Is politics worth paying for?

Before the “Cash for Access/Dinner/Influence” scandal leads us once again down the road of state funding for political parties we might just ask is it really the only option? Various reviews and reports, most recently including Sir Christopher Kelly, have suggested the state picks up the cost of cleaning up politics. In return there would be a lowish £10,000 limit on donations and trade union members would have to opt in to their fees going to the Labour Party. This or something similar will form the basis of new talks on party funding. This might seem to you as if a burglar was telling the magistrate “If only you’d make up the shortfall in income involved in me being honest I would not have to go thieving”. But is there an option?

You can buy access but not influence. You can chat over dinner, perhaps in the flat over Downing Street or at Chequers, but don’t expect anything you say to be listened to. That is the proposition the Conservative Party leadership is trying to argue. Do you believe them? It isn’t that Mr Cruddas was caught selling access to David Cameron and George Osborne. That isn’t a crime. In fact the Conservatives are quite open and unapologetic about the way they raise money for the party. It is that Cruddas said the donors would be listened to, that their suggestions would be fed into the Downing Street policy process that seems scandalous. The party now claims he was factually wrong to make these claims. But his other claims, about people being invited up to private soirees with the Camerons turned out to be correct. If he said it to the Sunday Times has he said it to others? Have donors been misled? Or have we?

You’re probably a bit cynical about politicians. You probably aren’t surprised. Why else would anyone pay such vast amounts of money, you might think?  We are currently being told these are all basically rich supporters of Conservative ideas who want nothing in return or groupies dazzled by Cameron’s jokes and Osborne’s dashing good looks.

Labour claims the unions do not have undue influence over policy anymore. The relationship is supposed to be close, respectful and influential – but not unduly influential. But what level of influence is “due” to a union like Unite, on which the Labour Party is hugely reliant? And how do we tell what has and has not been adopted by the Labour leader because of union pressure? The mess Labour got into during government over patronage and donations means there is no moral high ground for them on this issue either. It was the thing – very early on – that forced Tony Blair out to sit before John Humphrys claiming “I think most people that have dealt with me thing I’m a pretty straight kind of guy” (How times have changed – you won’t find David Cameron rushing out to the TV studios on this one).

The trouble for David Cameron and Ed Miliband is that they have both been right. When David Cameron said transparency was the best disinfectant he (inadvertently perhaps) made the case for all meetings (not just dinners) with donors to be published. He provided a compelling argument for the publication of correspondence between donors and politicians or their aides. And he created a good reason for Prime Ministers to either be entirely open about how buying influence works, or refuse to talk policy with those who buy spaces at the dinner table. A Prime Minister needs to talk to people, gauge opinion, hear the cries from business, banking and the rich. But if he wants to claim that the rich do not get special access there is no reason why they should get longer at the table than a nurse, a teacher or a single Dad working in a factory?

In the same way Ed Miliband has a good case for an independent inquiry. But in doing so he will face all the dilemmas David Cameron does and more. For he is inviting proper scrutiny of union power too. He would have to be entirely open about the role of the unions in the Labour Party and the number of contacts he and his aides have. He would have to either openly back or confront and change the way union votes delivered his victory in the Labour leadership contest over the party membership and MPs. He would have to explain why a party that makes much of speaking for the many is still apparently dominated by a few.

So don’t be surprised if you the taxpayer are one day asked to make up the shortfall created from donor limits and union changes. Just beware of the true cost beyond the meagre £3 each per year they will claim we are being asked to stump up for democracy. It would be even harder than it is now for new parties to develop if funding was determined by past election performance. Can you accept the BNP getting state funding too? Finally if you conclude the trade-offs are worth it do you really think you will have any more access to politics and policy making than you do now? You ought to – you will be paying for it.