Politics and funding

[sgtkate]

Centrally fund all politically party campaigning. There must be a fair way to do it based on current MPs, standing MPs in next election, number of party members and so it. Have to be careful we don't make it difficult for independents to stand whilst stopping certain elements having undue influence whether that's businesses OR the unions.

[El Cid]

Centrally fund all politically party campaigning.

 

We should massively reduce how much money they are allowed to spend. Adertising does work, and parties with bigger pockets should not win elections.

[sgtkate]

We should massively reduce how much money they are allowed to spend. Adertising does work, and parties with bigger pockets should not win elections.

 

Yes exactly, so central funding and full audit control so they can't sneakily add in extra money would control the amount spent and give some campaigning funds to smaller and independent parties and candidates.

[tinfoilhat]

Centrally fund all politically party campaigning. There must be a fair way to do it based on current MPs, standing MPs in next election, number of party members and so it. Have to be careful we don't make it difficult for independents to stand whilst stopping certain elements having undue influence whether that's businesses OR the unions.

 

What do you mean by centrally funded? Unions and big business stick it all in a big pot and its shared out equally it tax payer money?

 

If it's the former, very unlikely to happen and if it's the latter, **** no. We're cutting everything to the quick but could find money for Satchi and satchi? No no no no no.

 

And it's all pointless anyway - the media, who I presume don't see any of this cash unless it's in adverts, will still have say and still print what they like and have major sway amongst the hard of thinking.

[unbeliever]

There are already strict election spending limits.

 

If you can't raise enough donations to hit them, then you're probably not going to win anyway.

 

There was a proposal during the last parliament for donation limits on top of that. There would have been a limit on how much any individual or organisation could give to a political party. Regarding the Labour affiliated unions, the idea was to change the current donation opt-out for members to an opt-in, then they would be classed as many small donations rather than one large one. Labour rejected it.

The coalition didn't think it right, or a good use of their time, to force it through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_funding_in_the_United_Kingdom#2011_Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life_report

[Flanker7]

Donations and public funds received by political parties in 2014

 

Party Donations (£'s) Public Funds Total

Conservative 28,950,917 152,663 29,103,580

Labour 18,523,701 7,541,143 26,064,844

Liberal Democrat 8,096,689 492,198 8,588,887

Scottish National 3,772,594 352,854 4,125,448

UKIP 3,500,570 - 3,500,570

 

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Donations.htm

 

These are the most recent figures. I don't know why the Labour party get so much from Public Funds.

[unbeliever]

Donations and public funds received by political parties in 2014

 

Party Donations (£'s) Public Funds Total

Conservative 28,950,917 152,663 29,103,580

Labour 18,523,701 7,541,143 26,064,844

Liberal Democrat 8,096,689 492,198 8,588,887

Scottish National 3,772,594 352,854 4,125,448

UKIP 3,500,570 - 3,500,570

 

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Donations.htm

 

These are the most recent figures. I don't know why the Labour party get so much from Public Funds.

 

Short money. They're in opposition so they're compensated for the fact that the Conservatives have civil service expertise and advice at their disposal which might give them a political advantage.

Edited October 19, 2015 by unbeliever

[sgtkate]

What do you mean by centrally funded? Unions and big business stick it all in a big pot and its shared out equally it tax payer money?

 

If it's the former, very unlikely to happen and if it's the latter, **** no. We're cutting everything to the quick but could find money for Satchi and satchi? No no no no no.

 

And it's all pointless anyway - the media, who I presume don't see any of this cash unless it's in adverts, will still have say and still print what they like and have major sway amongst the hard of thinking.

 

Effectively yes, it's paid for by taxpayers. I can see the obvious resistance but once people understand just how much control on policy the unions and business have I think more people would be willing. It'd only need to be a £1 or so per person to create significant pot.

 

The other options are to ban all political campaigning which totally ends any chance of an independent getting any coverage whatsoever, or we continue to allow businesses and unions to dictate policy. I'd prefer to chip in a £1 to hopefully encourage a fairer more open political system.

[unbeliever]

Effectively yes, it's paid for by taxpayers. I can see the obvious resistance but once people understand just how much control on policy the unions and business have I think more people would be willing. It'd only need to be a £1 or so per person to create significant pot.

 

The other options are to ban all political campaigning which totally ends any chance of an independent getting any coverage whatsoever, or we continue to allow businesses and unions to dictate policy. I'd prefer to chip in a £1 to hopefully encourage a fairer more open political system.

 

How much taxpayers' money are you going to give to the BNP, UAF and EDL ?

 

Are people still going to be allowed to give their time, if not their money to a political party?

Would working for a political party on a voluntary basis constitute an illegal donation to that party?

 

What if some business (large or small) or organisation offers free goods or services in support of a party? Would that be illegal.

 

What if a union for example uses it's money to pay somebody to do work in support of a party. Go out campaigning for example. Would that be illegal?

Edited October 20, 2015 by unbeliever

[sgtkate]

How much taxpayers' money are you going to give to the BNP, UAF and EDL ?

 

Whatever the algorithm proposed says I should. Part of being in a democracy means you have to accept there are parties I'd rather not support in anyway but you sometimes have to. BNP are not illegal and have standing councillors so they would clearly qualify for some funding under my idea. UAF and EDL are not political parties (I prepare to be corrected!) as they don't field candidates for election and instead insist on causing trouble for little reason.

 

Currently my some of my union fees go to support Labour whether I like that or not. My taxes support the Tories and SNP whether I like it or not etc. All of us end up supporting things we dislike, it's just about pragmatism and I'd rather a centrally funded campaign pot of money with some going to things I oppose than clandestine lobbying by a select few due to financial influence.

 

Hey come on now! I did say it was oversimplified. I'll have a think about those good points you've raised and come back to you.