Government Funded Political Parties???

jambutty · 25-10-2006, 10:59

I first heard about this over a week ago but have delayed starting a thread on the issue in the hope that someone else would do so. But as it appears that no one seems interested enough in an issue that is likely to screw the public down even further, here goes.

However the title is a misnomer. The government does not have any funds of its own but is the custodian of taxpayers’ taxes. Maybe I should have used “Taxpayers Funding Political Parties” instead.

The government is investigating the possibilities or maybe that should be the probabilities of the taxpayer funding the political parties, god Tony is in agreement and gives it his backing. Well he would because labour is over £20m in debt with the Tories not too far behind and the Lib Dems managing to keep under one million.

NO! NO! and thrice NO!

If any political party wants to put forward candidates to chance their arm at being elected as an MP, then they should raise the funding themselves from bona fide party members’ subscriptions and donations. With the caveat that donations can only be made from members of at least one years membership and be limited to a maximum of £10,000 pa.

Now all I have to do is to try and convince the people who make the rules to change them to their detriment. Fat chance!

Maybe it is time for a complete change in how MP’s are elected.

Mick · 25-10-2006, 11:03

Jambutty why are all your threads about doom and gloom cant you find some more light hearted things to post about ?

jambutty · 25-10-2006, 11:24

Because, Mick, this country is all doom and gloom and most of it will be to the disadvantage to the ordinary person in the street. There is very little good news these days and in any case why single me out? I’m not the only one to discuss bad news.

The general public is being screwed down more and more and our rights are being eroded away. Surely it cannot be wrong to bring these points to the attention of as many people as possible.

andrewb · 25-10-2006, 11:25

I think it could be a good idea. But it depends how it is done on whether I would support it..

For example the money a party got would have to be based on the number of votes they got last time round, as we couldn't afford to give EVERY party loads of cash.

It'll stop any 'cash for favours' crap thats been going on, especialy under New Labour at the moment. Which can only mean good!

Gayle · 25-10-2006, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

I think it could be a good idea. But it depends how it is done on whether I would support it..

For example the money a party got would have to be based on the number of votes they got last time round, as we couldn't afford to give EVERY party loads of cash.

It'll stop any 'cash for favours' crap thats been going on, especialy under New Labour at the moment. Which can only mean good!

But under that idea the ruling party will always get more and it will stiffle anyone wanting to come along as an independent.

andrewb · 25-10-2006, 11:42

True but you could agrue under first past the post we really dont have that much of a democracy for independents to have a say.

Mancie · 25-10-2006, 11:52

If it were funding just for general election campaings then it could be a good idea as spending by the main parties could be controlled and capped to give an even playing field.

jambutty · 25-10-2006, 12:14

I have many objections to political parties being state (taxpayer) funded but first let me get this out of the way.

More anonymous negative Karma – thank you!

Quote:

look on the bright side of life for once!!

Who are you anonymous, to tell me to what outlook to have? Are you my keeper?

If I want to be a miserable old git then I will be and no negative Karma is going to make me change. Nor is positive Karma. I am who I am and you either like it or lump it.

Having got that out of the way back on topic.

I wonder how a Lib Dem party member would feel if part of his/her taxes were being used to fund the Labour or Conservative party? Or any other way around and including the minor parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

If it were funding just for general election campaings then it could be a good idea as spending by the main parties could be controlled and capped to give an even playing field.

Now there is food for thought Mancie except for one small point. We are supposed to be living in a democracy and for me that would mean equal funding to all parties contesting an election. So the Monster Raving Loony party, who have as much chance of being represented by an MP in parliament as a snowball has in hell, would be eligible to receive the same funding as say the New Labour (Old Tory). So where do you pitch the level?

Mancie · 25-10-2006, 12:32

"where do you pitch the level" I don't know. There is a system used for the number of political broadcasts parties can air on tv.. I don't know how its worked out but perhaps a similar criteria could be used to apply campaing funding.

jambutty · 25-10-2006, 14:07

I don’t for one moment think that any MP would agree with it but there is a way round the problem. Of course it would mean a major rethink on the whole parliamentary system and the two major parties would be likely to lose some of their power. So it would be a non-starter.

Any bona fide resident of a constituency would be eligible to put him/herself forward as a candidate providing that s/he met the requirement for being able to vote. That being, residents of a constituency eligible to vote would be 18 years of age or older and a citizen of this country. A citizen of this country is a person who has been born in this country or if born abroad of British parents where one of the parents was a British citizen and the birth was registered at the British Consulate in the country of birth. Immigrants to this country would not be able to vote until they attained British citizenship. Inmates of a prison or those out on licence/parole would not be eligible to vote until the full sentence has expired. Inmates of mental health institutions would not be eligible to vote.

A prospective candidate standing in a general election would in addition to being eligible to vote in that constituency have to be over 21 years of age, without a criminal record and resident in the constituency for a minimum of 5 years.

Each candidate would be required to fund his/her own election campaign with $5,000 to be deposited in an Election Campaign Fund bank account. The candidate would have to prove that the £5,000 is their own money and not made up from donations unless the donation to the maximum of £2,500 comes from the political party that s/he belongs to. This £5,000 would be matched three fold (£15,000) from state funds. Any remaining funds after the election would be returned to where they came from pro rata.

The government would meet the cost of printing a booklet detailing the candidate’s profile and manifesto and the posting of the booklet to every household in the constituency. The government would also meet the cost of each candidate campaigning in local TV, radio and press twice during the election campaign. The government would also meet the cost of a candidate hiring a public hall for campaign debates with the constituents on two occasions.

All other campaign expenses, which would be basically travelling expenses, would have to be met from the Election Campaign Fund.

Of course this would not get round the Labour/Tory/Lib Dems/etc supporter’s taxes going to fund any of the other parties. The only way around that is not to have any sort of state funding and then that could invite skull duggery that goes on today.

Gayle · 25-10-2006, 14:13

At one time (don't know if it's still relevant) you used to have to put up a £2,000 deposit which if you didn't get a certain number of votes you would not have returned.

I can't really speak for general elections but for local elections you are only allowed to spend a certain amount per candidate so that in theory every candidate has a level playing field. The local party is not cash rich but through donations and through the individuals and through fund raising events they do have sufficient funds to support candidates in this way.

Tealeaf · 25-10-2006, 14:38

I think you'll find that most party expenditure goes on a) maintaining an expensive party HQ with staff and b) on national advertising campaigns around election times. The latter amounts to no more than useless ideas, false promises and blatant untruths - by all three parties.

If political parties were competitive business's, they would have been bankrupt, dead and buried long ago.What saves them is the fact that they are an effective oligopoly, offering the voter/consumer little choice. If they were breweries then we would be drinking Double Diamond, Red Barrel and Brew ten, with nowt else available; if they were motor car manufacturers, we would be driving A40's, Allegros and Cortinas. The simple fact is they are parthetic and the sooner Labour, Conservative and those fools the Lib-Dems fade away, the better.

jambutty · 25-10-2006, 14:51

Agreed Tealeaf. But the real question then becomes how do you get rid of them and what do you replace them with?

bullseyebarb · 25-10-2006, 20:16

No forced taxpayer funding of political parties! If you find a candidate you like then you can contribute a little cash to his election campaign or volunteer your services. All monetary contributions should be disclosed immediately so that voters can see who is supporting each candidate.