Politics and funding

[unbeliever]

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.

 

You have an opt out! If you don't want to support Labour, you don't have to.

[sgtkate]

You have an opt out! If you don't want to support Labour, you don't have to.

 

Can I opt out of paying taxes that support the Tories too?

[unbeliever]

Can I opt out of paying taxes that support the Tories too?

 

No.

But you're proposing to extend state funding giving people less choice of which party they support.

So you've just made my point for me.

 

Your case that you have no choice but to support Labour through your union is invalidated. Therefore your case for state funding of politics has collapsed.

Concede.

[sgtkate]

No.

But you're proposing to extend state funding giving people less choice of which party they support.

So you've just made my point for me.

 

Your case that you have no choice but to support Labour through your union is invalidated. Therefore your case for state funding of politics has collapsed.

Concede.

 

What on earth? Why does everything on here have to be so aggressive from people? I was putting forward an idea which you don't agree with. That's fine, but I'm struggling to see why you try to 'win' an argument that wasn't even being had.

 

I have already said in a couple of posts up that I'd accept my taxes going to support parties I don't agree with, you then decided to make a point about one tiny fraction of what I'd said for a cheap win rather than answering the actual main points, I'd assume because you would rather make yourself look impressive online than have a potentially interesting CONVERSATION (note: not argument) with someone with a different view. Your loss I suspect.

[unbeliever]

What on earth? Why does everything on here have to be so aggressive from people? I was putting forward an idea which you don't agree with. That's fine, but I'm struggling to see why you try to 'win' an argument that wasn't even being had.

 

I have already said in a couple of posts up that I'd accept my taxes going to support parties I don't agree with, you then decided to make a point about one tiny fraction of what I'd said for a cheap win rather than answering the actual main points, I'd assume because you would rather make yourself look impressive online than have a potentially interesting CONVERSATION (note: not argument) with someone with a different view. Your loss I suspect.

 

Sorry if my tone was overly aggressive.

You seemed to have reversed yourself.

First you wanted to give taxpayers' money to all political parties, at least in part because you didn't want your union fees going to Labour. I pointed out that you don't have to give money to Labour even if you're in an affiliated union.

Then you objected to you tax money going to the Conservatives. Which seemed out of nowhere, irrelevant, argumentative and a reversal of your previous position.

I suspect now that I may have misunderstood you. Can you clarify?

[sgtkate]

Sorry if my tone was overly aggressive.

You seemed to have reversed yourself.

First you wanted to give taxpayers' money to all political parties, at least in part because you didn't want your union fees going to Labour. I pointed out that you don't have to give money to Labour even if you're in an affiliated union.

Then you objected to you tax money going to the Conservatives. Which seemed out of nowhere, irrelevant, argumentative and a reversal of your previous position.

I suspect now that I may have misunderstood you. Can you clarify?

 

Accepted. I enjoy good debates on here and happy for people to correct me when I'm wrong! Well, maybe not happy....

 

I was just making a superfluous dig at the Tories expense and undermined my own point! I object to both money from unions going to Labour and taxes going to the Tories under the current system. If things were all centrally funded then I'd be in favour of taxes going to all parties, does that clarify? Still don't like the unions giving money to Labour even though I'm a Labour supporter...I don't think any company or body should have power over a political party like that.

 

Democracy almost by nature means there will be parties out there I don't agree with, but they have a right to operate and exist within the bounds of law and therefore under my plan would deserve tax payer funding. I can hardly complain about BNP getting money when I'd support the Greens getting some, as I'm sure BNP members would be up in arms about communists getting my money etc...ones mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that...

[Stoatwobbler]

Can I opt out of paying taxes that support the Tories too?

 

You can always boycott businesses that support the Tories if you happen to be that way inclined.

[RickyM]

You can always boycott businesses that support the Tories if you happen to be that way inclined.

 

I do frequently.

 

I refused to buy carpets from a certain high street branch of carpet retailer due to it political connections..........

[unbeliever]

Accepted. I enjoy good debates on here and happy for people to correct me when I'm wrong! Well, maybe not happy....

 

I was just making a superfluous dig at the Tories expense and undermined my own point! I object to both money from unions going to Labour and taxes going to the Tories under the current system. If things were all centrally funded then I'd be in favour of taxes going to all parties, does that clarify? Still don't like the unions giving money to Labour even though I'm a Labour supporter...I don't think any company or body should have power over a political party like that.

 

Democracy almost by nature means there will be parties out there I don't agree with, but they have a right to operate and exist within the bounds of law and therefore under my plan would deserve tax payer funding. I can hardly complain about BNP getting money when I'd support the Greens getting some, as I'm sure BNP members would be up in arms about communists getting my money etc...ones mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that...

 

How did terrorists get into this?

 

Never mind.

 

How are Tories getting taxpayers' money?

In opposition, Labour are entitled to short money, so they're actually getting many times more taxpayers' money than the Conservatives.

 

The BNP are communists. Or at least extremely socialist.

 

The unions give money to Labour only with the consent of their members. The wasn't always the case, but it is now and has been for many years.

[exxon]

How did terrorists get into this?

 

Never mind.

 

How are Tories getting taxpayers' money?

In opposition, Labour are entitled to short money, so they're actually getting many times more taxpayers' money than the Conservatives.

 

The BNP are communists. Or at least extremely socialist.

 

The unions give money to Labour only with the consent of their members. The wasn't always the case, but it is now and has been for many years.

 

If parties were funded by the tax payer how would that work with the SNP? They have 51 of 54 MPs in Scotland. Would that ntitle them to 95% of the cake even though they only got 50% of the votes in May. Would it lead them to field candidates in English seats in order to get more cash from the system but just use it to fund their cause in Scotland.