anywebsite Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Why should a single penny of money I work for, go towards poitical parties that I don't agree with? Far better that I have the freedom to donate to or join a political party if I choose to. Because if you don't pay them money directly they'll get it from somewhere else & it'll cost you much more money when they overpay on the next contract awarded to a donator. Do you actually believe that political parties should get funding by selling political influence to the rich? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Do we actually need any political parties at all? They rarely do what is wanted or needed and it seems to be a very expensive way of generating hot air. Civil servants do all the actual work of administering policies, and we now have the internet which can collect and collate public opinion. Maybe it's time for a radical rethink of how we do things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Do we actually need any political parties at all? They rarely do what is wanted or needed and it seems to be a very expensive way of generating hot air. Civil servants do all the actual work of administering policies, and we now have the internet which can collect and collate public opinion. Maybe it's time for a radical rethink of how we do things. So who sets policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 How would that work, Anna? Do away with democracy too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Because if you don't pay them money directly they'll get it from somewhere else & it'll cost you much more money when they overpay on the next contract awarded to a donator. Do you actually believe that political parties should get funding by selling political influence to the rich? If you mean, should people that fund political parties have an input into policy, then yes. What do you think they fund the party for? Why else would they? That is the whole point. The Labour Party is heavily funded by the Unions for example, so it is only right, fair and proper that their opinions are considered. That doesn't mean the party has to adopt everything they say, they have the wider party membership and electorate to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I find it rather odd that some folk are rightly outraged about this incident yet don't seem convcerned about a very similar incident a few years ago when 3 Labour Peers were caught offering exactly the same sort of access but lining their own pockets. It seems that political points scoring is clearly more important to many than any corruption or criminality that might be occuring. If that's the case political parties have little to fear as outrage will only occur in people who wouldn't vote for them anyway. I agree with you Emily. One of the things that really sickened me about the lobbying affair involving the very New Labour trio of Geoff Hoon, Patricia Hewitt, and 'cab-for-hire' Stephen Byers was that not only did they previously criticise any Labour MP that wasn't 'on message', but that as New Labour MPs they advocated the transfer of once public services into the private sphere. Now we know why. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/23/stephen-byers-geoff-hoon-patricia-hewitt I think this issue transends party politics, and I would urge anyone concerned about the future of the NHS in light of the Health and Social Care bill (2012) to read the following article from the blog Soacial Investigations:http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/nhs-privatisation-compilation-of.html It details the lucrative outside interests of the MPS and Lords who voted on the bill & how they may personally benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 How would that work, Anna? Do away with democracy too? As somebody once said. 'The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that, in a democracy you get to vote for your dictator.' Sure, we aren't mowing people down, but there's not much democracy left. This latest scandal is exactly why the politicians want to muzzle the press - they don't want us to find out about their nefarious actions. 'We're all in this together.' True if the 'We' means the politicians. They're all in it up to their eyeballs. And some people think we should fund this rabble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 As somebody once said. 'The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that, in a democracy you get to vote for your dictator.' Sure, we aren't mowing people down, but there's not much democracy left. This latest scandal is exactly why the politicians want to muzzle the press - they don't want us to find out about their nefarious actions. 'We're all in this together.' True if the 'We' means the politicians. They're all in it up to their eyeballs. And some people think we should fund this rabble? Wow, on the money. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 If you mean, should people that fund political parties have an input into policy, then yes. What do you think they fund the party for? Why else would they? That is the whole point. The Labour Party is heavily funded by the Unions for example, so it is only right, fair and proper that their opinions are considered. That doesn't mean the party has to adopt everything they say, they have the wider party membership and electorate to consider. So, by your own definition you would agree that Conservative party donors should contribute on the basis that the Tories will represent their narrow doctrinaire or otherwise selfish interests? So this latest so called outrage isnt an outrage at all, its just sifting the donors so that those with most cash can get nearer the PM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 As somebody once said. 'The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that, in a democracy you get to vote for your dictator.' Sure, we aren't mowing people down, but there's not much democracy left. This latest scandal is exactly why the politicians want to muzzle the press - they don't want us to find out about their nefarious actions. 'We're all in this together.' True if the 'We' means the politicians. They're all in it up to their eyeballs. And some people think we should fund this rabble? By funding it we, the people, take control of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.