The Committee for Standards in Public Life, it sounds so stimulating and enthralling does it not?
Well no, of course it doesn't. Well last week the chairman of this committee, Sir Christopher Kelly, released the findings of an inquiry and said that political parties should get squillions of pounds more from the taxpayer, more or less.
You may wish to scorn and jeer at everyone who's got anything at all to do with this, but don't.
Yes, at first glance it does sound like a piece of propaganda dreamt up by those pesky MPs to milk us taxpayers just that little bit more but in fact this proposal could have the effect of changing British politics forever, and no I'm not being melodramatic. If individuals and organisations were to be banned from donating to parties, a measure more extreme than what the committee themselves have recommended, then these parties wouldn't feel the need to be unnecessarily ingratiating to their funders once they get into power, would they?
Don't worry though, money isn't going to be thrown at MPs as if it's going out of fashion, only those political parties with at least two MPs or two representatives at the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies would receive taxpayer funding. This means that fringe parties like UKIP and the BNP wouldn't receive any money, but it's recommended that those who are eligible receive £3 for every vote they get in a General Election over the course of a Parliament.
Currently a private individual or organisation can donate any amount they wish to a political party, the law simply states that the name of anyone who donates more than £7,500 has to be made public. Statistics show that the Conservatives receive the most donations, mostly from wealthy individuals and companies, Labour's donations are mainly from trade unions, although many are again from wealthy individuals, and the Liberal Democrats benefactors are largely individuals who are middle-income earners. This means that both the Conservatives and Labour heavily rely on rich supporters to bankroll their parties and to fund election campaigns.
Now it's pretty darn obvious what motivation those with an absurd amount of money have for donating to political parties: they want the government of the day to be nice to them. And how can a government show its appreciation to its backers? Well by helping them out when they cock-up (the bailouts of RBS, HBOS and Lloyds TSB are the best examples of this), by creating laws that benefit rich property owners and by creating tax loopholes and providing tax breaks for the wealthy. And as the Occupy London protestors will tell you, in between going home to their parents Chelsea mansions (if you believe The Daily Telegraph and Theresa May), not only are successive UK governments disproportionately charming to the rich but they persecute the less well-off. The current coalition government has hiked up tuition fees and slashed funding for disabled people, the NHS, libraries and swimming pools, mental health services and other sections of the public sector that the Tories' rich backers don't really give a rat's behind about.
So what did those in charge of running the country think of Sir Christopher's proposals? Well Labour and Conservative bigwigs couldn't be quicker in revealing how they thought the findings of this inquiry were a load of twaddle, the Tories co-chairman Sayeeda Warsi said that she didn't reckon this was "a wise way for us to be spending taxpayers' money". Which is odd after considering that the average Conservative MP claimed £128,353 for expenses in 2009/10, a somewhat extortionate amount seeing as the average wage in the country over the same period was £25,543. Labour issued a similarly feeble response and mumbled how these initiatives were "not a priority" and so it is only the Liberal Democrats who are excited about these suggestions, but then it would result in them getting a financial windfall.
So while Labour and the Tories thoughtfully want to save taxpayers cash, I disagree with the committee's view that there should be a cap on individual donations of £10,000 and I don't think individuals or companies should be allowed to donate anything at all, taxpayers should wholly subsidise large parties. There will a pretty big bill at the end of it, £81,842,619 over the course of a Parliament, or £16,368,523 annually (if you use the figures from the 2010 election), but ultimately it's worth it.
Sadly though it looks like the findings of this report, which could really have shaken up British politics, are probably going to be forgotten about and tossed away, which is a shame seeing as though so many people are of the opinion that the three main parties are all in gilded beds with their affluent buddies. Politics will never be perfect, parliamentary rules allowing large corporations to spend thousands of pounds entertaining MPs need to be looked at for a start, but these proposals would help make government policies a lot fairer. And while I understand that politics is as complex and unfathomable as Inception (some say it's even more so), I think that sometimes the most obvious path is the best one.