The discussions on the Political Parties and Elections Bill – in “Grand Committee” in the Moses Room – have taken a fascinating turn. As Lord Norton has already reported here, Ministers are having to listen to Peers from all parties (and none), in contrast to the way in which the Bill was pushed through the Commons.
At regular intervals Ministers have to fall back on the excuse that they can only move on otherwise essential reforms to “clean up politics” if there is complete “consensus” across the parties. In other words, as I have repeatedly pointed out, any political party (or central leadership of a party) which feels that a reform would restrict their ability to raise funds, or spend money buying elections, can veto that reform. This is a recipe for the lowest common denominator to triumph over common sense. We can all agree, for example, that political parties should be able to raise and spend some money, for campaigning in elections. But to satisfy public opinion and restore confidence in this process, we need clear, fair rules which ensure that no donor can buy undue political influence, and no political party can simply buy election results.
Other Peers from other parties have joined me in attacking this obsession with “consensus”. It may be that we will be able to take this once-only opportunity to build in new safeguards when we reach the Report stage. Meanwhile, you can read all about it in the Hansard reports of our proceedings by following these links: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3. What do you think ?
Lord Tyler:
I’m not sure if your accessing links from the parliamentary Intranet but they don’t work.
Your link:
http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90429-gc0001.htm#09042974000573
is however accessible as:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90429-gc0001.htm#09042974000573
and obviously with similar amendments for the other links.
Day 1, Day 2, Day 3
The Day 1 etc links do not work for me – maybe they are restricted to HOL members only.
Why cannot consensus be achieved? To me, it suggests that something is not good enough with the proposals. It is this rush to push things through that has lead to some very poorly thought through legislation in recent years. If lack of consensus stops a bill going through then I can only see that as good as it means that the existing legislation, no matter how poor, is felt to be better than a change.
Isn’t this the bill that allows the two main parties to pick our pockets for additional funding to make up for their dire membership support? If that is so, I’m glad it has been stalled.
There seems a reasonable amount of consensus on most issues in the debate, excepting the government. I’m suspicious of the political placemen (or women) on the Electoral commission and not clear from the debate of real safeguards.
I found one statement very odd though. Lord Rennard said ‘All of us who observed and were delighted by President Obama’s victory in the States will be aware that individual contributions to his campaign were capped at a mere $2,800‘
US elections are not comparable to the UK; you have capped amounts (2008-9) for individual donations at the primary+general election ($2,300), national party ($28,000) State Party (10,000) and so on. But that those same state and national parties, PACs and committees may give money given to them (within certain limits) to those candidates. So the amounts US candidates receive from individuals is not simply the amount those individuals give directly to the candidate but can be several orders of magnitude higher via indirect giving though party groupings. That’s before you factor in money not given but used in the interest of the candidates cause at state and local level. Comparisons between different national spending systems is very difficult.
For the curious this years figures are at:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Contribution_Limits
Sorry about the links – it seems there isn’t consensus between the intranet and internet! I thought that the computer people here had sorted this problem out long ago, but it appears to have reared its head again. Thanks for providing alternatives.
Also thanks to Croft for his feedback on the matter of US political funding – I will pass it back to my colleague, Lord Rennard.
Croft, That doesn’t tell the whole story. The Obama team were collecting donations through a web site without full credit card verfication, so any individual anywhere in the world could contribute small amounts as many times as he or her liked, using any name they liked. There was considerable discussion over here that the Obama camp were getting large amounts of its funding this way, that could not be checked. This seemed to explain how the Obama campaign was so well funded, apparently from a very large number of individual donations with the possibility that many came from overseas. It seemed to me that this method drove a coach and horses, or a fleet of Hummers through The Federal Election Campaign Act
PS. Croft, thanks for the alternative links. They are working for me
All: Happy to help with the links.
Obviously I don’t want to divert this onto Obama’s campaign as it’s not strictly relevant and he didn’t use/gain from many of the circular money donations in my examples – his campaign was much better in this respect than many past campaigns. (Taking http://www.opensecrets.org's figures they give 88% of his campaign contributions as from individuals)
I fear that we need to be careful about getting too fixated on the £50,000 donation limit without trying to understand how many ways around the limit presently exist and will no doubt continue. I have a particular issue with the ‘communications allowance’ that MPs are given which is too easily simply a party propaganda tool which used across the parliament is outside of limits on party donations/spending. I also suspect that small donations is confused by some with cheaper elections. As Obama’s colossal donations and spending show individual limits don’t necessarily suppress total costs or spending.
On Lord Tyler’s point about consensus I have concerns about it though for perhaps different reasons. If all parties can agree with something then I fear it either suggests it is a motherhood and apple pie proposal or more dangerously that all parties have too much to gain from it. The latter, I suggest, is at least part of the reason why MPs have so happily voted for and maintained their benefits and expenses system. Everyone has too much of an interest in not making waves. At least when one party vocally opposes a move you hope that if there is anything dubious in a proposal that it will be publicised.