Home page Do we need political parties? Three clichés now repeated by many representatives of British political parties. These are that democracy needs political parties, that parties have to be funded and this is why there is a need for public funding. These are typical diversionary statements which are coming to the fore in the wake of the revelations of the extent of hidden funding being received by British political parties. Politicians know that the environment is one in which most members of the public have become exasperated with the arrogance and affront of politicians who seem think we owe them a living. It is apparent to all that their trying to justify money for their tiny private organizations (political parties) is based upon three monstrous presumptions. Democracy is simply government by the people, either direct or representative. Representation, in the ideal world would be someone of standing from one’s local community and who, in an even handed way, would represent the interests of all, and not just a faction. Elections do not need funding. One only has to require that the media provide free space and time during elections to all candidates. The proactive support, such as canvassing, should be by volunteers who do not need to be paid. There is no need for a “machine” to “coordinate” electoral activities if one is dealing with a constituency-based election. If a private non governmental organization, which is what political parties are, wishes to mount a national campaign to try and enforce a one-size fits all policy cross the whole country, then their volunteers should pay for this. There is no reason why the public should be expected to pay from public funds the advertising expenses of an NGO. In terms of equitable representation no one should be allowed to provide financial backing for such private organizations so as to mount a national strategy. This is because the weight given to presentation becomes proportional to money paid into the account as opposed to reflecting any grass roots voluntary support for a specific set of ideas. Politicians are bound to assert that it is “normal” to fund political parties simply because this is where their allegiance lies; not in their constituency, in their political party. Politicians are promoted, defined and indeed obey the instructions of their political parties rather than the desires of their constituents. Why on earth should such people, whose first allegiance is to such private organizations, be permitted to receive large private donations of cash to promote such an inequitable system? Democracy can not be defined in terms of the role of political parties. A happy and contented democracy cannot exist when constituency representation is distorted by the demands of party whips or upon loyalties to a prime minister who hands out government positions to MPs. This corrupt system is grubby party politics, it is not democracy. Most people in England would wish to be represented by someone they know and trust and whose adherence to fair play and equitable treatment of everyone within their constituency no matter what their outlook can be relied upon. This is a question of the importance of the representative recognizing the primacy of individual freedom and their having the freedom, confidence and ability to express these in the national assembly. Anyone associated with a faction, such as a political party, does not have this freedom and therefore is a flawed constituency representative. The obvious conclusion is that for democracy work we do not need political parties nor donors of large wads of cash either to promote unworkable manifestos or in exchange for a job for life having some influence over the affairs of the people of England.