Political simony

If there's a sure fire way of undermining the trust that, it is said, is needed for democracy to function properly, it has surely got to be making us all pay for it.  If I was ever minded to vote again, the thought of having to pay for the privilege would put me off for good.

Of course, I have an interest: it suits my agenda just fine if, because of big donations from either business or unions, politicians are seen as venal, untrustworthy, policy for sale money grubbers.  They are, for the most part.  And the more people know it the better.

If political parties cannot live within their means, then what does it say about their ability to run an entire economy.  What does it matter if they are bankrolled by the very interests we know they each kow-tow to anyway?  Oh yes, that's right, they don't want us to believe they each have any vestige of ideology left, just that they can each promise us what we want and get their pensions afterwards.

People will always find a way to buy influence, just so long as there are people it is worth their while influencing: people with the power to do favours for rent-seekers.  Reducing the amount individual donors can give hasn't prevented some people I know of finding ways of evading the disclosure limits by getting others to donate on their behalf: every time one door is closed someone will find another one.

The man currently charged with finding a new funding mechanism ought to know, after all: former member of the Midlands Industrial Council (itself a vehicle for hiding donations in the past), now "knight of the realm" and father of a Tory MP.  The noise you hear is the revolving door spinning.

But if you try and make me pay for voting if I choose to do so, I shall do my damnedest to encourage everyone I know not to bother in future as well.  At some point your legitimacy must run out for all to see, surely.