“In response to claims that expanding state funding of political parties cannot be afforded at this time, Unlock Democracy has called for the government to scrap its plans to introduce expensive elected police commissioner elections next year, which the report itself notes will cost roughly the same amount.”

They would be improved if the funding was decided on the basis of the percentage of votes cast, and funding provided to any party that achieves over a pre-set threshold even to the BNP and UKIP who achieve little in any one seat but clearly have a reasonable level of support over the country as a whole. Doing so would remove the objection that it fairly well fixes the current party system in place and allow an easier growth of new parties which must be to the benefit of democracy.

I would like to see Clegg getting behind the proposals and pushing for legislation in this parliament so that the system can start with immediate effect after the next election; failure to legislate now will in effect mean the proposals will likely never be put on the statute book, unless there is a big enough future scandal involving the governing party (parties?) that something like this proposal can be used as whitewash.

I’d like this to be introduced earlier – the money actually spent is indeed small (given the scale of state expenditure). The cap on large donations as well as the opt-in for the Unions’ political levy would be an excellent innovation.

I’d still like them to explore the idea that some of the funding should not depend on General Election votes, but should be matched funding for donations up to £100.

I think that is the situation in America where you can forgo Federal money and evade a lot of restrictions
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund_limits_2008.shtml

Where’s the law that says that then?

Would the world stop turning if the DPM said “The Government’s initial view is X, but my personal view is that this doesn’t go far enough and as we debate this important reform to the way we do politics I will be pushing for greater progress on this”.

It’s just possible people might respond to the idea that two different parties don’t have a homogenous view an every single issue that comes along

This would mean that new parties, without the necessary two seats in parliament, could continue to be funded as, for example, UKIP is now: with large private donations. It would still be a disadvantage for new parties, but no more so than the existing situation.

As to Nick Clegg’s response, two points:
- He was speaking as DPM, and on behalf of the government. There’s no way he would have been able to do more, speaking on behalf of the government.
- And he didn’t rule out state funding, just state funding in this parliament.

In fact, that is compatible with what Sir Christopher Kelly is proposing, who responded to Nick Clegg by saying that he was not suggesting changes be made immediately – but at the start of the next Parliament in 2015.

As far as Nick Cleggs concern over taxpayer’s money goes…How much did the, abortive (“I am not going to settle for a miserable little compromise thrashed out by the Labour party”), AV referendum fiasco cost councils?