Labour Donations

[nino_savatte]

No I can do loads better!


Is this another joke? I'm not sure as there isn't a big fuck of laughing smiley with it...


Neither would you, but that's mainly to do with the long list of people that probably want to spit in your face, I suppose it would be hard to keep a track of them all


I am aware of the concept, yes

Your comebacks (if that's what they are) get weaker each time. You can do "loads better"? Not on the evidence of this post, you can't. But then, you're not aware of your limitations -are you? Here's a smiley for you >

Your attempts at humour are some of the worst that I've seen. In fact, this post reveals a great deal more about your [glacially slow] thought processes than you realise. For me, any 'conversation' with you is like stabbing a bowl of porridge.

And you did plagiarise a text...and you thought I wouldn't notice. Seems you're the stupid one.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I wonder what the "Salmon left" have to say about this?

Right, I'm off to the kitchen to become part of the pickled herring left.

 

[CyberRose]

Your comebacks (if that's what they are) get weaker each time. You can do "loads better"? Not on the evidence of this post, you can't. But then, you're not aware of your limitations -are you? Here's a smiley for you >

Your attempts at humour are some of the worst that I've seen. In fact, this post reveals a great deal more about your [glacially slow] thought processes than you realise. For me, any 'conversation' with you is like stabbing a bowl of porridge.

And you did plagiarise a text...and you thought I wouldn't notice. Seems you're the stupid one.

True, I do have some way to go before I can produce such marvellous come backs as "shall we dance" and "stabbing a bowl of porridge"! But fear not, I shall pay more attention to the way you insult people on these forums (cos let's face it, the last time you actually took part in a thread to debate the topic was around 3 years ago). However, in future, when I write something I consider absolutely hilarious I shall make sure I add a laughing smiley just so everyone else knows just how funny I am being!

BTW, I'm not too sure which text I plagiarised, did I quote a passage out of Wikipedia and attempt to pass it off as my own?!

 

[urbanrevolt]

Right, I'm off to the kitchen to become part of the pickled herring left.

Surely, that should be the red herring left?

This is not the plaice for all these fish puns. Pretty sure the thread wasn't started for others to fillet it with these kind of puns packed in like sardines- though I realise I may be skating on thin ice here. Sorry to be so crabby.

OK crap jokes apart, I think there should be a cap on individual donations to parties of say £1000 a year to break the link between business and parties which is utterly undemocratic. Unions could collect individual donations- but these should be opted into if those individuals so choose.

Labour is of course once again exposed as a party that means business and our 'democracy' something that can be bought.

We need a system that actually reflects the democratic power of people organising ourselves. We're not going to get it from parties funded by big business.

 

[shagnasty]

A good point so the parties would have to go out and fight to survive giving members more sway, especially nu labour which as been losing members willy nilly and relies on cash for their campaigning

 

[lewislewis]

lol, funny how you all seem to have forgotten what the quote I was replying to said

Which was that Labour is OWNED by the unions - a more totally wrong and arse about face statement is not that often seen even on this board. That some PCers are happy to perpetuate that tory myth tells me all I need to know about them.

Hang on I said in relation to PC 'the only mainstream party funded and owned entirely by it's members and not by big business or trade unions.'

I should have put 'and owned' in brackets as it reads like i've given the impression the trade unions own the Labour party, sorry.

I actually love the history of the trade unions and think it's a glorious history, and i'm a trade unionist myself, however I believe New Labour by being to the right of the European social democratic norm (which the TU's fought for and achieved) has betrayed the TU's, and I don't have time for any of the TU leadership, all of who are New Labour clones with the exception of PCS who are always supportive of Plaid Cymru (Unison are nice to us too but I think they have a Blairite/Brownite leader).

 

[belboid]

fair enuf lewis, it did indeed read that way to me, but I gladly take your point.

btw, I wouldnt be too excited about the RMT support (I've never noticed abny for PC from the PCS & would be surprised to hear Serwotka being nice to you) - Bob Crow just likes to piss the Labour Party off, I think

 

[tbaldwin]

It has shocked me the number of commentators in the UK press that have used the recent scandal over donations to Labour to speak in favour of state funding for the main parties.

The message seems to be "either we let them vote themselves a load of taxpayers money, or we are bound to get these periodic scandals when they accept donations from dodgy sources".

The other option, that they should either get back to persuading millions of ordinary people to support them financially, or die, is never mentioned.

Why do you suppose that membership of Labour has gone through the floor? Is it because they are such a bunch of lying tw*ts?

