Against state funding of parties

Sir Hayden Phillips reckons there's "an emerging agreement" (pdf) in favour of tax-payers funding political parties.
Not here there ain't. It's a terrible idea.
Phillips gives four arguments for public funding, all of them bad:
1. To compensate parties for limits he proposes on private funding.
But such limits are necessary because of the danger of corruption. By the same reasoning, we should compensate fraudsters for loss of income when we arrest them.
2. "Our political parties all face long-term financial instability because of the rising costs of their business."
Loads of businesses face rising costs - pretty much any other labour-intensive business is vulnerable to Baumol's cost disease. This is an argument for subsidizing any business that's incontinent about cost control.
3. Funding tied to votes or private contributions might "reinvigorate the parties' drive to win more support."
But parties already have incentives to win public support. Indeed, the threat of going bust without public funding might give them more incentive to engage with the public than handouts from the taxpayer would. The idea that throwing money at people improves incentives is naive. Sometimes the stick works better than the carrot.
4. Parties are a public good:

Healthy parties are in themselves good for democracy. It is in our interest that they prepare robustly researched policies, that they consult widely, and that they train people in the skills needed to be effective in public office.

This is where Phillips is weakest. We could equally argue that well-funded parties are a public bad:
1. They use their money to degrade and cheapen political discourse, for example by running misleading advertising campaigns based on sub-rational arguments.
2. The dominance of political parties means many policy ideas don't get the attention they deserve. Basic income, free immigration, drug legalization, withdrawal from the EU, whatever - we can all think of ideas the main parties just quash, often in favour of moronic gimmicks. Party politics is a choice between two managerialists, neither with managerial competence. Real politics - the debate about policies and ideals - happens outside the parties.
3. Well-funded parties offer prospective MPs careers straight from university. This means people can enter government with no experience outside politics - the exact opposite of having "skills necessary for public office." And it means we get a separate political class, cut off from the rest of the people.
There's one final point. In one respect, public funding for parties is less necessary now than ever before. Today, we can get political debate and information easier and cheaper than ever before, thanks to the web and news TV. So there's less need for parties to provide the raw material of political debate.
Let's be clear. The parties are struggling to attract funding because people increasingly despise them, and rightly so.
If an ordinary business loses customers, it goes out of business. Political parties should be no different.

Comments

[Mark Wadsworth]

Agreed. Change "despite" to "despise" in the third to last sentence.

[chris]

Done. Ta!

[Paulie]

I agree with every point that you make here, but I think there is still an argument for state funding of some kind. I think that an US / French type of 'in-and-outer' as a replacement for the 'permanent' civil service would reduce the power of the PM and increase that of the cabinet, and I can't - at the moment - think of any way of moving from where we are now to such a system without hypothecated state funding of political parties.

[Marcin Tustin]

I agree, but if we must have it, then there is a least bad way to do it: give the money to the people directly (http://murthercity.blogspot.com/2006/04/state-funding-of-political-parties.html)

[Andrew Zalotocky]

I've no doubt that there is "an emerging agreement" among the party leaders in favour of state funding!

But it is a demonstration of how distant the political class has become from the public. Their problem is a lack of public support, so they choose a solution that is guaranteed to alienate the public even further.

[jameshigham]

By a process of logic, if there's no state funding, there must be private and many of these will be loathe to declare themselves. I don't think they should have to.

[alex rossiter]

Have to say I broadly agree.

One thought though. If state funding were in place, could the public not legitimately demand that political campaign material be subject to some sort of quality watchdog, with fines for those who fail to comply?

[dearieme]

You are entirely right, S & M.

[sanbikinoraion]

Alex: we should go further: if a politician is found lying on the campaign trail or in office, then (s)he should be prosecuted for fraud, and not only fined but sent to prison.

[raedwald]

Yep, spot on.

Phillips is clearly a loaf short of a picnic.

People DO despise the main parties, and will boycott elections rather than vote knowing that they will also be conniving in this corrupt tax-theft. All his recommendations will achieve is even greater disengagement from politics, an unhealthier democracy and an ever-closer alliance between centralist party politicians and civil service bosses.

This has got to be halted.

[corneilius]

I think political parties who are in such huge debt ought to be put into adminstration and wound up. And their leaders made bankrupt. That's what would happen to yer average small business in the same position.

The political parties are pretty much useless when it comes to helping real people deal with real live issues, and are merely a soap opera, to give the impression that someone cares, whilst the real power brokers shaft the rest of us.

THis countries people NEVER voted for THE OLYMPICS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THE WAR IN IRAQ etc., (they were never asked!) yet the parties on all sides carry on with these insane policies.

The fact is that most people are perfectly able to understand, and more than just discuss the issues that affect them, would dearly love to exercise that power that the venal politicians use, as a communal responsibilty - that was the finding of THE POWER INQUIRY, in 2006.

Which ALL PARTIES PRETTY MUCH IGNORED.