Two thoughts sprang immediately to mind when I sat down to write this week’s column. The first was that, if dinner with David Cameron is worth two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, lunch with me must be worth at least a fiver. The second, more importantly, was that the issue of party funding must surely once again be thrust to the centre of political debate: and that that debate raises more difficult questions for Labour than it does for the Conservatives.

For starters, the Conservatives can credibly point out that they have behaved no worse and no better than any political party in British political history. For the entirety of recorded time, political parties have needed money to fight and win elections, and for the entirety of history, governing parties have used the trappings of power to secure donations, whether that be Walpole handing out positions in local government or Harold Wilson’s Lavender List. Unless you have state funding – itself a politically big ask and morally dubious policy decision in an era of spending restraint – then you are going to have abuses of power and the uncomfortable reality of donors handing over money for influence or perceived influence.

The issue of cash for influence, however, puts Labour in a rather more uncomfortable position. Can Labour credibly claim that a single solitary dinner is a comparable level of influence to one-third of the electoral college? Is there a political argument against big business giving money to the Conservatives that isn’t an argument against the trade unions giving money to Labour? The immediate partisan response might be to howl with indignation, but if the Labour Party isn’t giving voice to the labour movement, we should consider changing the name, and if it is, then the charge of ‘cash for access’ becomes harder to rebut.

But there’s an existential, not just a political, challenge, for Labour in the wake of this scandal. The most likely end result is that there will be a cap placed on donations to political parties, and that cap will be set by the Conservatives. Labour can engage in an ultimately fruitless debate about the difference between a political levy and a corporate donation, but the Conservatives hold the levers of power. The question for Labour is: how does Labour serve as a functioning political party in an era of capped donations? At present, the damage to Labour could be fatal, a cut in party funding of over 90 per cent. A party that loses nine-tenths of its funding can’t fight and win a general election.

There are reasons for hope as well as despair for progressives, though. The example set in the United States by the Democratic party shows that progressive parties can still fundraise and win elections, even in an environment in which organised labour is not the major financial backer. What that requires, however, is a culture change both within and without the party machine. Not only do individual members need to develop a culture of giving and donating to the party, but the party needs to develop a culture of encouraging and exhorting members to give and to donate. The lesson of the United States indicates that there can be life after spending caps for progressive parties. For Labour, who have closer and stronger cultural and institutional links with the trade unions, that process will be harder, the process more difficult to manage. But if Labour is to be a viable force in the 21st century, the time to begin that process is now.

—————————————————————————————

Stephen Bush is a member of Progress, works as a copywriter, and writes at adangerousnotion.wordpress.com

—————————————————————————————

Photo: The Prime Minister’s Office