Giles..

I think Political Parties should be funded by the state. I really dont see why they should rely on donations, the system is not working and never really has either.
Parties should be paid by their performance, eg 10 million votes= 10 million quid...
And it should help smaller parties like RESPECT,The Greens and the BNP too.

 

[rover07]

I think there should be a cap on individual donations to parties of say £1000 a year to break the link between business and parties which is utterly undemocratic. Unions could collect individual donations- but these should be opted into if those individuals so choose.


Totally agree...

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Of course you wouldn't find a left wing party taking a dodgy overseas donation from a union-free capitalist employer to pay off some tricky debts would you?




Not unless its General Secretary has the initials J.R. that is ...




and if it was 10,000 dollars from a Dubai-based construction company linked to a former head of John Major's policy unit and Tory peer? Well maybe that would be okay ...

 

[Fez909]

I think Political Parties should be funded by the state. I really dont see why they should rely on donations, the system is not working and never really has either.
Parties should be paid by their performance, eg 10 million votes= 10 million quid...
And it should help smaller parties like RESPECT,The Greens and the BNP too.

Is this in addition to donations? If not, then how do you propose funding new parties which have yet to stand in an election? Without first having stood in an election, they cannot gain the votes to earn the money to stand in an election. Joseph Heller would be proud!

 

[Giles]

I think Political Parties should be funded by the state. I really dont see why they should rely on donations, the system is not working and never really has either.
Parties should be paid by their performance, eg 10 million votes= 10 million quid...
And it should help smaller parties like RESPECT,The Greens and the BNP too.

All the current political parties started and have largely managed without state support.

They have prospered by having policies that appealed to a mass membership who were happy to contribute to them financially, in order that they represented their views.

Now, for some strange reason (maybe because their policies no longer chime with many people?!) their mass support has collapsed.

Yet, the major parties have grown used to their position and grown used to having an expensive "party machine" which costs a lot to run.

So, what do they want?

Instead of thinking "how can we regain mass public support?" and "how can we live within our means?" they want to vote themselves some of EVERYONE'S money.

That way, they will have to listen to the public even less, and they will also entrench their position, making it harder for new parties or groupings to arise.

Why should organisations that grew spontaneously not be allowed to wither away if they lose mass support? Why should the current situation be "institutionalised" by state funding?

Giles..

 

[CyberRose]

So because the more votes parties receive the more money they will get, that means they will have to listen to the public less?

And I'm sure there could be some way of getting round the issue of new parties starting (I dunno, either having a set membership fee and no more, or allowing them some of the public money per member)

 

[Giles]

So because the more votes parties receive the more money they will get, that means they will have to listen to the public less?

At present, the parties not only have to get our votes on election day, they also depend to some extent on enough people feeling that a particular party represents their interests enough to join, donate, assist with its running.

With more state funding, they will have to worry less about getting and keeping a large membership, won't they?

Why do people think that parties can't rely on membership and donations?

Why do they NOW need state funding, when they did not before?

What has changed?

This is the part that I don't get: why now?

Their only answers seem to be that people aren't joining in big enough numbers, and that the parties' costs have increased, which, to me, are not reasons for forcing people to contribute to them.

Giles..

 

[CyberRose]

They CAN rely on donations, nobody is disputing that. What they are saying is "what effect do these donations have on the policies of a party?"

You tell me how many people like you or me have £££s to throw at political parties? None. All the people that can afford that are rich business people. And rich business people tend to be of a certain persuasion - ie want to make more money, and they see donating to parties that they "agree" with (or is that parties that agree with them?) might be a way to acheive that

I'm not saying all big donations have strings attached, but a lot probably do

This is not a question of "need", it is a question of "integrety"

To ensure parties do not ignore the public and their own members, I see no reason why public funding of parties cannot be linked to votes gained and size of membership (this would also help newly formed parties)

 

[Giles]

They CAN rely on donations, nobody is disputing that. What they are saying is "what effect do these donations have on the policies of a party?"

You tell me how many people like you or me have £££s to throw at political parties? None. All the people that can afford that are rich business people. And rich business people tend to be of a certain persuasion - ie want to make more money, and they see donating to parties that they "agree" with (or is that parties that agree with them?) might be a way to acheive that

I'm not saying all big donations have strings attached, but a lot probably do

This is not a question of "need", it is a question of "integrety"

To ensure parties do not ignore the public and their own members, I see no reason why public funding of parties cannot be linked to votes gained and size of membership (this would also help newly formed parties)

Why do we need state funding now, when we did not have it for these last hundred years and more?

