Easy excuse for controversy

NO announcement has been made, but few people doubt that the British general election is not far away. The reason for the widespread belief that we shall soon be going to the ballot box is, of course, that the politicians on all sides have gone into campaign mode. Promises are made - or attacked as unrealistic. Process occupies the minds of the politicians as much as policy; there is, for example, an argument about whether the main political leaders will debate with each other on television. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders (William Hague and Charles Kennedy) say they are happy to do so. Tony Blair, Labour leader and Prime Minister, is not - and is accused of being afraid.

During the next few months, we shall be exposed to ever more fevered argument, as the parties prepare to set out their stalls for the electorate.

An important part of the background is the question of funding of political parties. It has always been controversial (or, more accurately, an easy excuse for controversy). Traditionally, the Conservatives have been accused of being too financially dependent on big business, the Labour Party too dependent on the trade unions.

The current controversy, however, is of a different order. It concerns financial contributions made by individuals. It began when the Labour Party received donations of œ2 million each from three wealthy businessmen, one of whom is an (unpaid) minister in the Government. Then, a few days later, the Conservative Party received a gift of œ5 million from another wealthy businessman.

There seems to be general agreement that the four men are all wholly respectable. Certainly, the fact that the donations have been made openly means that there is no question of secret influence.

Such large donations, however, do raise important issues. Above all they are bound to invite questions about the formulation of policy. Would any party be likely to adopt or support policies that could damage the interests of a major donor? That is just as significant a question as the more positive: Is a party likely to allow a major donor to dictate policies?

It is a situation not limited to political parties. Universities, too, are constantly seeking funding, and are prepared to reward major benefactors with a measure of immortality, by attaching their name to a building, or a professorial chair, for example. It is generally a harmless recognition of human conceit - but there is clearly a potential risk of explicit, or implicit, interference with academic freedom. Of course, the same thing is true of state funding - and on a larger scale.

In my ideal world, financial support for political parties (and, for that matter, universities) would come from large numbers of supporters, in small sums. In that way, there would be evidence of breadth of support, and insulation against domination by any individual. But, of course, we do not live in an ideal world, and the plain fact is that parties which have to rely on the generosity of rank and file members are always strapped for cash. The Liberal Democrats, for example, depend largely on members' subscriptions and gifts and do not command anything like the resources of Labour or the Conservatives.

The idea of providing political parties with state funding is mooted from time to time, and doubtless a formula could be devised, based for example on the number of votes received at the last election. It is questionable, however, whether the idea would be popular with tax payers; we would tend to resent money going to "the other lot".

Furthermore, state funding might well make the parties complacent, and blunt the sharp edge of policy. The trouble with that argument is that under the present system policies are too often blunted, or fudged, for fear of upsetting potential supporters. The politicians feel it necessary to woo the electorate even if, in the process, they shy away from policies that may have long-term rather than immediate implications.

It would be encouraging to believe that the electorate is mature enough to accept such policies, and that the politicians should therefore have the courage of their convictions. One has to concede, however, that it would be a brave, or foolhardy, political leader who pinned his or her approach to such a belief.

Perhaps the best we can achieve, in our less than ideal world, is transparency about the sources of financial support. That is now a requirement, and it is most certainly an important safeguard.

BILL KIRKMAN

The author is an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge. E-mail him at wpk1000@cam.ac.uk

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : The village assembly
Next     : Silicon Valley high