Save the Labour Party
My attention has just been drawn to your request
for submissions on Party funding for the Inquiry being undertaken
by the Constitutional Affairs Committee.
STLP represents individuals and Constituency
Labour Parties committed to restoring the Labour Party as a democratically
run membership organisation. Our secretary, Dr Gaye Johnston,
was featured in the Guardian newspaper G2 section on Friday 7
April. Elaine Smith MSP and myself, who are members of STLP, are
also members of the Labour Commission on Accountability, Party
and Parliamentary Democracy, which is also examining these issues.
STLP has a clear position on party funding arising
from submissions made by some of our members to the Electoral
Commission inquiry in 2003, and believes strongly that our democracy
would be better served if professional politicians were able to
recognise that membership of political parties is a leading indicator
of success.
www.savethelabourparty.org/partyfunding.html
www.savethelabourparty.org/news19.html
Our national committee met on Saturday 8 April
and agreed to make a submission to your inquiry. We intend to
demonstrate among other things that the 21st century Labour Party
could be funded from membership fees, small donations and affiliation
fees. We consider this financial modelling is crucial to your
committee's deliberations.
There is, however, a need across the political
spectrum in our society to recognise that political party membership
needs to be encouraged.
This will take strong, ethical leadership, time
and possibly state-administered financial incentives.
STLP is sympathetic to the support extended
by the Electoral Commission to the state (ie taxpayers) supporting
state funding for political party donations (including membership
dues) up to a total of £200 per annum per individual to promote
local party development. Similarly, STLP supports the sentiment
of the recommendation of the PoWEr Inquiry to encourage local
party development through a ballot paper check box. Although we
are opposed to the precise mechanism chosen, in view of the civil
liberties issues posed, which would enable voting preferences
to be linked explicitly to named individuals in a much more transparent
way than the current administration of voting.
Peter Kenyon
March 2006
| 