I don't mind people donating big amounts if they want to, so long as all donations are recorded and publicly available, so everyone knows who supports who.

I still don't see why they need all this money anyway. If they had a 500,000 members paying a tenner a year each, thats 5 million quid. Don't forget this is all on top of MPs and ministers pay, secretarial allowances, living costs allowances, and various other stuff they get paid to help them do their job of representing their constituents.....

Giles..

 

[CyberRose]

They don't need the money!

That's not the issue at all!

The issue over state funded parties is to end corruption!

 

[belboid]

state funding is a dreadful, idiotic, idea. Put a real cap on all spending & abolish the lords and all parliamentary patronage and thats 97% of the 'problems' all sorted.

 

[CyberRose]

state funding is a dreadful, idiotic, idea. Put a real cap on all spending & abolish the lords and all parliamentary patronage and thats 97% of the 'problems' all sorted.

No its not. You're basing that on the recent cash for honours scandal. I would imagine the vast majority of "dodgy" donations are given by people with vested business interests that they think the government will help them out with should they donate. Abolishing the Lords (as much as I agree with that) would not solve the problem one little bit as that would assume everybody who makes a dodgy donation wants to be a Lord! And that is idiotic

 

[Giles]

They don't need the money!

That's not the issue at all!

The issue over state funded parties is to end corruption!

So, you obviously think that parties should be state funded, completely.

How do you suppose the parties got started and have managed for all these years?

We vote for our local MP, not for parties. If no-one supports them, they have no automatic right to exist.

The politicians want to assure themselves of a nice stream of money without having to persuade people to support them. They are an increasingly irrelevant class of professional career politicians.

I can see why they want this - so they don't have to worry about why their party membership is collapsing - they can just vote to take our money by force!

Giles..

 

[ymu]

Why do we need state funding now, when we did not have it for these last hundred years and more?

I don't mind people donating big amounts if they want to, so long as all donations are recorded and publicly available, so everyone knows who supports who.

I still don't see why they need all this money anyway. If they had a 500,000 members paying a tenner a year each, thats 5 million quid. Don't forget this is all on top of MPs and ministers pay, secretarial allowances, living costs allowances, and various other stuff they get paid to help them do their job of representing their constituents.....

Giles..

A hundred years ago we did not have universal suffrage - and not so long before that MPs weren't paid and so the only people who could afford to do the job had substantial private incomes. The state was explicitly run on behalf of property owners.

Nowadays voters are disenfranchised in a different way - by private funding of political parties from property owners who expect to, and do, get what they pay for. As urbanrevolt, belboid and others have pointed out, state funding is not the only solution. I don't think rules on transparency are enough - it doesn't help to know that Tesco or Murdoch have given £x million if there's no way of preventing this from influencing policy in favour of big business regardless of what the voters want.

 

[belboid]

No its not. You're basing that on the recent cash for honours scandal. I would imagine the vast majority of "dodgy" donations are given by people with vested business interests that they think the government will help them out with should they donate. Abolishing the Lords (as much as I agree with that) would not solve the problem one little bit as that would assume everybody who makes a dodgy donation wants to be a Lord! And that is idiotic

not at all. The Lords is only the peak of the patronage crap. KBE's, OBE's etc etc, all very good for business and an individuals selling power. Of course all donations would have to be open n transparent as well, trying to buy planning permission etc would still go on, but they'd find another way to bribe councils n governments anyway, so stopping donations just to parties would be pointless.

 

[lewislewis]

No No No to state funding, it is a corrupt sham. Personal donations only, there are no problems with that.

 

[CyberRose]

So, you obviously think that parties should be state funded, completely.

How do you suppose the parties got started and have managed for all these years?

We vote for our local MP, not for parties. If no-one supports them, they have no automatic right to exist.

The politicians want to assure themselves of a nice stream of money without having to persuade people to support them. They are an increasingly irrelevant class of professional career politicians.

I can see why they want this - so they don't have to worry about why their party membership is collapsing - they can just vote to take our money by force!

Giles..

Parties don't have to be completely publically funded, but I do think that something along those lines will help. Parties could be perfectly entitled to collect membership fees (thereby having to work to attract and work for their members) but donors over £x could be replaced by public funds

Alot of what you say contradicts itself. For example, you say politicians want "to assure themselves of a nice stream of money without having to persuade people to support them" - but a large chunk of political funding comes from rich individuals. I doubt any party could survive on just their membership fees.

