A tale of two polities

Today's Irish Times poll suggests that the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is suffering in personal popularity from the constant scrutiny of the tribunals and the media into his tax and financial affairs. Nevetheless, a plurality of voters think he should stay in office, and support for the governing parties has actually risen despite the story dominating the news for weeks. Unlike Peter Hain, whom nobody suggests has gained personally from any of his late-declared donations to his deputy leadership campaign, Bertie received an envelope stuffed with £8000 worth of £50 notes from friendly businessmen to help pay legal bills, which he regarded as 'no big deal', as well as significant other personal loans, while he was finance minister in the 1990s; as a result he had to give lengthy testimony to the Mahon corruption tribunal last year over several days. He has not managed to get a certificate of tax compliancy from the Revenue Commissioners this year. Yet, while the opposition leader Enda Kenny has been regularly calling for his resignation, his own Fianna Fail party and their allies in the Greens and Progressive Democrats, seem happy enough for him to stay on, although Finance Minister Brian Cowan has established himself as the leader-in-waiting, just in case. Bertie's response has been to attack the main Tribunal and his critics, playing the anti-establishment card beloved of the Fianna Fail establishment. But for all Bertie's travails, it is small beer compared to his mentor, the late Charlie Haughey's corrupt lifestyle. And Haughey was well out of politics before he was called to account, when it emerged that he had acquired over £8 million from business donors to finance his personal high-living expenses (which included a mansion and a private island). It does put things into perspective.

Our democracy needs a more honest funding system than this political football

Peter Hain was undoubtedly one of the most talented members of the Brown cabinet. But in the light of the Electoral Commission's decision to refer his late declaration of donations to his deputy leadership campaign to the police, he understandably felt he needed to resign as Work and Pensions Secretary. To a considerable extent, this government has been hoist by the petard of its own stricter rules for transparency. Hain is not the first talented minister to be forced to fall on his sword, and he won't be the last. Transgressions that were commonplace under previous governments - but which remained hidden from scrutiny - lead to regular resignations and media frenzies. Yet few believe that British politics is notably corrupt. Far from it: it is much cleaner than most countries, where the events that excite so much coverage here would be laughed off. Of course, it is right to have a system which seeks to ensure the highest standards of probity. But it should be about doing just that, and not an obstacle course designed to catch out the unwary or distracted politician like some sort of macabre version of musical chairs. It is time to reform the whole business. First, as I have argued before, we should bite the bullet on state funding for political parties. Sanctimonious opponents of change should be honest about just how much is already spent by taxpayers on honing the latest soundbite from David Cameron or sermon by Nick Clegg. And we should look at how much the Electoral Commission is costing taxpayers not to fund political parties. We should then restrict individual donations to £5000, with a lower individual threshold for donations made by agreement with members or shareholders by unions or public companies. We should then ban poster advertising for parties, which are surely nor more a wasteful eyesore. A single Commons and Commission register should proactively be updated every month, with each MP actively reminded to do so. The Tories may be gleeful now, but they will face the same problems if they are ever re-elected. For the sake our democracy, we need to get it right, and quickly.