George Monbiot (Billionaires bought Brexit, 13 July) explains how a few donors dominate the funding of political parties and influence their actions corruptly. The close link between the contributions and actions is caused by the increasing centralisation of power in recent decades. Local government has become almost totally dependent on funding and directives from national government. This is magnified by the unrepresentative electoral system. In the election of 2015, the Tories obtained 36.8% of the votes and 50.8% of the seats, enough to give it quasi-dictatorial powers for the next five years. Whipping in parliament means that in practice this power is concentrated in the hands of the cabinet, and in reality with a small group of key ministers in it. So very few people need to be persuaded by wealthy interest groups.
One clear example is how the Tories introduced a major reform of the NHS in 2010 which had not been part of its manifesto and which has resulted in its increasing privatisation to the benefit of private health companies. These had contributed a substantial fraction of its funds in the three preceding years. Another is the ongoing privatisation of the state school system, which has largely removed local control of schools and created a new set of contributors to the Conservative party. Reform of party funding has to be complemented by decentralisation of power and a change in the electoral system if it is to be effective.
George Roussopoulos
Hindhead, Surrey
George Monbiot fails to mention the effect of distorted funding in Scotland. The Weir family, who won approximately £160m on the EuroMillions lottery, provided the vast majority of the Yes campaign’s funding in the run-up to the Scottish referendum, with very little coming from grassroots donors. It was almost a case of buy a country on Camelot. Their funding probably also had a significant bearing on the SNP’s success in both the general and Scottish elections. It is time for a crackdown on elections and campaigns being subject to such disproportionate funding.
Bob Floyd
Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute
The cash of political donors secures them access to more than politicians. The media prominence of Arron Banks, the Brexit campaign’s biggest financial donor, continues after the referendum. Recently, I’ve heard him being interviewed several times as if he was a politician.
Dr Alex May
Manchester
George Monbiot is right that money corrupts our political system. His remedy is apt: “Each party would be allowed to charge the same fee for membership – a modest amount, perhaps £20. The state would then match this, at a fixed ratio… There would be no other funding for political parties.” Great.
Let’s go one democratic step further. Instead of the plethora of one-sided leaflets distributed in elections, suppose that one booklet, published by the Electoral Commission, setting out the national election manifestos of the parties, were to be distributed to every household. Suppose that a second booklet were to accompany it, one for each constituency, giving a profile of the candidates and a list of the places around the constituency where public hustings are scheduled. No other leaflets, no banal posters – just factual statements delivered to every elector enabling them to decide on the basis of promised policies and candidates’ perceived qualities for whom to vote. Yes, a democratic approach to elections!
Michael Bassey
Newark, Nottinghamshire
Of course, as George Monbiot points out, British politics is hopelessly corrupt but not only because of the malign intentions of billionaires: there has always been a substratum ready to seize on any opportunity to victimise minorities designated as fair game by the wealthy. As prime minister, Margaret Thatcher was at first seen by the electorate as an amateurish eccentric who reduced British cities to riot-torn ruin, but as soon as he she used state violence to smash the miners and the Argentinians and began selling state-owned houses to supporters, while guaranteeing they would then inflate in value, she became a respected national figure.
The referendum was lost, not on the complex economics of the issue but by offering an opportunity to deport hated foreigners while continuing the bribery of unearned property income. Do you honestly think that if Enoch Powell had been able to offer a referendum on forcibly repatriating West Indians at the time of the Rivers of Blood speech there would be any left in this country now?
DBC Reed
Northampton