Politics and funding

[unbeliever]

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.

 

However it's arranged, it gives an advantage to the winners in any election and risks creating a situation where one party gets a big majority at an election and then gets such a large share of the money that they can never be removed.

 

It's just a very bad idea.

Spending limits are a reasonable idea. We already have them, but they could be lowered.

The 2011 proposals were rather good. A shame Labour rejected them. I guess they thought that if affiliated union members had to opt in rather than failing to notice the option and not opting out (which is the current situation), then a whole lot of their money would vanish. It makes me think that they're gaining their money right now by stealth.

[sgtkate]

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.

 

The Tories was just an example. The main 3 parties all get tax payer money as things stand now. In fact I think the Greens and UKIP do as well as they have local councillors.

 

I may support Labour but I'm not actually trying to beat the Tories up here! But the main point I'm making that if businesses donate to parties you have to wonder what they are getting in return. No business is going to give money out of the goodness of their heart are they? And it's this that needs stopping.

 

Perhaps some middle ground of limiting any donation to under £1000? But then that could be exploited I suppose. Perhaps the current system is the best, but I struggle to see how.

[exxon]

The Tories was just an example. The main 3 parties all get tax payer money as things stand now. In fact I think the Greens and UKIP do as well as they have local councillors.

 

I may support Labour but I'm not actually trying to beat the Tories up here! But the main point I'm making that if businesses donate to parties you have to wonder what they are getting in return. No business is going to give money out of the goodness of their heart are they? And it's this that needs stopping.

 

Perhaps some middle ground of limiting any donation to under £1000? But then that could be exploited I suppose. Perhaps the current system is the best, but I struggle to see how.

 

As far as I can see big business, rich doners, and banks donate just as much to Labour as the Conservatives. It is just spun to suggest that isn't the case.

[999tigger]

The Tories was just an example. The main 3 parties all get tax payer money as things stand now. In fact I think the Greens and UKIP do as well as they have local councillors.

 

I may support Labour but I'm not actually trying to beat the Tories up here! But the main point I'm making that if businesses donate to parties you have to wonder what they are getting in return. No business is going to give money out of the goodness of their heart are they? And it's this that needs stopping.

 

Perhaps some middle ground of limiting any donation to under £1000? But then that could be exploited I suppose. Perhaps the current system is the best, but I struggle to see how.

 

They have similar rules in the US, but they get round it by getting the employees to dontae it in their names.

 

The party in government has the advantage because it tends to be a bit sneaky and use some of the advantages of being in government to pish its agenda.

 

Btw some of the major donees get perages etc, becayse the honours system is used like that.

 

Companies or unions get people in power who are sympathetic with their views on how they want the country to be.

 

This gives some figures and gives you some ideas of where the money come from and who it goes to.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-explained-who-finances-the-parties-who-gets-the-most-and-how-much-does-the-10186008.html

Edited October 20, 2015 by 999tigger

[tinfoilhat]

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.

 

I'll follow up my no no no no with a no no no no no no. I watched a show the other day where we were relying on the kindness and generosity of strangers and a TV show (plus two princes) to convert a ****ty terrace street in Manchester to help former servicemen with ptsd and other injuries. We can't fund that but we're expected to find a quid each to fund political parties. And that's just one cause I think of off the top of my head. If funding political parties is the best way you can think of to spend tax payers dwindling and hard earned cash you aren't trying hard enough.

[sgtkate]

As far as I can see big business, rich doners, and banks donate just as much to Labour as the Conservatives. It is just spun to suggest that isn't the case.

 

For heavens sakes! How many times! This isn't about which party I do or don't support...I dislike ANY company or union giving money to ANY party because you then have to question why. Clear enough now?

 

---------- Post added 21-10-2015 at 13:27 ----------

 

I'll follow up my no no no no with a no no no no no no. I watched a show the other day where we were relying on the kindness and generosity of strangers and a TV show (plus two princes) to convert a ****ty terrace street in Manchester to help former servicemen with ptsd and other injuries. We can't fund that but we're expected to find a quid each to fund political parties. And that's just one cause I think of off the top of my head. If funding political parties is the best way you can think of to spend tax payers dwindling and hard earned cash you aren't trying hard enough.

 

So you'd prefer businesses being allowed to dictate policies that probably cost us more as individuals than paying a couple of pounds a year? Well fair enough, we disagree. And yes I do think it's a v good way to spend tax payer money as it starts to chip away at corruption. Would you rather the US system where any candidate needs millions of dollars just to start the game? Why do you think businesses fund candidates exactly? Where the last election cost $6b...I'd prefer to stop all outside funding of political parties, but then they'd not have funding at all so it has to come from somewhere and the only pot of money we have right now is tax payers.

[unbeliever]

For heavens sakes! How many times! This isn't about which party I do or don't support...I dislike ANY company or union giving money to ANY party because you then have to question why. Clear enough now?

 

---------- Post added 21-10-2015 at 13:27 ----------

 

 

So you'd prefer businesses being allowed to dictate policies that probably cost us more as individuals than paying a couple of pounds a year? Well fair enough, we disagree. And yes I do think it's a v good way to spend tax payer money as it starts to chip away at corruption. Would you rather the US system where any candidate needs millions of dollars just to start the game? Why do you think businesses fund candidates exactly? Where the last election cost $6b...I'd prefer to stop all outside funding of political parties, but then they'd not have funding at all so it has to come from somewhere and the only pot of money we have right now is tax payers.

 

With a sensible limit on donation sizes, all that a donor can possibly hope to get out of his/her donation is to increase the chance of their favoured candidate winning.

Is that a problem?

 

It's worth looking at the 2011 proposals. I don't really think we need anything more drastic.

[sgtkate]

With a sensible limit on donation sizes, all that a donor can possibly hope to get out of his/her donation is to increase the chance of their favoured candidate winning.

Is that a problem?

 

It's worth looking at the 2011 proposals. I don't really think we need anything more drastic.

 

No possibly not. I was in favour of those proposals but I didn't think they went fair enough. Perhaps we should implement those now and then review in a few years time when something more drastic could be brought in if required.

[unbeliever]

No possibly not. I was in favour of those proposals but I didn't think they went fair enough. Perhaps we should implement those now and then review in a few years time when something more drastic could be brought in if required.

 

That sounds reasonable. No objections from me.

I doubt you could ever convince me that party funding should be dominated by the state, but regulation of private funding is good in principle.

 

Perhaps if enough Labour supporters wrote to their appropriate party representatives, Labour could be persuaded to support proposals similar to the 2011 plan next time they come around. You might also ask them to explain their objections last time.

Edited October 21, 2015 by unbeliever

[sgtkate]

That sounds reasonable. No objections from me.

I doubt you could ever convince me that party funding should be dominated by the state, but regulation of private funding is good in principle.

 

Perhaps if enough Labour supporters wrote to their appropriate party representatives, Labour could be persuaded to support proposals similar to the 2011 plan next time they come around. You might also ask them to explain their objections last time.

 

As we've come to an amicable agreement I'll even let the Labour dig slide