Dave McLear

Old Age Pensions are the single most expensive scheme that the government spends money on. Politicians are desperate to court the ‘grey vote’, but pensions are so expensive, and the number of pensioners growing at such a rate, that the whole thing threatens to be unaffordable. Yet with all the pressures on public spending politicians are desperate to keep the state pension as high as possible. One answer for this is that pensioners are the most likely people to vote.

If you were a politician would you protect the reliable old folk, who are likely to come out and vote whatever the weather, or the fickle, unreliable young voter? There’s no competition and what follows are top-up fees, the demonisation of young people as binge-drinking yobs and no action on the explosion of house prices which threaten to prevent the younger generation from ever buying their own home.

I’m saying something fairly uncontroversial here, that political parties chase votes and will prioritise the needs of the people most likely to vote for them. For young people, who are statistically less likely to participate in the conventional political system, this tends to mean that they are the butt of politics in the UK.

But one thing that political parties crave even more than votes is money. Recently, I’ve learned just how expensive it is to run a campaign. Whether it’s advertising, having an online presence, canvassing, producing and distributing campaign literature or running an office. It all costs a lot of money.

With the decline in membership of political parties, the problem of funding a large national party has become critical. One way that parties have met this challenge is to take a proportion from the salaries of their elected representatives; a process called tithing after the medieval tax. Most have also actively courted wealthy businessmen and entrepreneurs for large donations. This tends to create a situation where, like the situation with pensioners, political parties are quick to appease the wealthy donors but less interested in people who are unable or unwilling to donate.

All of this sounds sordid or murky but there is often nowhere else for political parties to go to for funding. It creates a vicious circle where they have to get funding from wealthy individuals, so try to appease them. But this further alienates them from the man in the street, who is accordingly less likely to donate to a political party. The result is to alienate the poorest in society and have the richest in a position of great influence.

Actually, as Barack Obama’s campaign financing demonstrated, it is possible to fund an enormous campaign from largely small donations. Obama was able to raise almost $250m from individual donations of less than $200. There is huge political capital in these campaigns getting their funding from private citizens of modest means. But it’s also in the interests of these people to donate as, if enough people do it, they will get their priorities onto the agenda.

By having a financial stake in political parties, people would become effective shareholders with a greater say in the policies proposed and the leaders chosen. At the moment, trades unions have a similar relationship with the Labour Party. But these realistically represent only a small proportion of people while the influence is often exerted by an oligarchic leadership. Furthermore, the unions are virtually locked into the Labour Party, unable to take their lucrative sponsorship elsewhere.

That doesn’t mean that these donations would have to come solely from private individuals. Community groups could coordinate the donations to ensure the most impact. By pooling resources, communities would be able to influence political parties in a more profound and sophisticated way. Even charities could seek to influence the decision making process through selectively donating to political parties. If a party breaks a key policy pledge, then start donating to another party instead.

All too often people think that democracy should be free. Unfortunately, having a healthy democracy is expensive. At the moment, the costs of this democracy are met by the wealthiest in society. But donating to political parties is not a burden; it’s a way of empowering people and holding the political class to account. By widening party funding to all aspects of society, we can force political parties to be more representative of society.

That is why I am urging all of you to go out, break the cycle of disillusionment and donate to your favourite political party. If enough people like you do it, you’ll find that political parties are much more interested in what you’ve got to say.

Like this post? Like the site? Please take a second to share this article with your friends, it makes a massive difference.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Related posts:

1. Same old nasty party? (c) Screaming Bertha Last week’s European elections, despite the justified concerns over the BNP discovering potential political legitimacy, have to...
2. Interview: Siân Berry talks about politics and the Green Party (c) Sian Berry You are most likely to remember Siân Berry from the 2008 London Mayoral election, at which time...
3. Can a European only party work? (c) dustydavidson European elections are complicated at the best of times. In the aftermath of the recent parliamentary scandal to...
4. The Tories; party of spin. Really? I keep hearing this thing about spin. As one blogger put it, “with Cameron, you don’t know where the spin...
5. How Michael Foot Saved the Labour Party After the death last week of former Labour leader, Michael Foot; a fresh look at his legacy as Labour's leader....