Who really runs our country?

[tzijlstra]

How can it be a none issue? Whoever funds the government is going to get what they want, or withdraw funding!? That's nor how a true democracy works.

 

If politicians are going to reconnect with the people in any way, they need to start to represent us again. All donations to political parties should be made illegal. The only funding they should get is from membership fees. That would force them to get people interested in politics again.

 

Donations = bribes by rich people!

 

---------- Post added 08-01-2015 at 16:56 ----------

 

 

Show me a political party that doesn't accept donations.

 

It is a non issue because changes like this can only be labelled as mucking about with the margins. You also conveniently forget the link between Unions and Labour in this.

 

Parties should be funded transparently, that should be the criterium.

[Bonzo77]

It is a non issue because changes like this can only be labelled as mucking about with the margins. You also conveniently forget the link between Unions and Labour in this.

 

Parties should be funded transparently, that should be the criterium.

 

I don't conveniently forget anything, stop putting words in my mouth!

 

How would removing money completely be messing about with the margins? Just because things are like they are today, doesn't mean they can't be changed.

[tzijlstra]

I don't conveniently forget anything, stop putting words in my mouth!

 

How would removing money completely be messing about with the margins? Just because things are like they are today, doesn't mean they can't be changed.

 

The problem isn't the way the parties are structured, the problem is the way they can claim full representation by getting 15% of the absolute vote.

[Bonzo77]

The problem isn't the way the parties are structured, the problem is the way they can claim full representation by getting 15% of the absolute vote.

 

The problem is, they're funded by people who don't have the interests of the public at heart. That includes labour. The balance would be restored with a simple £30 membership fee, each year from party members. No other funding is necessary.

[anfisa]

That's why I said the membership fees would be £30 for everyone.

 

But then we are becoming a dictatorship with you making all the rules.

[Harrystottle]

But then we are becoming a dictatorship with you making all the rules.

 

No, it is one very simple rule. Political parties must exist solely on the subscription fees of their members.

 

No backhanders from big business, no raiding of the public purse.

 

If they can't attract enough members to survive as they are, they would have to change or die.

[anfisa]

No, it is one very simple rule. Political parties must exist solely on the subscription fees of their members.

 

No backhanders from big business, no raiding of the public purse.

 

If they can't attract enough members to survive as they are, they would have to change or die.

 

Happy with that if each party can set it's own membership fees, dictating what each parties fees should be though is a step too far.

[tzijlstra]

No, it is one very simple rule. Political parties must exist solely on the subscription fees of their members.

 

No backhanders from big business, no raiding of the public purse.

 

If they can't attract enough members to survive as they are, they would have to change or die.

 

But that is exactly the issue, if parties are completely dependent on just subscription fees, they are not going to survive UNLESS they are in the news all the time - in other words, Labour and Tories would be able to maintain their position. Over time though people will stop subscribing and parties will run out of cash very quickly.

[mjw47]

Surely a better solution would be to fund political parties out of the public purse and ban all other contributions.

 

Private individuals or organizations do not fund parties for pure altruistic reasons.

 

There is always some Quid Pro Quo involved.

 

Sometimes it's as pathetic ( in my view ) as a title or mention in the Queens honours list.

 

But sometimes it's far more invidious, and entails 'favours' to business or groups which are against the public interest.

[tinfoilhat]

Surely a better solution would be to fund political parties out of the public purse and ban all other contributions.

 

Private individuals or organizations do not fund parties for pure altruistic reasons.

 

There is always some Quid Pro Quo involved.

 

Sometimes it's as pathetic ( in my view ) as a title or mention in the Queens honours list.

 

But sometimes it's far more invidious, and entails 'favours' to business or groups which are against the public interest.

 

Yeah because the public purse is over flowing with spare cash. I'd struggle not to vomit after watching two near identical parties sling mud at each other in party political broadcasts at my expense.