Peter Jackson column

Apr 27 2006 By Peter Jackson, The Journal

There is nothing remarkable about businesspeople giving money to political parties.

The worlds of politics and business have always been close and the bigger the State gets, the closer they will become.

However, giving money to a political party is not acceptable - or indeed legal - if it is done in exchange for a seat in the legislature. Not that I'm implying for one moment that that is what has been happening.

But clearly something not quite right has been going on, hence the embarrassment of all the politicians. And hence them saying: "Because we've been up to something that's not quite right, and because you've caught us at it, and because you've come over all priggish about it, we're now going to take our party funding out of your taxes."

Commentators have been groping for an analogy to describe this extraordinary argument, but none of them - including myself - can truly rise to the occasion and can only fall back on terms such as "daylight robbery" and "bare-faced cheek".

Part of the justification for the parties sticking their hands in our pockets is that elections are such a pricey business. What with all the expensive hair-dos, fancy dress, makeup and chameleon cartoons, you hardly get change out of £40m these days.

There is, however, another solution, and that is to cap election expenditure at a level much lower than what the parties currently spend.

It would also help them live within these reduced means if we banned party political broadcasts, which take up a good chunk of the money.

Have you ever met anyone who likes party political broadcasts, who stays in at night to watch them or asks their mum to record them?

It could mean that during elections politicians would have to tour the country, meeting voters, making speeches and forming reasoned arguments.

It could mean that individual MPs would not be so beholden to their cash-rich parties.

This in turn could mean having more independent MPs who vote according to conscience or the national interest.

It might mean that political parties would be so weakened that businesspeople would hardly think it worth their while to bribe them any more.