Funding for political parties.

[InsaneApache]

Well seeing as Gordon and more importantly Harriet have been caught with their fingers in the till (again), should the voters finance political parties?

It seems that whenever politicians get caught breaking the law, which they themselves had passed BTW, they then spout off about the 'only' way to correct this is to fleece the public. I say we must not reward corruption, if political parties are unable to fund themselves, then they should be wound up, just like any insolvent business.

I therefore say no public funding to political parties.

A link for our overseas brethren.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/fundi...217776,00.html

[Fragony]

Yeah, a political movement should be funded because it represents a lot of people, they should be able to do counterexpertice, publish, campaign, etc. The guy in charge can do what he want endlessly because he's sitting on the money.

[Slug For A Butt]

Easy said, but would you fund the National Front or The Green Party? Or are you saying you would only fund the parties of your choice turning this country into an undemocratic society?
If you have the funding for the campaign and you want to stand for parliament, you can do it is the democratic way surely?
Before you know it, the only two parties that are granted funds are the big two, because they would like it that way. Is that the way you want it? Self protected interests that guarantee one of those two parties power, I'm sure they dream of this.

That is NOT democracy.

@Fragony: Under your ideal, how would you break into politics in the first place unless you join a party whose ideals you disagree with? Anti democratic in the extreme.

[Fragony]

Easy said, but would you fund the National Front or The Green Party?

If they are representing a certain number of people they should have a voice imo. Pay them by the number of people they represent. If a party is undemocratic it will have to change the constitution democraticaly or attempt a coup, and coups are usually there to overthrow a system, and democracy is a system so that doesn't really matter.

@Fragony: Under your ideal, how would you break into politics in the first place unless you join a party whose ideals you disagree with? Anti democratic in the extreme.

If you get a certain amount of people, 40.000 I believe, you can start a political party

[InsaneApache]

If they are representing a certain number of people they should have a voice imo. Pay them by the number of people they represent. If a party is undemocratic it will have to change the constitution democraticaly or attempt a coup, and coups are usually there to overthrow a system, and democracy is a system so that doesn't really matter.

@Fragony: Under your ideal, how would you break into politics in the first place unless you join a party whose ideals you disagree with? Anti democratic in the extreme.

If you get a certain amount of people, 40.000 I believe, you can start a political party

It's funny you should say that. Calamity/Corrupt McBroon is doing exactly that, changing the constitution.

After all he's been going around blathering about 'British jobs for British workers', the man's clearly not only incompetent and corrupt, he's racist to boot!

Just my opinion of course.

[Slug For A Butt]

So what you are saying is, that you must have a certain amount of votes before you can recieve public funding? That's my point exactly, how does any new party emerge or even any independant MP emerge for that matter?
You are prostituting yourself to the governing powers by wanting this.

In the UK I think we have a very good system, but unfortunately it is being abused by our own government. And it doesn't need a change of law to correct this, it just takes people voting with their ballot paper instead of their mouth in the pub.
Luckily (I think), we don't have a constitution in the UK, we have law by precedant which means that law is fluid (you win some you lose some I suppose). And the day that a law comes into effect that denies funding for smaller parties (even pro rata) is a day when we have it set in stone that only the two most powerful parties are worth even taliking about. That is a two party state that I don't want to live in.

@InsaneApache: Does it matter what you personally think about this man? No, that's the whole idea of democracy. It's not up to you to decide alone, it's up to the rest of your peers to make their decision alongside you. And by giving funding by voting percentage alone you are denying new ideas and people.

[Geoffrey S]

A shame that campaigns keep getting more and more expensive. Leads to this kind of thing on more than one side.

[Kralizec]

I recall that (at least) a year ago some high ranking Labour politician proposed giving the Labour party, and only them, more government funding because they were the ruling party and as such should be given more means to develop plans to make Britain a better place

Party funding is a tough one. Ideally new, smallish parties should get some kind of aid (not necessarily cash) to get started but established ones have plenty of means to get it theirselves, like selling peerages.

