The funding formula would not be a direct relationship between number of voters and amount of money. The curve would be in the form of a linear exponential decay… think of the shape of the curve that expresses Typical Mass Uptake Profile for LDF Behaviour (here if you need to refresh your memory).

This would ensure that the rate at which parties could grow – financially speaking – would slow down as they got larger (with a sensible maximum as a limit). This form of funding model also has the advantage of compensating the smaller parties for their inevitable (and quite proper) lack of news media coverage (the more power you have the more media scrutiny you should be subjected to) by giving them a greater rate of financial growth.

All of this also depends utterly on it being made illegal for political parties to accept any other form of funding (whether in the form of donations, loans or loopholes). Party accounts must be 100% transparent. And parties that fail to manage their finances will be allowed to die as publicly or quietly as they choose with strictly no option for loans or public bail-outs (if you can’t balance the books at a political party, you must accept you’re just not ready to run a nation yet).

As for your lament for the dwindling role of the grass roots activist, I honestly believe that phenomenon is compounded by our current system of party funding which places such power and influence into the hands of the rich and powerful, and makes it so expedient for politicians to ignore the masses.

Conversely, by informing parties that future levels of funding are dependent upon not merely garnering more votes than the next guy, but on maximising their turn-out… well, would there be any better way to force a reconnection with the grassroots?

I think it would solve problems with our system enormously by giving people a real voice rather than just the say-so in who gets a nominal three quid. And that means politicians getting out there and kissing some serious booty.

I’m also pretty sure that the proposals doing the rounds right now still allow for donations upto a capped level (£50,000 has been mentioned). So, instead of Mr Bigshot writing one cheque he sends ten in the names of friends and family (with a nod and a wink and his ermine robe size, obviously). Or am I missing something?

PPS: Down with democracy! (Just in case anyone forgets)

There’s a question of whether some kind of “minimum funding” could be introduced. Though of course that system runs the risk of having the taxpayer fund every lunatic with an axe to grind.

My own preferred option would be a system whereby a party which polled less than a certain number of votes at the previous election could solicit direct funding from its members. Once they gain the minimum amount of public support necessary to receive from the taxpayer that “certain level of funding a political party has to have to get off the ground”, then they must cease all other forms of fundraising.

This allows a democratic / level- playing field for all established parties, but does not exclude pressure groups from raising the money to stand in elections and ultimately establish themselves within the political system should they attract enough votes.

Mind you, there is something to what you say. I’m sure the detailed mechanics of the system could be greatly refined from my simple sketch. Although I do feel that the simpler the link between voting intentions and funding, the more fundamentally democratic the system would be.

allocating funding on the basis of votes might be a tad conservative. Better to offer people the opportunity to vote for one party and fund another, perhaps – I might really not want the Tories to win in my seat, for example, and so vote Labour or Lib Dem or something, but want to give money to the Greens, say, so as to try and make them more prominent.