Why Shouldn't Party Donors Have Knighthoods?
Today's Labour Government is, as we are persistently being told, in turmoil- and not least of which among the reasons is that a scandal has erupted around party funding. The Government is accused of a "Cash for Honours" scenario- where their party donors are rewarded by a place in the Honours List.
The Honours List is an opportunity to reward those who have given great service to their particular field- and by doing so have helped the country in some way. So, the victorious 2003 Rugby World Cup Team were honoured; as have numerous footballers. However the same prestige is given to lollipop ladies who have given decades of service to their local community; headteachers, councillors, charity workers, and many more walks of life besides. Often in amongst these worth folk spring up the names of rich successful business people who can be honoured for "Services to Industry" or the like.
The accusation is, however, that rather than being congratulated and recognised for their "Service to Industry", these people are being honoured for something else- for having given part of their wealth to the government as party donors, and are being directly rewarded with a title. The precedent for the legal investigation that seems to have followed is Maundy Gregory, who in 1925, set up an office where he literally did sell honours to all-comers. An OBE for £100 sounds like a decent deal; it obviously was at the time, too, as 25,000 are reputed to have been sold. This is all a bit silly really though, isn't it? It's hardly the same.
If a rich steel magnate wants to give money to the political party he supports, then good for him. Figures released last week detailing the 25m worth of debt incurred by the last General Election suggests that there could be few causes that would need the money more; and although certainly our hypothetical magnate might expect to hold a bit of sway in return for his contribution, so what? If he's so willing to give money to the cause, he obviously thinks the party to be at least competent; and if so, he probably doesn't expect to gain all that much influence
because of his generosity, else the party themselves wouldn't be worth supporting.
As Marcel Berlins of the Guardian wrote last week, aren't people who give the gift of finance to a political campaign more use to it than people who simply ponce around giving "the gift of rhetoric"? Why should the financial donors be frowned on as though they're engaging in some seedy practise, when in fact they're being genuinely useful? And if money is all they have to give, then who should stop them? You can't just think up millions, they're earned- and it's alot harder to give out cheques with multiple zeroes on them than it is to give out soundbites and verbal support.
Newspapers this month have been busy lauding Warren Buffet, super-billionaire in the classic American mould, who plans to give away his fortue to the Gates Foundation, which, set up by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, gave (for example) $287 in one go for aids vaccines. An excellent cause, one of the most admirable foundations, founded by an incredibly admirable man (Gates) and now supported by another (Buffet).
Would we have liked him so much if he'd been British and given a few of his millions to the Labour party? Philanthropy's a noble and admirable thing- surely an act worthy of a place in the UK Honours List. Yet giving to the political party of your choice has now become a filthy, dirty thing to do.
Certainly post-Cash for Questions and post-Major, it's understandable. But during the discussion over whether parties should be forced to name their donors, it was illuminating to see the dismayed reactions from some donors involved. Some said they would withdraw support after being named- some said they'd have turned down an MBE if it had been offered to them. Perhaps it is these shadey donors who'd rather stay in the dark, pulling strings from behind with their financial muscle, that should be frowned on- not the actual act of giving to a political party.
If you don't want to be named, don't give millions to a party. And if you get honoured for it, all well and good- the Honours system is widely regarded as an archaic one, and the benefit of being honoured is questionable, especially when they're given to someone who has already climbed the slippery pole of British industry. Give them a Knighthood if you want, it's unlikely to make an awful lot of difference! Although it is just conceivable that there may be some Lib Dem donors out there who simply want their names off-record for reasons of pure, simple, unadulterated embarrassment....
The Honours List is an opportunity to reward those who have given great service to their particular field- and by doing so have helped the country in some way. So, the victorious 2003 Rugby World Cup Team were honoured; as have numerous footballers. However the same prestige is given to lollipop ladies who have given decades of service to their local community; headteachers, councillors, charity workers, and many more walks of life besides. Often in amongst these worth folk spring up the names of rich successful business people who can be honoured for "Services to Industry" or the like.
The accusation is, however, that rather than being congratulated and recognised for their "Service to Industry", these people are being honoured for something else- for having given part of their wealth to the government as party donors, and are being directly rewarded with a title. The precedent for the legal investigation that seems to have followed is Maundy Gregory, who in 1925, set up an office where he literally did sell honours to all-comers. An OBE for £100 sounds like a decent deal; it obviously was at the time, too, as 25,000 are reputed to have been sold. This is all a bit silly really though, isn't it? It's hardly the same.
If a rich steel magnate wants to give money to the political party he supports, then good for him. Figures released last week detailing the 25m worth of debt incurred by the last General Election suggests that there could be few causes that would need the money more; and although certainly our hypothetical magnate might expect to hold a bit of sway in return for his contribution, so what? If he's so willing to give money to the cause, he obviously thinks the party to be at least competent; and if so, he probably doesn't expect to gain all that much influence
because of his generosity, else the party themselves wouldn't be worth supporting.
As Marcel Berlins of the Guardian wrote last week, aren't people who give the gift of finance to a political campaign more use to it than people who simply ponce around giving "the gift of rhetoric"? Why should the financial donors be frowned on as though they're engaging in some seedy practise, when in fact they're being genuinely useful? And if money is all they have to give, then who should stop them? You can't just think up millions, they're earned- and it's alot harder to give out cheques with multiple zeroes on them than it is to give out soundbites and verbal support.
Newspapers this month have been busy lauding Warren Buffet, super-billionaire in the classic American mould, who plans to give away his fortue to the Gates Foundation, which, set up by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, gave (for example) $287 in one go for aids vaccines. An excellent cause, one of the most admirable foundations, founded by an incredibly admirable man (Gates) and now supported by another (Buffet).
Would we have liked him so much if he'd been British and given a few of his millions to the Labour party? Philanthropy's a noble and admirable thing- surely an act worthy of a place in the UK Honours List. Yet giving to the political party of your choice has now become a filthy, dirty thing to do.
Certainly post-Cash for Questions and post-Major, it's understandable. But during the discussion over whether parties should be forced to name their donors, it was illuminating to see the dismayed reactions from some donors involved. Some said they would withdraw support after being named- some said they'd have turned down an MBE if it had been offered to them. Perhaps it is these shadey donors who'd rather stay in the dark, pulling strings from behind with their financial muscle, that should be frowned on- not the actual act of giving to a political party.
If you don't want to be named, don't give millions to a party. And if you get honoured for it, all well and good- the Honours system is widely regarded as an archaic one, and the benefit of being honoured is questionable, especially when they're given to someone who has already climbed the slippery pole of British industry. Give them a Knighthood if you want, it's unlikely to make an awful lot of difference! Although it is just conceivable that there may be some Lib Dem donors out there who simply want their names off-record for reasons of pure, simple, unadulterated embarrassment....
Labels: Politics
posted by Matt at 12:47 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home