THE LAST DITCH An Englishman returned after twenty years abroad blogs about liberty in Britain
Inside the mind of a statist?
Back in the charts

True to their vicious type » Blog Archive » Can Ed win support for state funding of political parties?.

Once again politicians are floating the idea of more state funding for their conspiracies parties. There is a reason political parties are losing members. They do no appeal to ordinary voters, but only to fanatics and obsessives. As long as they have alternative sources of funding, they will never look to build their memberships because, in a true mass party, the majority would oppose those now in control.

I am rarely in favour of banning anything but I believe no political party should be allowed to receive money from non-members. Anyone giving to a political party, whether they are a corporation, trade union or individual, will expect some return. That is corruption and should always be a crime. As for the current state funding - running to millions for the established parties - it is also intrinsically corrupt. It excludes other parties and anyway the people in power should not be abusing their position to vote themselves taxpayers' money.

The only income available to political parties should be from membership dues, constituency fund-raising events and sales of publications and memorabilia. Would they survive if such a system were adopted? Yes, but only by turning their backs on corruption and extortion and building mass memberships again.Why does that prospect sicken them so?


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

james higham

I am rarely in favour of banning anything but I believe no political party should be allowed to receive money from non-members.

See where you're coming from but banning is a sticky wicket, a thin edge. Declaration is another way.


I agree completely.

MPs pay lip service to representing all their constituents but when push comes to shove they kowtow to their gangmasters.

The party system is the main obstacle separating us from democracy.


They should ban party names on ballot papers - political brands have too much power.

john miller

I'm not sure that not wanting to be the victim of theft is "banning" something.

State funding will be carried out via the taxation system. If you refuse to pay your taxes you go to jail.

A political party demanding money with menaces is no different to your local hoodie.

This may have been the most far-sighted ploy Cameron has ever carried out, when he said years ago that we should hug them.


There is a delicious logic in proclaiming that as funding for political parties is becoming ever more difficult to find, therefore the State should intervene in order to provide funding.

Or, to re-word that, the people have by and large decided that they do not wish to pay anything towards the political parties. Therefore the parties have decided that they will just take the money anyway.

A little thought makes the flaw in their logic apparent. Analysing the argument, we have:

1. Existing funding sources for the 3 main political parties are drying up.
2. Those 3 parties are essential to the proper operation of British democracy.
3. The maintenance of democracy in the UK has the support of the populace
4. Therefore the State should provide the necessary funding.

But, I hear you all ask, where is the evidence for step 2?

The comments to this entry are closed.