We Must Not Allow Crime To Pay
The entire political class, particularly the party leaderships, are setting up the taxpayer for the most audacious political and financial swindle in modern history. Both Labour and the Conservative party finances are tens of millions of pounds in the red with the LibDems looking likely to have benefitted to the tune of £2.4m from the receiving of stolen goods. Bankruptcy stares them all in the face now the traditional criminal sideline in the selling of honours is out of the question. So what do they plan to do? They plan to make us pay for their crimes.
The biggest cover-up in politics isn't Downing Street deleting emails or even suspicious office fires, it is the political class holding to an all-party ceasefire of silence on the Cash for Honours issue. Only the Scottish Nats are failing to observe the terms of the ceasefire.
Blair, Cameron and Ming will soon start chorusing that because of their past crookedness they should be rewarded with more taxpayers' money. State funding of politics will not clean up politics, it will make it worse. All the various proposals ignore the reality - most people think there is already too much politicsin our lives, people don't like politicians and they certainly will not welcome even more glossy leaflets through the letterbox paid for out of their taxes.
If the legacy of Levy's shenanigans is the state funding of political parties we will all have been robbed by him. Is it too much to ask them to raise their own funds from their own supporters? By all means allow tax breaks to donors, but taking taxes from people with no interest in politics to finance their foolery would be making crime pay. Crime must not pay off for politicians. The American colonialists fought a revolutionary war with the slogan "no taxation without representation" this time the slogan is "no taxation for representation".
126 comments:
The idea that the party nominated "working peers" are bad is ludicrous. Fertility expert Lord Winston and Olympic athlete Lord Coe were both 'working peers'.
What is Guido's solution to the party funding riddle? State grants? Because so long as you have private funding for political parties, there are going to be party funding scandals.
Time to begin voting for the local independent candidates, not some shyster 'parachuted' in by the so called democratic parties!
Will the jocks be putting up candidates south of the border or do we all have to move to Scotland?
If political parties are supported by public taxation then everything - absolutely everything - that the parties do is in the public interest. There can be no confidentiality about any area of political life. It will be a field day for the media, who can expose all those little fiddles that have helped contribute to the collapse of the parties' finances, because now it'll be our money they are stealing!
Do politicians really want that? Have they really thought this through? Any parliamentarian that votes for this is like a turkey voting for Christmas...
So let's get rid of private funding. How's this- parties can charge a membership fee fixed by parliament - say £5 a year. Each party then gets a fixed amount from the taxpayer to cover offices and modest expenditure - say £1m for each major party with 20% or more of the vote, proportionately less for minor parties. And that's it - no donations allowed. They'd have enough to run their organisations, but no glossy commercials, brochures, etc. And no sleaze.
Anonymous 3:40pm... you've not really got the point, have you...?
Whether Lord Winston is a suitable legislator because he spent a working life playing with other peoples' sperm, and whether Lord Coe is suitable because he has slightly longer legs than most people, is hardly important.
What is important is that we're all about to be royally ripped off to pay for political campaigning. And if paying for the "mainstream" parties doesn't worry you, what about funding the UKIP/BNP Alliance?
Personally I'd rather spend my spare cash on smarties.
State funding of parties is a crime. There's no way the voters would accept paying for stupid adverts or posters. or for Cherie to have her hair done.
Guido is right - it's a disgrace. They've got themselves into this mess and they expect the taxpayer to get them out of it.
I would not pay a penny more to any of them. We can't really hold them accountable for what they do with the funds they already get at any level of goveernment. Why should we all pay for them to indulge their hack-egos?
Guido PLEASE don't jump on this too soon, this could be a great petard for this inept bunch of numbskulls. I want to see the formula before we all go crazy. Because either it will give the BNP and other loony-fringe types access to our cash (which the population really won't accept)... or pressure group charities will turn to parties over night to increase revenue... or independents will increase like buggery.
I cannot see a way they can do this without seriously fucking up, could be funny?
Who are these people 'with no interest in politics'? Everyone has an interest in politics - whether they know it (or like it) or not. The levels of spending is a separate issue, but surely we all have stake in this thing we call 'democracy'? The use of 'interest' in your post merely highlights your narrow right-wing understanding of what politics actually is.
I believe it is my right to give a donation to whomever I choose.
However all donations/loans to political parties should be declared publicly (yes even the small ones) and any donor must be automatically disbarred from appointment to any position of privilege.
Any appointee to a privileged position must have earned their title by their real service to the country.
This should enable us to see who is worthy to receive an honour.
Amen Guido.
Anon at 3.40. I would propose a cap of say £100 per head, as apart from anything else it will make them spend more intelligently.
anonomong
there is another option, independently minded people of independent means who meet once a week to see if anything needs doing, then going away and getting on with real life .
Only receiving reasonable expenses, not a whole class of parasites who have to justify their existence by interfering in every aspect of our lives.
