Have they not paid enough?

Obama's fundraising was phenomenal, the amount raised from public donations over the period outstripped anything either Hillary Clinton or John McCain could get with all their contacts; but now the election is over and victory is his its over... or not. The fundraising goes on:

"In the months and years ahead, we're going to accomplish amazing things together. No president has ever had the support of such a powerful grassroots movement, and Barack and Joe will need you to continue fighting alongside them. But before we take the next step, we need to get our house in order. The Democratic National Committee poured all of its resources into building our successful 50-state field program. And they played a crucial role in helping Barack win in unlikely states like North Carolina and Indiana. We even picked up an electoral vote in Nebraska. The DNC took on considerable debt to make this happen. Make a donation of $30 or more now to help the DNC pay for these efforts, and you'll get a commemorative 2008 Victory T-shirt"

Now one would imagine a lot of people are all donated out (pardon the phrase), is it too much to pay more for a 'product' you have already 'bought'. If we do consider the investment many must have made, is not a further $30, T-shirt or no T-shirt, a little too much to ask before any return on that investment is seen. While it may be far better than being funded by buisnesses or shady deals on yachts or with stolen money, is there a limit to how muc people will donate after the big event has come and gone and been won?

Is Labour suffering from the credit crunch?

An interesting item of news is that to raise funds to meet its £24 million debt, and presumably to raise money for a future general election contest, Labour is auctioning off a range of 'prizes money can't buy' such as dinner with the X Factor judges or a game of tennis with Tony Blair. Lord Levy commented to BBC Radio 4 that "I think fundraising is cyclical. People tend to support parties they think is going to win, if they feel a party isn't going to win and are not in tune with where the party is at they tend not to want to support it ... I certainly do think that is what's happening with Labour." But is this the real reason?

Charities around the country are facing funding crises, charity is increasingly seen to begin at home. Now charity donations are usually the result of personal involvement in the charity and their work, experience of breast cancer (first or second hand) is a factor that encourages donation. So one can perhaps see, if giving money independent of the organisation is linked by similar reasons, that the problem for Labour may not simply be perceptions of electoral success but that people are unwilling to give money away. Also, within this context, would be even less likely for money to be given to Labour. Could it be more likely, looking at the polls that there is simply a lack of support for the party or what they claim to strive for? Thus, to me, it would seem more logical to stress the 'not in tune with' issue than the perception they are not going to win as sufficient reason that very few will press the donate button for a party when they are not even prepared to support charities.

Who should pay for party campaigns?

Brown said yesterday that trust is eroded very easily, personally I am not sure there is much trust in him left; his solution reform party funding. While it is a move to distract the agenda, it is also clear that something needs to be done to clean up party funding. The problem currently is that individuals are not meant to gain from donating, so why donate? The long history of donations from Ecclestone to Abrahams suggest that there has been a correlation between making a donation and gaining something in return; despite protestations of coincidence, it all seems too convenient for anyone with a cynical (or realist) perspective. The problem then is how to reform funding.

Discussion on capping donations from individuals is not popular. All the parties have big donors, why who knows we can assume only, but without them the party would be in trouble. So it comes down to the idea that public funds should replace private donations; this is not a vote winner! The electorate may expect a glossy and professional election campaign, but deciding to pay for it at the expense of other services or an increase in taxation is a little like turkeys voting for Christmas. As Keith Ewing argues, there is currently an arms race taking place between the parties over who has the best campaign, but this is unsustainable and it is this that needs rethinking as it is the cause of the funding problem.

But there may be another way. Parties have a problem due to the lack of mass membership. Campaigns can be efficient on the ground if there are local activists to work on the behalf of the party and they are willing to produce their own material. Equally a range of direct communication can be utilised to get messages across to the people. The reliance on television and the glossy centralised campaign, while also focusing on the floating voter and not the party loyalist is damaging the link between party and members and reducing the likelihood of activism. While membership funds may not pay for flashy HQs a simpler model of campaign communication, with more control in the hands of local parties and activists, may just make politics more about people than about winning power. Or am I just a little too idealistic?

Bottom line; is professional flashy, glossy or just what will work best for the money available?

Roll up. Roll up.

BBC political correspondent Nick Assinder writes today that the Labour leadership election website is marking the occasion of the new Labour leader and prime minister in a special way. Telling members that "Never before has the membership of any political party had such a responsibility for shaping the future of British politics, nor such a responsibility to the people of Britain, and the history of our movement. It is an honour and a privilege," Presumably this is the fact that normally the party does not choose the prime minister while in office; obviously someone has not followed their history too well as the Conservatives did the same in 1990, oh yes and Labour in 1976, but hey who cares about historical accuracy.

However we can also all buy a delightful range of 'collectibles' such as a mug, or a badge to celebrate the occasion. As Nick points out it is one way of earning money, but he also notes that this may well be devaluing and trivialising the contest, making party websites a similar to those wonderful shops that sell tat to tourists. Particularly if one considers the parallel promotional campaigns run by the contenders for deputy; "Nuts for Hazel" T shirts (Hazel Blears) are a must I think.

As a debate runs on party funding perhaps one question all of this, or decide as Nick Assinder concludes 'why not'. Maybe getting a bit of fandom attached to the contest will promote engagement, maybe it will earn money so the taxpayer does not subsidise campaigning, even better maybe it can avoid dubious deals that we now associate with the term 'cash for honours'. And maybe it would be good to see people at the next election sporting T-shirts with witty slogans that promote voting for Brown, Cameron or Campbell - any suggestions for the slogans?