Do you support State Funding for Political Parties?

[slim]

John Prescott is in the news saying that state funding for political parties would help to ensure problems such as cash for peereges would cease to be a problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6187881.stm

My view is that political parties should be self financing and ALL DONATIONS should be open and available for public scrutiny. Government costs us enough of our hard earned cash without wasting it on election campaigns.

Interestig to see RR views.....

 

[angrydoc]

Couldn't agree more, slim.

 

[Slop_Jockey]

John Prescott is in the news saying that state funding for political parties would help to ensure problems such as cash for peereges would cease to be a problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6187881.stm

My view is that political parties should be self financing and ALL DONATIONS should be open and available for public scrutiny. Government costs us enough of our hard earned cash without wasting it on election campaigns.

Interestig to see RR views.....

I think you answered that particular question quite well.

 

[come_the_day]

Very rarely agree with Labour politicos, although I very rarely agree with any, to be honest!

One I do support is Clare Short. Her answer to the 4 yearly round of claptrap is to always have a coalition government, with elections only deciding on the balance of that government's complexion. Bring that one on!

 

[F169]

Absolutely not!

 

[grefs]

Definately not.

 

[andym]

Sod them all,they steal enough of my Taxes as it is!!!!

 

[Nutty]

I agree with every one, No Fecking way.

Now that's a first

Nutty

 

[Greenie]

If the tax man funded political parties then it would mean we could all
put our names down as prospective candidates------- and get paid .
Nice little earner :lol: :lol:

Give Gordon a surprise

 

[Seadog]

Greenie wrote

If the tax man funded political parties then it would mean we could all
put our names down as prospective candidates------- and get paid .
Nice little earner

It isn't that simple. Deposit up front is required, nominations if standing as an independent and; this might cause snags, members of the Armed Forces (and several others) can't become MPs and I'm pretty sure you can't even be a candidate. Get elected then put your notice in? If you're still in you'll need to leave before not getting elected. Bummer!

And the funding may pay the candidates team and for publicity, but not the candidate.

Parties should be funded by supporters, not the State and (especially financial ) supporters should not be rewarded by the parties.

 

[Maxi_77]

I think central funding of parties will not solve the cash for peerages problems as the government will never provide all the cash a party wants so all the parties will still need private funding.

I have no real problem with long term party supporters being rewarded through the honours system as long as it is clearly for that support, I think much of the present problem is about people whose financial support has been relatively short termed and in some cases the honour was not clearly for support of the party involved.

In many ways government funding for parties opens up a very big can of worms, what if the BNP qualifies and say Plaid Cwmrydoesn't? How does a new party get started, and so on.

Peter

 

[Not_a_boffin]

Doesn't come over in teh bBC article, but also buzzing around in the background is the ludicrous suggestion that parties get funding according to their representation in Parliament. Note that this "funding" is not for public services, but purely for party expenses (ie getting re-elected) - so allocating state funds that way works towards guaranteeing that the party in power stays in power. How unlike new liabour to think of that....

We've got to stake these blood-sucking [email protected] out in the sunlight to make sure they're gone.

 

[McHammock]

These theiving bar stewards get enough of our money as it is (saying they should get a huge % pay rise to £100k) without us having to pay to get the buggers elected in the first place.
Stop the cash for honours scandal by banning all donations over £1,000 & publishing full lists of donors.

 

[Jimmy_Green]

I do not believe that state funding is the answer. As Maxi says, it would open a big can of worms. And why should my taxes go to support an extremist party or any other party of whose policies I disagree with?

Not only that but it would then create endless amounts of red tape and departments set up purely for the adminstration of it, which again would take more money out of our pockets, which seems to be a constant theme under the current government.

I do believe that an independant body be set up to administer the honours system, taking it out of the hands of the politicos.

 

[Maxi_77]

These theiving bar stewards get enough of our money as it is (saying they should get a huge % pay rise to £100k) without us having to pay to get the buggers elected in the first place.
Stop the cash for honours scandal by banning all donations over £1,000 & publishing full lists of donors.

But the current probles were not over donations but 'loans' and 'charitable donations'. As I said before I have no problems with a long term party supporter who has done well enough to be able to chip in to party funds getting an honour as long as it is clear that the honour is for just that. It is the suggestion that you can jump the honours queque by funding one of Tones pet schemes that is the problem.

Peter

 

[Captain_Jacks]

As always politicians looking after themselves!!

They are very well paid (too well - make them live on the average wage only), they can then have expense accounts some up to £200K on expenses per year, (try getting that through the SO or now logs officer)

Why should we now pay for a party that cannot make ends meet as they spend too much money!! They should not be allowed to be in govnt unless they can balance their books, otherwise the country is scr**ed (it is)

The Scottish Parlement, once again another jobs for the boys piece of Sh*te. And we have all get to pay for that. (they all get a massive living allowance which would pay for a new sailor)

Lets go back to basics, give MP or SMP, the average wage only. Expenses capped at 10% of salary PA and finally make all LORDS pay for the privalege of being in the LORDS, let them pay for the commons instead of us. The MP's and SMP's have forgot what the average man in the street is about as they are now nearly all dodgy and paid far too much and they know how to work the system to look after them not us

What do you all think the average salary and 10% expenses?

 

[asst_dep_to_dep_asst]

........ As I said before I have no problems with a long term party supporter who has done well enough to be able to chip in to party funds getting an honour as long as it is clear that the honour is for just that. Peter

I have a problem with patronage bringing with it anything other than a public "Thank you". If you look at individuals either serving or who have served in very responsible government positions e.g. the current Lord Chancellor, who are only there in the first place because of their friendship with the PM or other government ministers, it puts this whole nest of vipers into a more proper perspective.

We vote for our MPs, be they UK Parliament, Welsh Assembly or MSP and we have to take reponsibility for their faux pas and vote them out. When someone has been appointed to a government role, we can do nothing about them.

Also, if you compare the gongs and honours given to these shysters to the paltry rewards given - and often not given - to military personnel who have been killed or injured in the service of their country, we should all be ashamed of our honours system.

 

[Maxi_77]

I think at the end of the day no one is going to fail to spot the difference tweensay an MC and a peerage for political services or a knighthood for a lifetime of charitable work, and for that reason that we all know what is what I see no real problem with it. On the other hand if one secretly finances a political party and then gets some honour for something other than political work then that devalues the system because we no longer really know why the person got the honour

 

[slim]

Unfortunately cash for honours has been with us since Richard the Lion Heart went on his Crusades. I think it will always be with us in some form or another until the responsibility for bestowing honours is taken out of the hands of politicians. A fairer more open system of selection for honours needs to be brought into place.

 

[Maxi_77]

To be fair during the medieval period the system of government was cash/soldiers for honours/estates, and thus to equate Tonies little scam with that is to elevate Tony far above where he should be. If we could have a fully elected 2nd Chamber then the real problems associated with selling honours would disappear, as long as all those sold are clearly marked as political. They them would barely be worth the paper they were printed on.

Most recipients are in their own way deserving it is only those associated with politics that are suspect, even the civil service knighthoods are OK it's just their version of a long service and good conduct badge for mandarins. Every one knows that and treats them accordingly.

It is interesting that in fact it is the independant body that scrutinises these honours that started the present scat going with the refusal to confirm some of Tone's nominations, so to a certain extent the fact we are having this debate is down to the fact that independant monitioring is working.

As long as you have polititians there will be patronage, it is inevitable,