A radical overhaul of the way British politics is financed was proposed today, with caps on donations to parties, limits on election spending and up to £25m state funding a year for political parties.
What is it with these people? If political parties are struggling for funds, it is their own damn fault. Why should the tax payer bail them out? Come to that, why should my tax pounds be handed to a bunch of thieving charlatans that I don’t support and never will? Unless it is by a rope from Tower Bridge. Hold onto that thought…
If political parties want to increase their revenue, they had better start appealing to their grass roots supporters. You know, the ones they’ve been pissing off with their betrayal of principles this past decade or so.
State funding (Short funds) is already at £20m a year – most of this going to the Tories (so £25m is hardly different). These proposals will make the funding more fairly distributed amongst the parties. Also the limits on spending will reduce the influence of the rich and powerful.
I would like to see the choice of state funding handed over to the voter on the ballot paper (tick boxes £3).
In the big scheme of things 25m a year state funding of political parties is a bargain. These essentially are the bodies we entrust with half a trillion a year expenditure. It is alright saying if they cannot find donations from individuals it is their own fault, but state funding reduces the influence of rich donors and that benefits us all.
It is the Government we trust with our expenditure, not parliament. Large Corporations continue to succeed by the efforts of the troops and junior management, not the pointy haired senior management.
Of course, the Board of Directors makes or breaks a business but they normally rely on their heads of function to guide them on actions & consequences. The problem comes when they are yes men, of course.
Hang on, politicisation of the Civil Service? I feel an analogy coming on…
I don’t quite understand how ‘state funding reduces the influence of rich donors and that benefits us all.’
State Funding – if that is the sole means of funding – might do so. What chance is there of that?
And why would reduction of influence from rich donors serve to benefit us all? Is there recent evidence that such influence has been malign?
My guess is that the rich will continue to ‘interfere’ with politics to their own ends no matter what legislation is put in place. After all, they can afford the finest legal and accounting brains.
But whether this actually damages the rest of the population is open to some debate, I think.
None of the above.
Longrider, people can tick ‘no donation’, that is the fairest way to decide state funding of parties. It should also be possible to vote for one party and donate to another; it is all in the power report.
I remain implacably opposed to state funding. The reason the parties are in trouble is because they have ignored their rank and file members. State funding simply means more of the same. Imminent bankruptcy might just concentrate the minds of the political elite and remind them that they need the little guy.
Just a thought… supposing everyone ticked “no donation”. Now, wouldn’t that be a rum turn-up?