I for one could get along quite well without being told what kind of butter I am allowed to purchase (by a crooked scum bag)
I you haven't the nouse to afford to be in Parliament supported by your own means then you shouldn't be there.
John Prescott walks in to the office of Tony Blair
John prescott: I have some good news and some bad news tony.
Tony: What's the good news?
John: The good news is philip anschutz gave me a picture that's worth $1000,000.
Tony: Wow! That's wonderful! What's the bad news?
John: The bad news is that the picture is of you and Gordon in bed together!
Who do you think is going to fund the election campaigns of these independent candidates then?
So how about banning political parties?
Are they all morons? If they vote for state funding, who's going to be holding the purse-strings? Two scenarios -- either they'll be clients of the Chancellor, or they'll vote themselves even more funding just the way they have for their pensions.
Fantastic: Let's look at the options:
1. The way of the good ol' USA in which two parties dominated by rich corporations and lobby groups exclude all others from the national debate, and pork barrel politics rules at state and local level.
2. An end to those unloved politicians for good! Let's bask in the reflected glory of some enlightened ruler who'll look after us all without our having to bother our pretty little heads.
You Brits with your crazy traditions... it's so cool. I mean people get excited about Campaign Finance Reform in Washington but in the UK, you pay cash and get a title... that's awesome.
Bob wants to be Lord Foggy-Bottom. How much does it cost to, say, become a Lord? We'd get so many chicks in DC.
You are like a British PJ O'Rourke! We salute you!
The Loveable Neocons (and Lord Foggy-Bottom, the cheque is in the post)
Sorry Theo can't agree. Aside from the fact that indies are usually mad as a barrel of frogs they are utterly unaccountable. If one gets elected and sits on his/her arse for 4 years there is nothing you can do and noone cares a damn - local people have no leaverage and nowhere to go.
Equally there is no more wasted vote than for an independent - at both local and Westminster level even if they are elected they are powerless nobodies with no influence - with the rare exception where they form the balance of power.
By all means encourage people to vote for whatever crackpot party favours your views best - but a vote for an independent is an utterly wasted one.
Well well partly as a result of your rather splendid if rather hyper campaign to expose what we have all known for years ie political parties reward their large benefactors by giving them seats in the House of Lords whether its Lord Dodgy of Carpets or Baroness Dozey of Donkeys, UK taxpayers will have to pay for their political parties. Guess if you don't like the idea perhaps you should move to that beacon of political probity the USA and watch those federal dollars wiz into the funds of presidential candidates!! Perhaps the dead tree press are not so stupid afterall.
There's nothing wrong with private funding as long as it's all declared, in the open and with no strings (promises) attached. As an exercise in reality it would let the parties see just how popular they are/aren't. Maybe the parties should be cutting their cloth accordingly rather than tapping up the dear old taxpayer again just to fund their operating costs, hairdressing bills and the like.
Maybe the country would have more respect for politicians if they were seen to always put the interests of the citizens of this country first and foremost.
The problem may lie in our having an appointed upper house. If it was elected then access to political power would be based on appeal to the electorate rather than slipping fivers to Lord Levy. The success of the USA owes something to the excellence of its constitutional arrangements. An elected head of state, separation of powers, fully elected bicameral legislature - Perhaps we could learn something.
Nationalize political parties!
New Labout = GDR SED.
Will the taxpayers kindness be extended to the BNP and Class war as well?
Nationalize political parties. New Labour = GDR SED.
I don't think there should be any left wing parties. The prospect of paying for two is appalling.
The private funding of the political parties allows people to choose which political party to support. Let's not lose that freedom along with all the others that seem to be disappearing at an alarming rate.
Surely the solution, Anonymous, should not be rewarding unpopular, bankrupt and at least notionally corrupt parties with yet more public money. That's like telling me I shouldn't rob a bank but here's 50k for, you know, stuff...
Rather, if the parties, you know, weren't so utterly repugnantly bent they may be able to get some money from their members... remember them? I'm not suprised if you don't because there are fewer in most Parties than ever before...
However, rather than actually compete for the public's love (or at least membership and subscriptions) people like you prefer to just have these thieving pols help themselves to another chunk of our cash.
Or is this what Blairistas meant by being tough on crime and tackling the causes of crime? By paying off criminals...
It's a load of crap it costs nothing for some drivelmeister to stand on a street corner and mutter about his policies.
What I find most offensive is that Blair is prepared to mortgage the reputation of the Labour party to the man who brought us Alvin "not a pervert like Gary Glitter" Stardust and such great cultural landmarks as My Coo Ca Choo and the blatantly sick Red Dress..
Well said, Guido! Tell these political scroungers where to get off. They ran up all these debts for their own benefit alone - to get elitist salaries, perks and pensions. Make them pay their own debts.
What will they do for money if they aren't publicly funded? How about saving and WORKING for it,like the rest of us? If they can't do that, are they fit to run our country? Let them rely on their policies to win the election instead of con merchant consultants and advertising scams.
