Hayden Philips Update

I blogged below about the Sir Hayden Philips review. I managed to free up some time today to attend his webchat in the hope of at least getting in the last word on behalf of taxpayers; which fortunately I managed.

My Q&A is below:

Scenario statistics?
Having reviewed the website forum I thought it would be interesting to have the statistics for each of the 4 scenarios' outlined in the interim review.
By this I mean how many posts or posters were in favour of the 4 scenario's put forward.
I appreciate the chance to give feedback and I would be most interested to know the overall balance of views thus far. I would be concerned if the whole report did not hold any reflection of the strength of feeling as well as the breadth of debate.

The forum pre-dated setting
Posted by Sir Hayden Phillips on 30/10/2006 - 14:49
The forum pre-dated setting out the four scenarios. But I want to make it clear that those scenarios were not options from which to choose but a way of illustrating the issues involved. The point of publishing the interim assessment, and of this webchat, is to get peoples views on these issues. What are yours?


My view is that there is little wrong with the current system that an independent review body could not fix. The government did away with a parliamentary regulator, Elizabeth Filkin as I remember, who was doing a good job of policing parliamentarians.

This kind of approach would allow Labour to continue to receive union funding and Tories / Lib Dems their funding too, without further taxation.

The current system is also not bad in comparison with other democracies. The current investigations prove that it works, not that it is a fiddle. Cheaters are being caught.
From many people I have spoken too there is no appetite for increasing public funds from where they are today.

I think that the current politicians have two agenda;

Seeking a way to keep the established status quo and make it more difficult for new parties to emerge and break the consensus;

Reducing their need to rely on donors/public for funds for election and therefore reducing the need to engage directly with a public who can disagree with their views.

Britain is a free country at heart and its democracy has lasted hundreds of years without the need for substantial state funding of political parties. I hope that the outcome of your review is that this remains the case.

There were also some other useful questions with hazy answers, the best two of which are below:

Daylight robbery !
Posted by Colin McNamee ( I am guessing the UKIP candidate here) on October 30th 2006
The discussions of the three main political parties are giving bias in their favour at the expense of smaller political parties and Independents and therefore to the detriment of democracy. It will inhibit the growth of other parties and political positions.
41% of the electorate chose not to vote in the 2005 General Election.
With the overspending during the 2005 General Election, which each party did voluntarily, the three main parties are activity discussing the taxpayer to finance their unprincipled behaviour.
A maximum to be levied on monies spent by all political parties equally and for them to have to act and fund raise within the law and be provably seen to do. The use of taxpayers money will be an open cheque to these profligate spenders.
State funding applies on the Continent and it has not stopped corruption by political parties of public funds in Germany, France and Italy.
Your interim assessment indicates an overwhelming lack of support from the public for State Funding, as this is a democracy that counts. It is also their money.
Based on just the above where is there any justification for the State Funding of political parties in the UK?

By talking of “Party Funding” going ahead, I assume you mean providing more public funds for political parties. I want to underline that no decisions have yet been made about this or any other aspect of a new system of funding for political parties. However I would make three points in response to your general views.First, a substantial sum of public money already goes to political parties under the existing system, and much of it is long standing. Second, even if no more public funds went in future to political parties, other changes to the party funding system should be directed towards encouraging parties to make better contact with the voters than they do now. Third, if I recommend more public funds for parties, that will not only require greater accountability and transparency but also place an even clearer obligation on them to engage better with the electorate. It is this part of political and democratic reform to use your own words, with which my review is engaged.

And from Slim Jim:

We are currently experiencing the highest levels of taxation in our history. If party funding goes ahead, what possible benefits will the taxpayer see? Unless this proposal is accompanied by much-needed political and democratic reform, it will be seen as just another stealth tax, will it not? We need greater accountability, not more taxation (without representation!).

By talking of “Party Funding” going ahead, I assume you mean providing more public funds for political parties. I want to underline that no decisions have yet been made about this or any other aspect of a new system of funding for political parties. However I would make three points in response to your general views.First, a substantial sum of public money already goes to political parties under the existing system, and much of it is long standing. Second, even if no more public funds went in future to political parties, other changes to the party funding system should be directed towards encouraging parties to make better contact with the voters than they do now. Third, if I recommend more public funds for parties, that will not only require greater accountability and transparency but also place an even clearer obligation on them to engage better with the electorate. It is this part of political and democratic reform to use your own words, with which my review is engaged.

Conservative and Labour have both overspent. If they were individuals or corporations they would be bankrupt.
If there is to be public funding should there not at least be a requirement that parties live within their expanded means?

No decisions have yet been made. However, more public funding does not seem to me to be the only or necessarily primary reason why parties should be expected generally to live within their means. Equally – like individuals or corporations – they should be able, within the law, to raise money provided they can clearly foresee how they can meet their financial obligations.

In conclusion it can quite clearly be seen that Sir Hayden is well down the road to wanting more state funding. Whether he will find a way of balancing this with some independent review I do not know.

When the report is finally issued I will review with a nice bottle of cold Reisling to dull the pain......