Party Funding by the Taxpayer

[rhys gethin]

I don't really care WHO donates money to political parties.

The point is that they DONATE.

If there is state funding, then it's not a donation, its compulsion under threat of imprisonment.

If we have less politicians and less politics and less new legislation, that would be a good thing.

If it meant more independent MPs rather than party placemen, that would also be a good thing.

Giles..

But, as has been pointed out, I think, I am forced to pay more for my beer, my toothepaste and God knows what else to fund Tory Party/Blairite propaganda by way of advertising. I am given no choice about this tax, and it pisses me off more than a little.

 

[Giles]

But, as has been pointed out, I think, I am forced to pay more for my beer, my toothepaste and God knows what else to fund Tory Party/Blairite propaganda by way of advertising. I am given no choice about this tax, and it pisses me off more than a little.

Why are you forced to pay more for these products - because the companies making them donate to political parties?

Well, you don't have to buy their products if it bothers you that much.

Or are you talking about something else?



Giles..

 

[Gmart]

If one pound of my hard earned cash goes to the BNP Giles then I will be unhappy, and so would many others too i'm sure!!

I'd rather the current system, with who gives what in as open a way as possible so that the press can highlight who is giving what. If they cannot persuade anyone to finance them then maybe the time for political parties has ended!

 

[Giles]

If one pound of my hard earned cash goes to the BNP Giles then I will be unhappy, and so would many others too i'm sure!!

I'd rather the current system, with who gives what in as open a way as possible so that the press can highlight who is giving what. If they cannot persuade anyone to finance them then maybe the time for political parties has ended!

I have no problem with donations from individuals or companies, unions etc, so long as they all have to be public: no exceptions, no "loans" that never get paid back, etc. If it is in the open, then people can form their own opinion as to whether they support a party funded largely by <xxxx> or not.

I don't want to see state funding of the current parties. If no-one supports them because they won't listen to their members any more, they do not deserve to exist.

Giles..

 

[yield]

If 'representative democracy' is to have any meaning at all then -

political parties must be the AUTONOMOUS expression of the various social groups they represent.

Autonomy in this case inevitably means autonomy in terms of funding. Make funding the gift of the state and then there will be a serious erosion of the representative nature of political parties and political institutions.

Though mind you, it's a rare day I don't start thinking the anarchists were right all along.

Well put. State Party funding will only support the perpetuation of the political elite.

 

[rhys gethin]

Why are you forced to pay more for these products - because the companies making them donate to political parties?

Well, you don't have to buy their products if it bothers you that much.

Or are you talking about something else?



Giles..

All products are advertised, and where they choose to put their adverts gives the rich power over newspapers, tv and so on. That is why, for instance, our newspapers range from tory to Genghis Khanite. These tory newspapers set the news agenda and made it impossible for the Labour Party to win elections until it too turned tory - for which process I had to help pay!

You tell me where I can get products that don't add the cost of advertising to the price I have to pay and I'll buy them - not that my individual action will have much effect.

 

[Giles]

All products are advertised, and where they choose to put their adverts gives the rich power over newspapers, tv and so on. That is why, for instance, our newspapers range from tory to Genghis Khanite. These tory newspapers set the news agenda and made it impossible for the Labour Party to win elections until it too turned tory - for which process I had to help pay!

You tell me where I can get products that don't add the cost of advertising to the price I have to pay and I'll buy them - not that my individual action will have much effect.

I've no idea where you buy the products that are never advertised - I wouldn't know what they are called, or where you might find them.

Anyone else know where you get products that are never advertised anywhere??

Giles..

 

[PVP]

The only reason this topic has come about is because the Parties have borrowed more than they can afford to pay back. Its akin to someone demanding the state to pay off their credit card bill because they were irresponsible with it at Christmas.

As a political party we have to live within our means, so why shouldn't they? Is there not an ethical case for political parties to be banned from borrowing money and made to live within their means?

And what type of 'legitimate party expenses' are we being asked to fund: Cherie Blair's woeful hair-do at £7,000 a month and Michael Howard's make-up at £3,500 a month (I know he's no great oil painting but that much???). I'd rather give the money to the nurses!

 

[Giles]

I don't think we need legislation to prevent them from borrowing money.

Why?

They are an organisation like any other. If they go bust, let them go bust.

I just don't see why anyone thinks that a major political party should be treated any differently to any other organisation.

They can raise their money, and spend their money, as they like. They should have to publish accounts and list donations etc.

They shouldn't receive special funding from the taxpayer just because Joe Public won't support them any more.

If the public don't want them, what right have they to exist?

On the other hand, there is no need to new laws to stop them borrowing money. It is their decision to borrow money, and it is up to them to repay it.

Giles..

 

[PVP]

Point taken Giles, though I am uneasy that preferential loan rates may be offset by favours to the money lenders. If the cash for peerages is proven then the uneasiness becomes a significant concern.

 

[Gmart]

The interesting thing about getting taxpayer money for this is that it would be the first Nationalisation that this government has done, and if the Tories do it it would be the first nationalisation they have EVER done.

Surely the argument is that if a business is unable to survive without government help it should be allowed to die.

Thus leading to the question:

Are Political Parties essential for the effective running of government and the country. I would suggest NOT, but others might suggest that people NEED parties to identify with, meaning that political parties are essential and justifying their nationalisation.

 

[gosub]

" people NEED parties to identify with" but if they all huncker on supposed 'centre ground' then the identification process amounts to 'what's my favourite colour'.

I think parties ARE essential for research and collective briefings on the ramifications of the issues they are dealing with (though that's a downside too).



Your thing about nationalizing, I'd thought that too, both the irony and probably the Thatcherite sentiment that followed it. I don't think they will go down the nationisation route as a first option, I think House of Lords reform would be a far more favoured method of sorting out their finances and entrenching their position. And with the turnouts on the last election and the current ongoing investigations, fuck knows where they claim the mandate for that from.

 

[DownwardDog]

The interesting thing about getting taxpayer money for this is that it would be the first Nationalisation that this government has done, and if the Tories do it it would be the first nationalisation they have EVER done.

Traitor Ted nationalised Rolls-Royce in 1971 and the water companies in 1973.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Traitor Ted nationalised Rolls-Royce in 1971 and the water companies in 1973.

One thing you can say in 'Traitor Ted's' favour is that he was well to the left of Tony Blair

 

[Gmart]

Traitor Ted nationalised Rolls-Royce in 1971 and the water companies in 1973.

I sit corrected, but still, nationalisation in this day and age!!!

I don't buy the 'the children would be lost without parties to identify with' c**p.

More likely we would be able to start voting for people we actually admired rather than the party with the best TV adverts.

Then again they'll never let that happen, takes away their power you see. It's as obvious as a vote by turkeys on whether xmas should be allowed or not.

I just admire the hypocracy of it all.