[Fragony]

Party funding is a tough one. Ideally new, smallish parties should get some kind of aid (not necessarily cash) to get started but established ones have plenty of means to get it theirselves, like selling peerages.

Easy as it can be, equal distribution based on the number of members.

[InsaneApache]

Easy as it can be, equal distribution based on the number of members.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

You really have turned a corner Frag.

[Fragony]

suffer

[Kralizec]

Easy as it can be, equal distribution based on the number of members.

So the PVV would get exactly €1,- or a percentage thereof?

[Fragony]

So the PVV would get exactly €1,- or a percentage thereof?

That is how I would like to see it, indepedant political lobby's where people collectivily act out of self-interest and see where they get.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, if the government doesn't fund political parties, then the rich parties will naturally get elected, as the people see them. On the other hand, funding them could be argued as a waste of government money.

Personally, I think government voting advertisements should be banned, and voters should make informed choices based on debates in relatively neutral papers.

[InsaneApache]

I recall that (at least) a year ago some high ranking Labour politician proposed giving the Labour party, and only them, more government funding because they were the ruling party and as such should be given more means to develop plans to make Britain a better place

This is true.

[Slug For A Butt]

But very wrong.
That tells you everything you need to know about the current English Government though. Corrupt to the core.

[InsaneApache]

Mebbe we should start a 'Free Yorkshire Party', I could be the leader and you could be the donor!

Yes! I see it now....

Just PM all your details and I'll get a move on, without laiking! Cubs honour.

Dib, dib etc, etc....

[drone]

IF (big IF here, since I am opposed to the idea) political parties were to be allocated money from the national treasury, I would prefer to see a inverse dispersal system (which would never in a million years actually be successfully passed). The money allocated would be less the more seats the party held. No way should the party in power get the most money, incumbency is advantage enough.

[Rhyfelwyr]

After all he's been going around blathering about 'British jobs for British workers'.

I was pretty shocked that he would say something like that, sounds like a BNP slogan. And this is just big honest straightforward Gordon - that reputation lasted long enough! I think he is being revealed as a bit of a scummy opportunist - comments like that are pretty concerning.

I also remember some guy on Question Time said Brown was just a typical socialist Scot! He also though Scottish voters held freedom-loving forward-looking Conservative England back, and that Scots are all lazy and have no entrepreneurial enterprise.

[Justiciar]

I also remember some guy on Question Time said Brown was just a typical socialist Scot! He also though Scottish voters held freedom-loving forward-looking Conservative England back, and that Scots are all lazy and have no entrepreneurial enterprise.

Funny. I remember someone saying the same thing, albeit in reverse while it was broadcast in Glasgow. I don't know where they get those dregs from.

[Tuuvi]

I think we should get rid of political parties altogether, but that's just me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I think we should get rid of political parties altogether, but that's just me.

Anarchy, dictatorship, or direct democracy?

[Justiciar]

You mean have all the MP's acting as Independants? It would require a pretty depthy reworking of Parliament, tbh, and would probably just see greater power heaped on the rank of Prime Minister - not something the majority of us seem to want. Besides, MPs would just fall into politically aligned blocs, setting us down the path to Party Politics all over again.

It isn't totally flawed, I grant you, and could answer some problems. The down side is that it would muster a whole host of new ones to tackle.

[HoreTore]

Political parties should have their funding severely cut, and have a roof on how much money they can use.

That way we may finally be rid of this "campaign" nonsense.

[macsen rufus]

About the only thing worse than public funding is private funding - whether by unions, industrialists, peerage-seekers, whatever. Absolute worst is funding by secret donors - I really, really do not like the idea of political parties - potential governments, no less - being funded anonymously. Public servants should not have secret paymasters, full stop.

