Unconditional Public Finnance, my proposal on how to rejuvenate British democracy.

I wrote this ages ago, thought it'd make a good start to my blog. I'll write a new one some time to expand upon my views on how to extend democracy.

How can voting reform rejuvenate British democracy?

Ther are many problems with the current British electoral system. Many analyists point to it as the root of political apathy, but they then point to proportional representation as the answer. In this, they are misstaken.

First Past the Post in its current form is inadequate, since it is unrepresentative of

the choices of the electorate. Advocates of PR argue that the answer is to

ensure that the number of seats a party gets directly reflects the number of votes

it receives. This would indeed be a better means of representing each party, but, a major dissadvantage is that the link between voters and their MP's is weakened, and each vote is cast almost soley on the basis of party alligiance only. Who in the 21^st century can find themselves in total agreement with everything Blair, Cameron or Menzies Campbell puts in their party manifesto? A party centred system is one in which the tiny oligarchies at the top of each party are the main beneficiaries.

Funding too is a nightmare. The fact that the government can receive "loans" for the party, allegedly in return for peerages is just one case of a fundamentally flawed funding system. Corporations are thus able to gain a say in dictating party policy, and can claim government support for their activities. The introduction of PR alone does not address this problem.

Of course, there is always the possibility of publicly funding all political parties. But how? Do we give every party funding on the basis of how many votes it has received?in the previous election? This is the most popular proposal. The only foreseeable consequence of this would be to increase the stranglehold of big parties, and perhaps create a dominant party system, where one party only stood any real chance of victory. This would breed more apathy. Hardly a mechanism for rejuvenating British democracy. Futhermore, what happens when a new party is formed? George Galloway argues for this sytem of public funding, but if it had been used in 2005, his RESPECT coalition would have got nothing, as his party did not exist in the previous election, and consequently would be hard pressed to get any vote at all.

Or, could we give every party equal funding? Not really. Any search on the electoral register will show just how many parties are contending the election, at least three hundred last general election, and it must be considered, many more would do so, given the chance of public finance. The bureaucracy involved would be immense.

How then can UPF rejuvenate British democracy? Essentially, every candidate would receive an equal grant from the state, plus the right to free resources, such as a local radio broadcast and newspaper coverage. Should the candidate fail to gain 2.5% in the election, they would be obliged to repay their grant, as an alternative to the deposit system used today. In order to aid poorer candidates the deadline for repayment could be based on the income of the candidate. All other sources of funding would be forbidden.

Of course, people might be a little cautious about the impact public finance would have on their taxes. However, the sums of money are relatively insignificant. While it is impossible to give exact figures, the average cost to the taxpayer would probably be measured in pennies. Furthermore, some of this cost could be met by reducing MP's wages. This would have the added benefit of discouraging people from standing in order to gain a higher paid job as an MP, thus further reducing costs.

UPF could also be seen as risking apathy, since political campaigns, with less money, would become more low-key. However, apathy is currently caused by a lack of choice and dissatisfaction with party leaders. UPF tackles these two problems. By encouraging more candidates, it increases choice. Furthermore, public information broadcasts could inform voters of where to find information on their candidates' views. Ultimately, the only reason why people should not vote, under a UPF system, would not be dissatisfaction with their lack of choice, but a lack of interest in the whole political process. Many people who do not vote are not disinterested in the political process; they just see the main parties as unrepresentative of their views.

The ability of UPF to rejuvenate British democracy is considerable. Essentially, a level playing field is created. With every party standing an equal chance, why should the electorate need to vote tactically? Furthermore, an independent candidate would have the same opportunities as a party candidate. This would ensure that no one felt that a vote for their favoured candidate was wasted and would create more choice for the electorate.

There are deeper implications for British democracy too. UPF will tackle the second cause of apathy, disillusionment with party leadership. Tony Benn recently asserted that, "The first duty of an MP is to his conscience, the second to his constituents, the last is to his party". The tendency to toe the party line among many MPs is dangerous. When the votes on the Iraq war and tuition fees were narrowly passed, did any serious political observer really think that all Labour MPs who did not rebel were voting with their consciences? With no fear of a loss of funding, UPF would make MPs freer to deviate from their party line, should they wish to do so. The only concern would be the wishes of their constituents. Compare this to PR, where an MP's voting patterns may well reflect upon their rank within a party list and thus their chances of re-election. Under PR, the public vote for a list of candidates, so the link between constiutents and their MP's is very low.

Finally, the problems we now see over allegations of corrupt financing, such as loans for peerages would be overcome, since there would be one simple law over finance - candidates must only use what the state provides. Legal disputes would be easily resolved, and scope for illegal financing severely limited, in a loophole-free system.

How would we choose a prime minister, if the electoral system were no longer party centred? Rather than the leader of the largest party automatically gaining the post, a parliamentary vote could be held. Parliament would thus be transformed into a body of freely acting MPs, whose first master would be the electorate. There would still be failings, and many votes would still be wasted, but UPF promises to produce greater choice for the voter, equality between candidates, freedom of conscience for the MP and tackles problems of illicit fundraising and corruption. UPF is therefore, the best means by which to rejuvenate British democracy.