13 Comments on The begining of the end of the party?

Political parties & active citizens – Local Democracy on Thu, 18th Jun 2009 12:25 pm


[...] a good post from Matthew Taylor’s blog discussing what political parties need to do to survive: We need a funding system which is fair, [...]

william perrin on Thu, 18th Jun 2009 1:38 pm


some part of the future for the political parties can be found in the huge communities springing up on the internet around common sets of interests.

They are not old-fashioned NGOs, in many cases not even organisations, but are collectives of tens or hundreds of thousands of people who all share a common interest. the organisations are often manifest in a huge discussion forums with hundreds of thousands or millions of posts. big communities of people enthusiastically contributing to debate and feeling a common sense of belonging.

few of these groups have ‘politicised’ and indeed might not keep their user base with them if they did. but some campaigns have emerged. we have also seen the far right allegedly trying to subvert discussion in forums to create the ‘british jobs for britsh workers’ refinery disputes last year.

there must be something in why these groups work that could talk to the future of traditional political parties, especially now that the sheer physical organising that parties used to be essential for can now be done on the internet by a handful of people.

Max Hogg on Thu, 18th Jun 2009 8:41 pm


William your discussion of internet-based communities reminded me of a question I wanted to ask in the debate but didn’t manage to.

I want to vote green because climate change is the most important issue we face, and because I think our next leap of progress will be through ushering in an era of sustainable development. I want to vote labour because I identify with that party’s commitment to values of solidarity and equality. I want to vote conservative because I identify with that party’s belief in enterprise and the ingenuity of the human spirit.

My particular mix of views may or may not be unusual. But the poor fit between my own views and the politics of any one party is not at all unusual – this is one of the major reasons why new internet-based political communities have sprung up.

Matthew you have focused on the form of political parties, and particularly on their funding arrangements – an important debate. But, like Denis McShane I think we also need to debate the content of the politics of the future.

So my question is this – can we hope to have political parties that are sufficiently broad coalitions to bring the benefits that Chris Huhne and others highlight (not least a strong brand identity) and at the same time have political parties that can speak to much more diverse, complex sets of political views such as those exemplified by internet-based communities?

The Democratic Presidential election campaign in the USA would seem to suggest that we can have these broad tent political parties. Are we seeing in Obama’s campaign the renewal of political parties, or a very clever but short-lived ‘promise all things to all people’ approach that will inevitably disappoint?

Max

matthewtaylor on Fri, 19th Jun 2009 9:03 am


Thanks William. I think this points to the American model of parties as basically holding organisations that build coalitions to fight campaigns. The Republicans were dominant not because they built the party but because every few years they mobilised the combined forces of evangelicals, gun owners, anti-abortionists etc. The problems with this, for me, is where in this system do we discuss the trade offs between different social priorities? Don’t we end up with a shrill consumerist politics of special interest demands.

matthewtaylor on Fri, 19th Jun 2009 9:06 am


Thanks Max – see my comments to William on this. I still put my faith in reformed parties – but when I look at my old Party I recognize it is blind faith!

ad on Fri, 19th Jun 2009 7:33 pm


What are most Party members (other than the candidates) there for?

I can think of three useful roles for the membership:

1) Campaigning for the Parties candidates.
2) Keeping the Party hierarchy informed about public opinion.
3) Policy research and advice.

The first of these functions in essentially advertising, and can be done through the mass and electronic media. It is not obvious to me that there is any advantage to the public in inceasing the resources spent by the Parties on this advertising, even if the advertising is done by people pounding pavements rather than TV ads.

The second can be more effectively done by focus groups, polling etc. The opinions of any Parties grassroots certainly differ greatly from those of the majority of the electorate.

