We found that all parties would see their annual income fall but those which attract more small donations from ordinary people (such as from a large membership base) would fall the least. We modelled an annual maximum donation at this level (in other words, an annual maximum donation equivalent to one month’s disposable income for a person on minimum wage). Such a person would have a monthly disposable income of £65 (albeit based on the cost of living in 2021). It is, of course, possible that this may lead to a cap of £0 – but we do not see tying politicians’ prospects of receiving donations to their ability to alleviate absolute poverty as a bad thing.Īs an (illustrative only) exercise, my team modelled a cap based on the income of a single person working full-time on minimum wage. The Electoral Commission would be given the power to determine the precise level of the cap based on the principle that the maximum donation must be affordable for every member of society. The cap would include any payment in any form and be accompanied by a ban on donations from “non-natural” persons (preventing circumvention of the rules by funnelling payments through companies or unincorporated associations). Income from donations would reflect a party’s genuine appeal to voters rather than their amenability to a few rich individuals. This means that everyone would be able to afford to donate the maximum amount. We propose a simple solution: cap all political donations at a level the poorest can afford. Economic inequality may be inevitable (even necessary) in a capitalist system, but political power must flow from the consent of all the governed, not just the rich 0.01%. Reforms must, therefore, focus on the fundamental issue – some people can exert outsize influence simply by having the means to make bigger donations. Both received extensive press coverage and many of their talking points have been picked up by mainstream politicians. “Reclaim” (primarily a vehicle for culture wars) was funded by just 24 individuals that year. “Reform UK” (a “hard Brexit” party) received 76% of its 2019 spending from a single donor. This elite group receives privileged access to the people in power and can determine which party has the funds to win or even compete. Around 20% of all donations come from just 10 men. Donors represent less than 0.01% of the population. The average donation is around £18,000, more than a worker on minimum wage earns in a year. In 2019 the winning party spent around £16m, outstripping its nearest rival by £4m. The party with the most money generally wins more elections. The Covid-19 public inquiry is a historic chance to find out what really happened. A small number of ultra-rich donors can thus decide which politicians and parties succeed and which fail. The real issue is structural – our current system forces political parties to rely on donations. Ministers blocked weapons sales to Ukraine against the advice of army chiefs. More than £1m from donors with interests in fossil fuels correlates with authorisations for new oil exploration in the North Sea and (despite the “net zero” rhetoric) and the highest fossil-fuel subsidies in the G20.Ĭorrelation is not causation and a focus on individual policies risks missing the bigger picture. During that time “the UK government… actively avoided looking for evidence that Russia interfered ”. From 2010 to 2019 the governing party received £3.5m from Russian-linked donors. New laws made it easier for developers to get projects approved (even against opposition from local people) and inflated the cost of housing. They received indirect subsidies of around £50bn during the same period. Property developers gave more than £60m between 20. Our analysis, based on reporting by openDemocracy, charts a correlation between donations to the governing party and favourable government policy. The last 12 months alone have seen revelations in the Pandora Papers (special access to the prime minister for high-level donors), cash for honours (“once you pay your £3m, you get your peerage”), and Russian donations (to name but a few). The BBC keeps a running list of scandals going back to the early 1990s. The Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research’s new report sets out a simple remedy: cap all political donations at a level affordable to the poorest. Every few weeks sees a new political donations scandal.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |