I would like to lend my support to Polly Toynbee in her call for state funding of political parties (Without state funding, Britain’s politics will always stink, 15 February). It is surely straight corruption that money can buy you privileged access to ministers and policymakers, preferment in appointments to public bodies and even a peerage. Why are those engaged in these activities not charged with corruption in public office?
All big money must be taken out of politics. No business, bank or financial institution should be allowed to donate to a party, and that includes trade unions. All thinktanks and policy institutions should be required by law to name all their sources of finance, however small.
I suggest that at all elections that have political parties on the ballot paper, voters are given a voucher that they can donate to any of the parties. This would have two enormously beneficial effects. First, it would encourage voting, as there would be a real incentive with the feeling of having some power over the democratic process. Second, it would make political parties engage with large sections of the electorate that they usually ignore and hopefully be more responsive to public concerns. Democracy is for all the people, not just the rich and well-connected.
Dr Peter Estcourt
South Chailey, East Sussex
• I disagree with Polly Toynbee – backroom deals will not be eliminated by nationalising the funding of political parties. The real issue is strengthening the rules relating to party donations, and then ensuring that they are properly enforced so that we can all see who gives what to whom, and with what end in mind.
We should not be surprised that in past times Unite gave money in the hope and expectation that, for example, a national minimum wage or health and safety legislation would be introduced. And equally predictably, hedge fund managers might be attracted to a party planning to reduce the burden of regulation on financial markets. Where it becomes murkier is when money changes hands off the record, breaking the chain between donors and desired outcomes.
Les Bright
Exeter, Devon
• Polly Toynbee raises an important issue, but it is marred when she says that “Labour was always over-reliant on power-wielding union leaders” and talks of them “wielding their money bags”. The Labour party came into existence as the voice of the trade union movement, and trade union funding has always been the main source of its finances, supplemented by donations from individual socialists and socialist societies.
Labour party policy was and is decided by its annual conferences. There was little occasion until after 1945 for there to be major differences between the policies supported by the trade unions at the TUC and those supported by the Labour conference. However, the 1918 Labour constitution had provided a second route for conference delegates by creating local constituency branches. It also committed Labour to socialist objectives that became a cause of conflict between the left and right of the party.
Labour party history since 1945 is complicated, but the implication that the trade union movement has no right to use its financial contributions to influence Labour policy ignores the fact that the party was founded to promote the interests of the working class, and the trade unions are still its voice.
Margaret Morris
London
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
