I remember Peter Cruddas, co-treasurer of the No2AV campaign and the No campaign’s single biggest donor. Without him they never could have afforded those sick baby billboards.
Shortly afterwards in June 2011 he was rewarded with a prestigious position as co-treasurer of the Conservative party. Now he lies at the centre of yet another donor scandal, this one leading right to the Prime Minister’s door and is potentially as serious as the cash for peerages scandal under Tony Blair.
The Lib Dems have suffered from the unjust and often corrupt party funding regime for many years. In the 2010 election we were outspent by a ratio of three to one by the Conservatives. Their campaign spent more than the Lib Dems and Labour combined. In opposition we would be on all-out attack today, but now with the complexities of coalition government the leadership may feel compelled to soft pedal publically for more concessions privately.
They should not; this scandal represents an important chance to bring party funding reform out of the long grass where it has sat since last year’s report. Given constraints on the public purse taxpayer funding of parties is unlikely to be on the table – although experts like Democratic Audit agree it is part of the long term solution. But a cap on large donations is vital to levelling the playing field for the smaller parties and to avoid temptations that will inevitably draw individuals like Cruddas into these positions of power.
Party funding along with media standards and voting reform represent three of the core constitutional issues Liberal Democrats have built their radical, anti-establishment credentials on. Unfortunately we know from recent experience on all three counts the Conservatives are very much the party of the establishment.
We sadly missed the opportunity to reform the voting system last year. This year as the Lib Dem’s pursue our differentiation strategy and become increasingly assertive we must avoid being stymied again by our coalition partners and found guilty by association.
Let’s grasp the nettle and reclaim our place as a radical, progressive party at the forefront of constitutional reform.
* Andy May has been a Liberal Democrat member for 10 years and was a constituency organiser in Dorset between 2006-2008. He is currently a member of Hackney Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Chloe
David Allen
Nonconformistradical
David Raw
5 Comments
” In the 2010 election we were outspent by a ratio of three to one by the Conservatives. The Lib Dems have suffered from the unjust and often corrupt party funding regime for many years.”
I truly fail to understand why unequal spending is unjust?
I can fully accept the cash for influence is thoroughly disreputable, but not the principle as described above.
I support the current system is that it starves unpopular ideologies of oxygen, campaign on a broad national platform with ideas that have broad popular acceptance……………………………. or find yourself with a campaign budget in the same ballpark as the SWP!
Jedi,
it’s not that unequal spending is unjustified, it’s that the principle of unequal spending which can be taken to extremes is unjust.
Tories spent more than all other parties combined. But did they get an overall majority?
Tories outspent LibDems by 3-1. But did they get three-times as many votes?
No, so the connection between spending and votes is not absolute. Regulations should not actively encourage the wastefulness involved in such hollow practises.
Dare I point out the connection with HoL Reform?
How many peers have been appointed solely for their donations to particular political parties?
Anyway, it really is time that this Parliament tackled the problem of donations. After all, this was supposed to be clean break Parliament that would sort out all the petty corruptions in public life. So far progress on parliamentary expenses and the likelihood of sensible press reforms. Now for funding…
I quite like SamCam but I find Dave offputting. If it costs a quarter of a mil to dine with both of them in their flat, how much does it cost if Dave makes himself scarce?
One has to wonder, should plans for an elected House of Lords be pushed through, how many orders of magnitude more funding the Parties will be able to command in getting their placemen elected over independents or experts who do not bow to the whip.