So Peter Hain spent over £100,000 to finish fifth out of six for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. Presumably much went on mailings to electors. I've seen no figures of money spent in the LibDem leadership election, but the beaten candidate, Chris Huhne, must have spent far more than the victor, judging by the number of his glossy leaflets posted to me. In the US vast sums are being raised and spent, but I see that no-hoper Hucklebee has raised very little but still managed to win states in the Bible Belt. The moral seems to be that money doesn't necessarily win votes.
The more important issue, however, is this. Why do rich people give so much money to politicians or political parties? No doubt some do for the same reasons as they give to charities - genuine compassion/belief or publicity - but others, particularly those who try to conceal their identity, because they seek influence. Am I too cynical in suggesting that they are acting - successfully it seems - to preserve their tax privileges?
So Menzies Campbell, the one I voted for, has gone. I think he would have done well had an Election come now; his maturity and decency would have contrasted favourably with the shallowness of Cameron and his band of Old Etonians. But in two or three year’s time? More important than the leadership, however, is defining, in terms of basic issues of today’s politics, what Liberal Democrats are for. There are three areas for attack on the Labour-Conservative consensus:
1. Taxes. Taxation is not an unnecessary burden but what we pay for the basic structures of society – health, education, roads, policing, etc – and the means towards a fairer more equitable society. We buy these things just as we buy food and clothing and shelter. And just as we want efficiency in the production of food and clothing and shelter so we want efficiency in the collection and use of taxes. Inheritance Tax is efficient and reduces inequality.
2. Europe. Membership of the EU doesn’t diminish British influence in the world but enhances it. The EU has more clout than any individual country of the 27. The new Treaty (not a constitution) facilitates more positive European contributions to world peace, happiness and prosperity. For example, the European Parliament will be able to demand changes to the CAP and so cut poverty in other continents.
3. Personal Freedoms. These must be protected from erosion in the name of security. Terrorists win if we lose freedoms. Does not the potential misuse of ID cards outweigh potential benefits? Are the police under adequate control? Do religious bigots have too much influence on legislation and public policy?