I don't have a perfect formula for how this can work, but if public funding is linked to the size of the membership and the amount of votes they got, then I don't see how this can be seen as being able to sidestep the need to win votes and support, if anything, I'd say it would encourage it...

 

[Giles]

Parties don't have to be completely publically funded, but I do think that something along those lines will help. Parties could be perfectly entitled to collect membership fees (thereby having to work to attract and work for their members) but donors over £x could be replaced by public funds

Alot of what you say contradicts itself. For example, you say politicians want "to assure themselves of a nice stream of money without having to persuade people to support them" - but a large chunk of political funding comes from rich individuals. I doubt any party could survive on just their membership fees.

I don't have a perfect formula for how this can work, but if public funding is linked to the size of the membership and the amount of votes they got, then I don't see how this can be seen as being able to sidestep the need to win votes and support, if anything, I'd say it would encourage it...

The key principle to me is that people CHOOSE to give their money or their time to a political party. They decide if it is worthwhile.

State funding takes this away and says that political parties have a right to some of everyone's money so people have NO CHOICE.

If they do this, I won't pay that share of my taxes.

Giles..

 

[CyberRose]

The key principle to me is that people CHOOSE to give their money or their time to a political party. They decide if it is worthwhile.

State funding takes this away and says that political parties have a right to some of everyone's money so people have NO CHOICE.

If they do this, I won't pay that share of my taxes.

Giles..

Surely if it is linked to the amount of votes each party wins and the size of their membership then what you say above would be nullified?

The fact is, we're not really talking about the small donations that you refer to above, but the larger ones that can affect policy...

If you're happy that rich individuals and corporations can buy policy, then fair enough

 

[EddyBlack]

Without understanding how much it costs to run a political party, and what expenses there are, I don't really have the full picture.

Regarding the problem of businessmen buying their influence, either through donations to things like the Millenium dome, lobbying with cash (i.e. tesco) or large donations to individual members. I think it is very important to find a solution, to preserve, or restore the health of British democracy. How much has PFI done to this end I wonder.

Regarding the proposal of state funding for parties in relation to how popular a party is. I don't see this as the whole solution, but in part it could be. For funding election campaigns, I think this would be a bad idea, and I agree with Giles in this regard. I think it would entrench the monopoly of the current big two. I think election campaigns should be funded entirely by party members donations, with donation limits.

For something like the annual party conferences, which must be quite expensive, I think state funding could have a place here (perhaps it already does for all I know but you get the kind of idea I hope). Therefore, if some of the funding (i.e. conferences) was from the state, this would not in my opinion damage the democratic process, and I think then that individual donations could be limited, say 2000 pound. How much does it cost to run an election campaign? I can't see that it should be all that expensive anyway.

 

[CyberRose]

Without understanding how much it costs to run a political party, and what expenses there are, I don't really have the full picture.

That's a good point and would have a baring on whether this is a good idea. If one of the big parties needs, say, £10m, then that is a mere speck on the budget. But if they need £500m then that is money that could be better spent elsewhere...

 

[gosub]

That's a good point and would have a baring on whether this is a good idea. If one of the big parties needs, say, £10m, then that is a mere speck on the budget. But if they need £500m then that is money that could be better spent elsewhere...

Labour and Tories got themselves over £20million overdrawn at last election iirc. Which as you say pails next to larger sums such as the money used to underwrite Northern Rock or even the "paltry" sums spent on education or the armed services. However 40 mil is what is needed to make the Police pay negotiations not look like bad faith. With the government trying to keep public sector pay awards to a minimum in the name of inflation, propping up political parties would be antagonistic to say the least.

Also if they did nationalize political parties all the special advisers currently employed by this government would logically become civil servants - how would their pay and rank fit in with civil service pay scales?

When I did the RP there was a wily old Tory Chairman in our office and we talked at some length about this (in relation to emerging parties) firstly state subsidized advertising (Party Political Broadcasts) is determined by number of votes cast for party in previous election, so your idea already happens, and he reckoned would stay entrenched due to parties borrowing against the real estate they owned Lab/Tory/Lib clubs.

Completely against state funding myself, would just reinforce the alienation of the electorates supposedly represented. I think they missed a trick though; rather than gold plating David Byrne's foray into health they could have made concessions for member's clubs with regard to smoking and had what is it 28% of the population drinking in their establishments.