The Times - UK (2020-07-31)

Greta’s message of doom

is religion not reality

Iain Martin

Page 25

voluntary associations to be funded

out of private resources rather than

to rely on public funds.

That said, it is a matter of concern,

in a time when the reputation of

politics is low, that such a critical

discipline should be thought to be

corrupt. The ideal outcome would be

a cap on donations, complete

transparency for all gifts — and not

just those above £7,500 as at present

— but sufficient breadth of donors

that enough money comes in. But if

that does not produce a formula that

makes democratic politics possible

there is only one way to solve the

problem and that is to call on public

funds. State funding of political

parties is a rotten idea but it may not

be quite as rotten as bankrupt politics.

When William Hague received

Stuart Wheeler’s donation and the

insistence that there must be no

strings attached, he is said to have

grinned and said that it was rather

like a visit from Father Christmas.

Stuart’s wife Tessa apparently

phoned one of their daughters to let

her know. “Darling,” she said, “we

have to face facts. We are now the

wife and daughter of a madman.”

They weren’t. They were the wife

and daughter of a good man. There

are never enough like him and there

is one fewer now he is gone.

Big money politics is ripe for funding reform

Capping donations might improve democracy and avoid the slippery slope to the state financing of all political parties

opposition parties are shunned by

donors, these sums mean they

become, in effect, state-funded.

Between 2001 and 2003, the Tories

received more in public grants than

in private donations. The argument

about state funding is not whether

we should introduce it. It’s about

whether we should extend it.

There is a strong argument that

the financial weakness of a party is a

consequence of its political weakness

rather than a cause. The inability of

the Labour Party, since the departure

of Tony Blair, to attract much

funding from business is not just an

accident. It is an accurate description

of the kind of party that it has

become. There is an argument that

the need to seek funding from

donors is a way of keeping a party

honest. It is surely preferable, too, for

Lubov Chernukhin has donated

£1.7 million to the Conservative Party

how to fix it. The amount that any

individual or organisation can give

could be capped at a low level but

this will inevitably lead to a funding

shortfall. In 2011, Labour’s general

secretary told the Committee on

Standards in Public Life that the

party would have folded if a

proposed cap on donations of

£50,000 had been introduced years

earlier. Such a limit would reduce the

influence purchased but, unless the

public start making voluntary

donations to political parties in their

millions, it halts the necessary funds.

The only other option is to lay the

burden on the taxpayer, which is

hardly the most popular of options. It

is, in fact, standard practice in many

places for the taxpayer to make a

direct contribution to the funding of

democracy. In Germany it is written

into the federal constitution that any

party gaining more than 1 per cent of

the vote is entitled to state funding

up to a maximum of 50 per cent of

its income. About a third of party

income in Germany comes from

taxpayers. Popular outrage after a

series of funding scandals led the

French, in 1988, to introduce public

funding. The Australians did the

same in 1984 and Canada did

likewise in 2003.

Britain actually has its own version

of state funding already. Since 1975,

the official opposition has been given

a grant which is known as Short

money in the House of Commons,

and Cranborne money in the House

of Lords. Opposition parties receive

£18,044.80 for every seat won at the

last election plus £36.04 for every

200 votes gained by the party. They

are entitled to travel expenses of

£198,231.77 between them,

apportioned in line with the number

of votes won. The opposition leader’s

office is awarded £840,712.01 towards

running costs. Sometimes, when

I

f every party donor were like

Stuart Wheeler then British

politics would have no funding

problem. But they are not and it

does. Mr Wheeler, who died last

week, was generous with his

fortune in pursuit of causes he

championed but, in his singular and

remarkable way, he wanted nothing

in return beyond victory for his

ideas. When Mr Wheeler offered

£5 million to William Hague’s

Conservative Party in 2001 it was on

the strict condition that he should

receive no honour, direct influence

or favour of any kind.

Few donors, however, have such

pure motives. Most gifts to political

parties are offered on the basis that

there should be a return. The

exchange is never explicit and very

often donors end up disappointed.

But there is no doubt that many

donations are offered in the hope

that a place in the House of Lords, or

some favourable policy, might be

forthcoming.

This is why it matters, as the

intelligence and security committee’s

report on Russia pointed out, that

political parties are exempt from the

requirement for transactions of more

than £10,000 to be reported to the

National Crime Agency. The report

showed that “several members of the

Russian elite... are identified as

being involved with charitable and/

or political organisations in the UK,

having donated to political parties

.. .”. The coffers of the Conservative
Party, for example, have been
replenished by gifts of £1.7 million
from Lubov Chernukhin, whose
husband is a former deputy finance
minister in Moscow. In 2014 Ms
Chernukhin paid £160,000 to have a
game of tennis with Boris Johnson
and David Cameron. Alexander
Temerko, a former Russian oil
executive, has also donated a great

deal to the Conservatives. Brandon

Lewis, the Northern Ireland

secretary, Alok Sharma, the business

secretary, Simon Hart, the Wales

secretary, Rishi Sunak, the

chancellor, Robert Buckland, the

justice secretary, and Anne-Marie

Trevelyan, the international

development secretary, have all

received funding from these sources.

The problem with this is less exotic

than it looks at first sight. The point

at issue here is not nationality. Ms

Chernukhin and Mr Temerko are

British citizens and all the donations

are clearly within the rules. The

problem is that rich people can buy

access and influence. That is how our

politics is funded. We need political

parties and they need to be funded in

order to be able to operate. Yet we do

not like the way we do it. Seventy-

five per cent of respondents to a

survey by the Electoral Reform

Society said they thought donors had

too much influence on our politics.

Sixty-five per cent said they thought

knighthoods were up for sale and 61

per cent believe that the system of

party funding is corrupt.

Yet it is a lot easier to complain

about party funding than to know

65 per cent of voters

thought knighthoods

were up for sale

William Hague said it

felt like being visited

by Father Christmas

Comment

@pcollinstimes

Philip

Collins

red box

For the best analysis

and commentary on

the political landscape

thetimes.co.uk

the times | Friday July 31 2020 1GM 23