Would state funded political parties sort it out?

Last night on BBC1’s Question Time (from Salisbury 17/9/26), Fiona asked the audience if they would be in favour of the state funding of political parties. A sea of hands.

 

But this seems to me a terrible idea.

 

I don’t want yet another tax to support proposals which I think would be disastrous.

 

And I’m not sure why we think the state would be any less corrupt, in its own way, than the status quo. The light of transparency is probably the best disinfectant. Let people and the people choose to whom they wish to give their money and their vote. If people really care about huge donations by individuals, it is open to them to give a little in their millions to support that politics which they want, as many people already support the Labour party via Trade Unions, though perhaps there’s more to say there.

 

Let’s not have the blob policing who can challenge the blob. There would of course be an enormous incentive for the established parties to disadvantage new entrants. The centre would always tend to favour itself and think it was doing the right thing, because they are the good right-thinking people, and the foolish ignorant public ought to know better. We should trust the political class to get on with it. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Perhaps your interactions with the state fill you with confidence about its efficiency?

 

I would love to see arguments made for a limited state and a free society.

 

“This is a problem, the state must solve it” is a mindset which infantilises us. Sometimes we have to live with the imperfect. And we should be sceptical that tax and spend will sort things out.

 

If the state stayed in its lane, perhaps we could manage sufficient defence spending, policing and criminal justice, which by common consent are currently a bit of a joke. We could consider being able to have ships at sea, and troops we could train and deploy. We may want a nuclear deterrent that is known to work. We could catch many of the bad guys, bring them to trial in a timely fashion, and make sure that they can serve their sentences.

 

A smaller state might allow for the flourishing of families and a big society. For schools and charities. For voluntary associations of all kinds which look to the common good of their places and people. The wisdom of the village might prove greater than that of the lanyarded committee from Whitehall.