Clean politics: open goal for the democratic left
Posted on Sunday 17 December, 2006
Filed Under Uncategorized
New Labour is institutionally corrupt, in much the same sense that the Metropolitan Police is institutionally racist. In a week that has seen both a Labour prime minister questioned by Scotland Yard detectives and the shameful decision to drop the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE’s Saudi slush fund, that contention surely stands unquestioned.
As a result, democratic socialists are being offered an open goal to argue for the highest standards in political life. Such a call should certainly constitute one of the central planks of any platform of a renewed British left.
We could make this our political monopoly, and we damn well should. As far as winning the support of the general public goes, this is the closest it gets to a one-way bet.
Corruption – petty, but often not so petty – is an issue across the entire political spectrum, of course. Those of us that remember the Major years will be well aware of that. And if relatively fewer Lib-Dems have been found with their fingers in the till in recent decades, that is largely on account of their continued distance from office rather then any superior moral fibre.
It has historically been an issue in the trade union movement. If some of the stories I have heard of late – and I can’t begin to prove them, so I simply cannot print them – it remains so to this day.
Even sections of the far left have been happy enough to pimp their politics in return for a fistful of dollars from sundry petro-kleptocracies.
But a big enough percentage of the democratic left is sufficiently unsullied to make this question a speciality. So it is unfortunate, then, that the issue seems not yet to have registered on the radar screen of the John McDonnell Labour leadership campaign.
It potentially offers him the best-imaginable tactical weapon in a fight with any representative of the corrupt New Labour establishment, of either Brownite or Blairite hue. Here are some policy proposals that deserve at least debate.
The democratic left should start from the proposition that political parties should be funded – if not entirely, than largely so – by their own members and openly-declared supporters.
Individuals should be members of political parties before being allowed to make donations on more than the most modest of scales. It is surely only acceptable for someone to write out a six-figure cheque – or even a seven figure cheque – to a party if they strongly support its policies. Otherwise, the suspicion has to be that they are seeking either simony or bespoke legislation.
Let the political affiliations of both trade union executive members and board members of companies that make political donations be contained in the relevant annual reports. Most trade unionists don’t keep it a secret, so business people shouldn’t either.
If members of unions that donate to the Labour Party consciously have to opt in to the political levy, company donations – which are no longer the exclusive province of the Tories, remember – should be subject to similar strictures. Let shareholders have the vote … and the right to opt out.
The democratic left should oppose any further extention of state funding, and examine ways of scaling back of the existing provisions. There is a democratic principle at stake here. It just is not the job of the taxpayer to foot the bills for political parties.
There are plenty of existing laws against allowing considerations of personal gain to influence the performance of public office. Yet in all the decades of Tory and New Labour sleaze, only Aitken and Archer have actually done time.
Let’s just say that a fair chunk of those who have served in successive Blair cabinets should at least be looking at 40 hours of community service, to put it mildly. But then – as we have seen openly admitted this week – upholding the rule of law is not necessarily the number one priority of Blairism.
<<Go back
Comments
7 Responses to “Clean politics: open goal for the democratic left”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
Has anyone been following the Smith Institute expose on Guido Fawkes? It’s apparent that Brown’s little think tank has been funnelling money from big business (EMI being one example mentioned) to the Labour Party or some other Brownite organisation.
So Dave’s point about openness is absolutely key here. I particularly like the idea of company shareholders having a vote – how many company execs would push for a £1m donation to the Tories or Labour if it was subject to scrutiny… like “what do we get in return?”
I used to support state funding of parties to do away with the advantage pro-business parties enjoyed, but I’m now against it completely. State funding is usually linked to established parties rather than fringe parties and entrenches the status quo.
I’d also ban MPs from working anywhere else – whether the courts or their own companies. Nobody else can get away with this kind of moonlighting so why should they?
Agree with your key points Dave though I don’t think state funding – properly organised with a set of transparent rules – is such a bad idea. And maybe one reason McDonnell has said nothing is that, many moons ago, Labour Herald, of which he was an editor, was subsidised and largely controlled by the Workers Revolutionary Party, which was taking cash from Libya.
We-eee-ll … fair points, Paul. But but but …
State funding for political parties? And you a libertarian and everything? I just don’t think it fits, gut-feeling wise.
I mean, to the extent that MPs have to maintain offices because constituents want to gripe that the council is falling down on maintaining streetlighting, I suppose so.
But why should *the taxpayer* – and I hate to come over all Daily Mail-ish here – pay for the political activities of what are in essence voluntary organisations?
I pay Labour Party dues because I have elected to do so. Why should my tax dollar go to fund the Tories? UKIP? Respect? The BNP?
As for McDonnell … remind me of the chronology again. In the feverish atmosphere that was the Labour left circa 1981, freeloading off a Trot group was par for the course.
But did anybody know *at the time* that the WRP was an extension of Tripoli’s foreign policy?
Dave,
I have an argument on how state funding of political parties can promote political decentralisation – here.
http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-state-funding-for-political.html
I’d also argue that decentralisation is a practical and popular demand that all libertarian socialists could unite around.
1. I’m not a great enthusiast for state funding for political parties, but there are ways it can be done – write in your support at election time etc – that are at least survivable.
2. You need to ask McDonnell about Labour Herald and the WRP cash. My understanding is that the WRPies, Ken and he launched LH precisely when the subsidy was at its height, that it was one of the vile Gerry Healy’s pet projects, and that no one asked any questions.
3. The suspicion that the WRP was getting dodgy cash from abroad was widespread in the early 1980s, not least because of the craven propaganda it put out for Saddam (until the start of the war against Iran) and Gaddafi. But the shit hit the fan big-time only in 1985, as I remember, when rather a lot of documents made the public sphere.
Paul,
Tut tut tut, I’d be careful throwing around these sorts of accusations if I were you. Both Ken and Ted Knight won rather a substantial amount of dosh when they launched libel action against accusations involving Libyan Gold.
Given these sorts of accusations have been proven false in a court of law, perhaps you want to think rather carefully about retracting potentially libellous allegations…?
Harry
‘you need to ask’, ‘my understanding is’, ‘the suspicion that’???