Difference between revisions of "Cash-for-access (United Kingdom)"

One institutional mechanism that may have increased the number of cash for access cases over time is the role of the party system in British politics. Since 1950, only three MPs have entered the House of Commons without any party political affiliation (Flinders and Matthews 2012: 337)<ref>Flinders, Matthew, and Felicity Matthews,. 2012. ‘Party Patronage in the United Kingdom: A Pendulum of Public Appointments’. In Party Patronage and Party Government in European Democracies, edited by Petr Kopecký, Peter Mair, and Maria Spirova, 335–55. Oxford: OUP Oxford.</ref>. Because political parties act as the vehicle into parliament, any decline in grassroots political party membership is likely to affect the ability of parties to remain competitive. Traditionally, political parties have relied on a broad membership base to mobilise and generate donations. As the links between political parties and wider society has fragmented in the post-war era, traditional support in the form of public donations or support from worker organisations has declined, resulting in a funding gap for political parties (Abbott and Williams 2014)<ref>Abbott, Brian, and Steve Williams. 2014. ‘Widening the ‘representation Gap’? The Implications of the “lobbying Act” for Worker Representation in the UK’. Industrial Relations Journal 45 (6): 507–23. doi:10.1111/irj.12076.</ref>. As a consequence, private donors are increasingly filling this funding gap.  Often the large sums donated by individual donors or businesses are conditional on access to office-holders. In the words of Tony Blair’s former Director of Policy Geoff Mulgan: ‘It is fairly obvious that if you are a funder you are more likely to have a meeting with advisers, a meeting with ministers, a meeting on occasion with the Prime Minister’ (Friedman 2013: 141)<ref>Friedman, Bobby. 2013. Democracy Ltd: How Money and Donations Have Corrupted British Politics. Oneworld Publications.</ref>.

One institutional mechanism that may have increased the number of cash for access cases over time is the role of the party system in British politics. Since 1950, only three MPs have entered the House of Commons without any party political affiliation (Flinders and Matthews 2012: 337)<ref>Flinders, Matthew, and Felicity Matthews,. 2012. ‘Party Patronage in the United Kingdom: A Pendulum of Public Appointments’. In Party Patronage and Party Government in European Democracies, edited by Petr Kopecký, Peter Mair, and Maria Spirova, 335–55. Oxford: OUP Oxford.</ref>. Because political parties act as the vehicle into parliament, any decline in grassroots political party membership is likely to affect the ability of parties to remain competitive. Traditionally, political parties have relied on a broad membership base to mobilise and generate donations. As the links between political parties and wider society has fragmented in the post-war era, traditional support in the form of public donations or support from worker organisations has declined, resulting in a funding gap for political parties (Abbott and Williams 2014)<ref>Abbott, Brian, and Steve Williams. 2014. ‘Widening the ‘representation Gap’? The Implications of the “lobbying Act” for Worker Representation in the UK’. Industrial Relations Journal 45 (6): 507–23. doi:10.1111/irj.12076.</ref>. As a consequence, private donors are increasingly filling this funding gap.  Often the large sums donated by individual donors or businesses are conditional on access to office-holders. In the words of Tony Blair’s former Director of Policy Geoff Mulgan: ‘It is fairly obvious that if you are a funder you are more likely to have a meeting with advisers, a meeting with ministers, a meeting on occasion with the Prime Minister’ (Friedman 2013: 141)<ref>Friedman, Bobby. 2013. Democracy Ltd: How Money and Donations Have Corrupted British Politics. Oneworld Publications.</ref>.