The "democratic deficit" of public funding by share of the vote can so easily be avoided it wasn't even worth raising as an objection. You simply have two measures you can apply: either your party has attained 5% of the popular vote in the previous general election, or if your party is new and seeking its first funding, it must be able to demonstrate a membership equivalent to say 1% of registered voters. (I'm not wedded to the numbers, just the principle, so that total dingbats are excluded).

Add to this that all members must be registered voters, only individuals (not families, not associations, not unions, not companies) eligible as members, and a cap on membership fees. Public funding to be available up to a cap as well, but only making up what is not covered by membership fees, ie very big parties should still be largely self-funded by the members.

After all, WHY do political parties need funding? Research, election publicity and admin is all I can think of, with the second item being the most important. I do not like the idea of "richer" parties buying more advertising space, that to me seems more anti-democratic. I believe if you have established the party as a valid runner in the election then it should get equal exposure. I mean, you can't turn up at Old Trafford with a 110-man team and demand to play for 900 minutes, can you?

[JR-]

the taxpayer should not fund political parties, otherwise we will end up as bent as the continent if france is anything to go by.

[Slug For A Butt]

Mebbe we should start a 'Free Yorkshire Party', I could be the leader and you could be the donor!

Yes! I see it now....

Just PM all your details and I'll get a move on, without laiking! Cubs honour.

Dib, dib etc, etc....

Sounds like a grand idea my honourable leader. Theres a crisp, shiny 10 pence piece winging it's way to you in a brown envolope as we speak. And as long as we know who is calling the shots , there could be another to follow.

[InsaneApache]

...and they say Yorkshire folk are tight fisted!

That's shown 'em.

[Geoffrey S]

You mean have all the MP's acting as Independants? It would require a pretty depthy reworking of Parliament, tbh, and would probably just see greater power heaped on the rank of Prime Minister - not something the majority of us seem to want. Besides, MPs would just fall into politically aligned blocs, setting us down the path to Party Politics all over again.

It isn't totally flawed, I grant you, and could answer some problems. The down side is that it would muster a whole host of new ones to tackle.

Chief advantage, I think, is that politicians would split along issue lines, not party lines as tends to be the case now. It might also make politicians more reliant on their voters even when in office, in the sense that failing politicians don't have their party to fall back on if they fail to deliver on what they were voted in for, something that seems to be lacking in particular in both the UK and the US.

[macsen rufus]

Chief advantage, I think, is that politicians would split along issue lines, not party lines as tends to be the case now. It might also make politicians more reliant on their voters even when in office, in the sense that failing politicians don't have their party to fall back on if they fail to deliver on what they were voted in for, something that seems to be lacking in particular in both the UK and the US.

Well, I have lived in a jurisdiction that has (well, had... AFAIK no change yet) no political parties, and the entire parliament was elected as individuals. I think it can only work in small populations, and even then it has downsides.

Without a "party whip" they can swing like yoyos, weathervanes always pointing whichever way the wind blows. There is no discipline to keep them "on message", or pressure to maintain their position, or any consistent scheme that lets the voter know which policies they will support when elected. There may be no parties, but there are cliques - certain bunches who will always vote the same way. There is also a lot of pettymindedness - "X didn't vote for my bill on ...., so I'm not going to support his on .... " and transparency is a feverish dream, as you (as a voter) can never tell which little gaggle of politicos have formed a cabal to support each other for plum posts.

Rather than splitting along issue lines, they tend to be driven more by their jockeying for position and prestige, and what their peers think of them (ie fellow parliamentarians, or even what they think of themselves) tends to outweigh whatever the voters may be thinking -- except for that very short period of electioneering. Don't get me wrong, it's not all bad, but neither is it the panacea you might imagine. It is more suited to smaller jurisdictions as I said, for there is the added benefit then that people will actually know their representatives personally - I was certainly on first-name terms with a good half of the chamber, for instance, but that was down to me being one of those troublemakers that make for an "active civic society"

And for the record, they didn't receive any funding unless elected, and election expenses are limited and audited.