The third job certainly is important, but this is an argument for the state funding of think tanks, not state funding of political parties.

matthewtaylor on Sat, 20th Jun 2009 12:26 pm


It may be wishful thinking but I think parties could have an important role to play in civil society as organisations that engage both in direct interventions to make society better and also communicating with their leaders about how policy should change to enable more progress. One of the most effective small groups have been n was a Labour governors group (in Leamington Spa) – we discussed policy with councilors and experts but also agreed direct interventions that we would make to improve local schools.

ad on Sat, 20th Jun 2009 2:12 pm


Why would any such organisation be made more effective by existing inside, rather than outside, an existing Party?

To do any good , it must be honest, and involvement in politics is notoriously destructive of honesty.

Denis Cooper on Sat, 20th Jun 2009 2:54 pm


I’m thinking, apropos of all political parties – it’s your party, so you pay for it; if your party is so unattractive that it can’t survive on voluntary donations from its supporters, let it wither and die; don’t expect the taxpayer to subsidise your party; and

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6539450.ece

STOP STEALING FROM THE TAXPAYER.

John Moss on Sun, 21st Jun 2009 8:22 am


You say that Labour MPs suffer a tremendous disadvantage because they haven’t as much money to spend as Tory candidates funded by money raised by Ashcroft’s team and as a consequence, there should be more state funding. There are two things wrong with this.

First, sitting MPs have £10,000 a year to spend on “Communications”. Checkout the expenses and you will see those workhorses of political campaigning being bought with this cash by many MPs – Risographs, Paper, Ink, Folding Machines, Letter Inserters.

As Any Fule No, these are running 70-80% of the time on local political campaigning, not Parliamentary business. So candidates, as opposed to incumbents, are already at a £10,000 a year disadvantage.

Secondly, what happenned to democracy? If a party cannot raise funds, then it clearly has not got popular support. When Blair was rolling in Sainsbury’s cash, there seemed to be less of an issue about Millionaire funding. Now the boot is on the other foot the wailing starts about fairness.

The Tories are raising more money from more people. It is not all coming from Ashcroft – easy though that particular demonisation is right now – in fact he personally funds a very small proportion of the Paries’ costs. That there are many people out there willing to support the party withcash as well as their vote is another form of democracy.

If a party cannot raise the cash and goes bust, so be it. There is no automatic right for a party to survive and it is not the role of the State to cushion parties from their failures.

We did that with businesses in the latter half of the twentieth centruy and as a consequence have no ship-building, steel or coal industries left because they became political footballs beholden to Government, not driven by their customers needs. If you cushion political parties that way, they will remain remote and aloof from people and people will vote for extreme and protest parties like the BNP and UKIP.

matthewtaylor on Tue, 23rd Jun 2009 7:02 am


Hi. It’s important to distinguish between politics and Parties. Politics exists wherever groups of people have to make decisions; it’s an essential human activity. As for Parties I think we need them in one form or another but they urgently need to reform as institutions.

matthewtaylor on Tue, 23rd Jun 2009 7:10 am


OK Denis. But if we have a national democracy we need parties. If we need parties they have to be funded. If one party can spend a lot more than another it is better able to communicate with the voters so parties will try to maximise their incomes. If parties don’t get money from the state they will turn to other sources such as trade unions, rich people or companies but – as we have seen – this then arouses public suspicion about the motives of the donors. I think parties should have a strict speeding cap and that we should ban activities that do nothing to inform us (principally bill board advertising) but in the end I would rather parties compete on a level playing field using a small amount of taxpayers money than the richest party has a major advantage and that our politics is funded by those who have dubous or self interested motives.

matthewtaylor on Tue, 23rd Jun 2009 7:18 am


Thanks for the comment John. I take your point about MPs’ resources although many people have told me the Conservatives are outspending their opponents. I have given some of my thoughts on party funding (which I have always supported whatever Labour’s fortunes; I wrote a pamphlet about it back in 2003) to Denis below. There are some suggestions out there to try to ensure that Party funding rewards activism. One is that voters should have a box to tick at election time stating that they are willing for a small amount of their tax to go to a designated party. Some voters might vote for Party (a) but allocate their funding to Party (b), which they may think as being more active in the community. Another idea is that party funding should be related to the number of people paying membership dues.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!