Money and politics. There’s a combination that goes together like clouds and rain. It’s difficult to conceive of one without the other. Money doesn’t guarantee success, but it does tip the balance in the favour of those who have it. If a political party is out of sync with the voters, then piling on the pounds will barely tip the scales. Same is true if a candidate’s credibility is in the pan. What money does in the run up to elections is summed up in three points.
One. It is used to influence the climate of opinion. Journalists are a fickle bunch. Raining issues down on them and pushing hard gets lots of coverage. Having a team of fresh thinkers drafting speeches and doing research (hard graft) means arguments can be placed for maximum impact. Volunteers can be superb. Trouble is there’s never enough of them to go around.
Two. Professionalising campaigns. British politics, at a local level, is renowned for its amateurism. In so many ways that’s a wonderful situation. Petty reveries, few ancient but dedicated leafleteers, committee rooms with dry rot, out of date records of voting intentions, a dream, never fulfilled, that a bigwig’s visit is just around the corner, all that and more. Money does afford the recruitment of motivated campaign managers and organisers who know how to get a message out and follow-up on voters’ concerns.
Three. Pure swagger. Saying that a new candidate will never win here, is not from around here or is an accidental choice of a struggling local committee, they can all be pushed aside. Money allows even the most desperate, disorganised, dishevelled individual to be bigged-up. Confident candidates, with adoring supporters run the full distance, whatever the inevitable knocks. Money is great for maintaining momentum and papering over the cracks.
It’s interesting to note that none of the above means that a constituency gets a better Members of Parliament at the end of the process. However, if all the candidates on the ballot have access to some of the above then local voters do get a wider choice.
On the basis that no political party will ever win all the seats in the House of Commons, targeting has become the number one strategy. Only expend resources where they may best produce positive results. That can be 300-400 parliamentary constituencies, all with their idiosyncratic issues and 70,000 voters poised to put a cross in a box. A third of them will not bother with the entire process.
So, what’s the problem with money? Well, that depends what you hold in your heart about liberal democracy. Afterall the ideals of democracy are played out in a fraction of the 200 or so, sovereign countries across the globe.
My view is that all citizens should be eligible to put themselves forward for election to a political post. The pool should be as wide as possible. Naturally, there are a few exceptions, jail being one of the more notable. In standing for election there should be a reasonable level playing field. Ideally, it’s effort, ideas and talent that should win the day. Not piles of cash or undue influence.
For the voters, it’s come as you are. I lament when hearing of candidates trying to change minds on the doorstep with nothing but a metaphorical pea shooter and tendency to take the moral high ground. There are difficult issues to address. Where vast amounts of money can be destructive is where they used to shift the climate of opinion onto subject that are far away from the ones that really count. The major topics of education, health, employment, tax, and spending should never be marginalised. I’d even add transport to that list.
Vast sums thrown about by wealthy people distort that level playing field. That’s not right.
John Vincent 