster being reformed it won’t be long before someone suggests Holyrood should have the same debate.
With that in mind I have included some of the points I think are important:
- The 2007 election saw the SNP outspending Labour by over £250,000 and winning by a solitary seat. Every penny counts!
- In 2011 the SNP spent £57,449 more on their election campaign than Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Green Party put together.
- With only £131,938 in 2011, the SGP had the lowest spend for any party with MSPs. Smaller parties lose out on free promotion through TV interviews etc, but if they are outspent by the bigger ones to this extent they are squeezed on the ground too.
Is this a bad thing? I think it is. When wealth distorts elections it only favours the status quo. In one fine swoop Labour has proposed cutting its own trade union funding (quite rightfully in my opinion) and made its position on a donations cap clear. Labour’s future corporate funding will only materialise if it looks like they have any chance of power, and in that instance it raises questions about why business only back winners – what do they want in exchange?
I don’t think anyone is suggesting state funding of political parties (I would ask the government if I could opt out if even 1p found its way into UKIP’s coffers) but in a modern, progressive, 21st century democracy like Scotland it seems like something should be done to address the imbalance.
#1 by Indy on July 12, 2013 - 9:50 am
I think the SNP does support a cap on political donations & state matched funding. There was a consultation on it some years ago and I recall that was the SNP position. Can’t remember the details though. Such a system would be advantageous for the SNP of course 🙂 It has a lot of members who make small donations, so if there was a system where the state matched donations up to a certain level they would be quids in. I do think some sort of state funding is inevitable though it should not cover things like billboards, which in my view are useless anyway. But to help support staffing, running costs, research, publications etc – I think it is perfectly reasonable. You wouldn’t need to worry about a single penny finding its way to UKIP in Scotland by the way because it would only apply to parties with elected representation.
#2 by andrewgraemesmith on July 13, 2013 - 10:38 am
To be fair I can’t see any party backing a system that doesnt improve their finanaces (which makes Labour’s change seem odd to many). I have no issue with state funding of parliamentary and constituancy staff – I also tend to suspect it should be slightly higher as more MSP group/ councillor group researchers etc seems fair.
I think state funding will inevitably come up as we discover more dodgy funding and vested interests, but I can’t image there being much public support for it – also imagine how much fun the tabloids would have with it!
#3 by David on July 12, 2013 - 9:58 am
Good piece, and I agreed completely until…
“I don’t think anyone is suggesting state funding of political parties (I would ask the government if I could opt out if even 1p found its way into UKIP’s coffers)”
Is giving a bit of money to UKIP not perhaps a price worth paying to clean up party funding? A state subsidised UKIP seems to me a much lesser problem than a Souter funded SNP or a City funded government.
#4 by Douglas McLellan on July 12, 2013 - 7:48 pm
I like the piece but it is undermined somewhat by the jibe against UKIP. As distasteful a party that they are they are unfortunately a legitimate party in the same way the Greens are and any system designed to increase participation/results of smaller parties will have to provide the same benefit to UKIP as to the Greens for it to be fair.
#5 by Andrew on July 13, 2013 - 10:18 am
Thanks Douglas. In fairness you’re right, the UKIP jibe was somewhat immature and uncalled for. I suppose the point I was making about state funding is that it means the public funding political parties that they disagree with. I tend to think that political parties are causes and should derive their funding from their own supporters, although without regulation of that funding we are now in a position where one party can spend almost 10 times what the Greens can.
#6 by Allan on July 13, 2013 - 2:07 am
Have to agree that the jibe about UKIP was uncalled for. True a lot of their policies leave a lot to be desired, there probably is a vacum for a right of centre party not called the Conservative & Unionist Party. However, their Eurosceptisism is not catered for in the Scottish political landscape. However, if UKIP were to be serious about attracting scottish votes, there are changes that they would have to make – the right wing message of less regulation will not fly here.
I rather think that Labour’s cutting of it’s ties with the unions will be a good thing too… from the point of view of the unions. They have wasted many millions of pounds proping up a political party that views them as an, at best, embarasing relative. It probably would have been best for the unions to withdraw their “support” during the Blair years. Instead, they plugged on, supporting politicians adept at speaking New Labour with an Old Labour voice like Brown and Milliband.
Indeed, Milliband’s betrayal of the ordinary working person will hopefuly act as the wake up call that the union bosses should have headed 10 years ago.
#7 by andrewgraemesmith on July 13, 2013 - 10:33 am
Thanks Allan. I actually agree with you on the UKIP point, I was trying to make the point that it would result in the public funding parties they disagree with, and I don’t think we’re at that stage yet.
I disagree with you regarding the unions. I think the proposed reform is good because I think all members having to explicity opt in is a good thing. There will be a lot of TU members who feel the same way you do and that should be reflected. I personally support them funding Labour as I beleive that that the party is a broad-church and that the thing which is most lkely to undermine the TU voice in it is for them to disaffiliate. The structures of UK politics mean that it would be almost impossible for a new TU backed party to emerge. Some may wish to divsersify the political fund and support other candidates in certain seats, which to me is fine.
#8 by Juteman on July 13, 2013 - 11:10 am
I would imagine stepping away from the unions has been on the cards since Blair. The plan to have a 2 party state funded by business is almost complete.
When almost every senior Labour politician has spent time in the US on training courses, the change of names to Republican and Democrat can’t be far off.