There is something depressingly familiar about this week’s furore over political fundraising.
We’ve been here before, many times: cash for questions, cash for access and cash for peerages.
David Cameron was spot on when he said that lobbying of one kind or another would be at the centre of the next political scandal.
Rather ironically, he had no idea at the time how uncomfortably implicated he, personally, would be.
But whether the rich can genuinely buy influence is debatable.
My suspicion is they’re flattered into parting with their money by the suggestion that they can.
But appearances matter and understandably there’s an uproar.
It’s another blow for integrity in politics, politicians and, ultimately, our democracy.
While I hesitate to make a partisan point at this stage, I think it’s important to note that, although Conservatives rely heavily on a few wealthy donors, Labour is bankrolled by the unions.
Neither is credible in the long term and we need a change, but to what?
Let me say, I do not think the taxpayer should be called upon.
Parties should be funded by those who believe in their policies.
A Party which cannot sell its ideas is likely to raise less revenue and that’s the way it should be.
Interestingly, it’s the Lib Dems who support state funding.
The question is whether donations should be capped.
I think they should be, but at what level, I’m not certain.
Whatever sum that turns out to be, this system will ensure that Parties are forced to appeal to a far wider electorate.
That must be good for democracy.
There is now a move to restart talks, which have faltered several times, on funding for political parties.
Perhaps, if and when change is implemented, the Prime Minister, whoever he or she is, will see fit to have a quiet dinner with a donor who has contributed, say, £25.
They’d certainly get a clearer picture of life in the real world!