How much is required to fight a bare bones election campaign? I was one of a protest group of seven local election candidates who fought a local election for just over a £1000 for all of us. We all chipped in and had a few donations from supporters. That paid for all of our leaflets and posters plus some printing/postage costs.
Multiply that by 4 and you'd need about £5000 to cover a town of about 80,000 people. The Parties can easily raise that sort of sum - make them do it, Guido!! The claims of the big three parties to need a circus of hoardings, election buses and all the other vastly expensive paraphenalia are total crap! Let's see them live within their means for a change.
anon 3.40 solutions = pay the fuckers a LOT less , basic expenses, Cull the numbers . Limit the ammount of legislation they can pass.
theo spark
3.40.
Fully in favour of locals getting elected, but there is nothing wrong with some Con Lib or Lab locals getting elected.They may be boring or arseholes, but unlike the "A list" and Lib and Lab equivalents, they are local bores and arseholes and the electors should know what they are like.
As most politico's haven't had real jobs and had to deal with real business issues like not enough money for marketing, new machines, more people etc, they as a group have all spent way in excess of their budgets on elections.
Most of us are pretty pissed off with the mini hollywood epic so called party political broadcasts that now run. It costs them all masses to run the vast media control organs they set up, both to try and set the agemda and rebutt the other side.
If the parties were real businesses, who had budgets to meet, the whole approach to politics would be different. For a start the first question would be whats the smallest amount we can spend to win, as opposed to "we need at least £20 mill to fight an election"
I don't think we should give them a centrally funded bean, butif the slimy lot do get something sorted, we should all be allowed to vote on a few options:
Option a
No glossy ads, leaflets A5 max size, one colour print, no battlebus campaigns, no posters
Cost to taxpayer: sod all
or
Option b
Loads of ads, personalised brochures to every household, posters everywhere and so on
Cost to taxpayer: £150m+
I have a very sneaky suspision which option would get the most votes
I am confused. You cannot hit a party for receiving money which they had no knowledge was not kosher. Suppose a famous multimillionaire with a fabulous 'legit' business gave you millions, then you found out that three quarters of his wealth came from drug running? You can't 'unspend' the cash, can you? So why should you have any liability? There is plenty of olitical corruption about - i've just heard today of a local chief planner who plays golf every weekend with two top local councillors fom different parties. So why are you pointing at a wrong target?
On simpler stuff, I see Tommy Sheriden's 'going down'. I wonder who's flogging the video?
It is very simple - introduce the following three rules:
(1) political parties may only derive funding from membership fees (no donations, no business activities, no dinners with bigwigs);
(2) membership fees must be equal for all members (so that you can't have some rich members in a special class)
(3) candidates of any party (for any position, including local councils) must be paid-up members of that party (this prevents a few very rich people forming a party and effectively sponsoring their own candidates).
Couldn't be fairer than that - AND importantly: it will show how much the public cares about political parties...
(There may be other things to do instead, such as more direct rather than representative democracy - but that's another story.)
There are real problems with the funding of Political parties. There will be no simple solution but neither full state funding or only private donations will work.
'but taking taxes from people with no interest in politics to finance their foolery would be making crime pay.'
Some would say GB is increasingly doing so.
What hope is there for the treasury?
No state funding. It will only further bankrupt 'democracy'. Parties to survive financialyy will have to reconnect with voters. To survive they will have to recruit members prepared to work and canvass. They will have to cut budgets and do what any business does in recession. The parties will emerge better and stronger. Politics and politicians will lose pariah status. No bail out of the gutless gormless political heavyweights. politicians will will be
Anon 3:40. Simple. Coth & coat-cutting spring to mind and some old sack cloth & ashes sounds about right to me too. If their aspirations were genuine public-service instead of bloody useless self-important, self-service, they'd soon get the message - and we'd all be better off.
Can somebody please explain how this state funding of parties works??? Through my taxes, I am paying someone to come back to justify why they are (or should be) running the country? Is total insanity now the norm? This adds a totally new meaning to the "snouts in the trough" phrase...
If they can't properly manage their own accounts, how on earth can we trust them with the economy?
...
Anarcho-capitalism is beginning to look like an attractive political philosophy. We don't owe these parasites a living.
anon - why does Guido have to have a solution or taxpayer fund?
Open & honest fundraising, clear accounts, no party honours except when vetted by honours/appointments commission, ministerial code enforced by law.
If the buggers can't operate that way let them go bankcrupt/be jailed.
"Is it to much to ask for them to raise their own funds from their own supporters?" Guido F
If this were to happen the party with the richest supporters would be able to afford a more expensive campaign, which would give them a disproportionate possibility of gaining power.
In effect it would subvert democracy, as it would allow the richest members of the society to have a greater say in political discourses, thereby rendering citizens unequal in the democratic proccess.
Obviously this is what happens at the moment, but its hardly a solution to our current predicament is it?
If we are trying to solve the problem that there is 'too much politics', then a cap of say £2 million pounds per party per year seems best...
The solution is very simple and so often spouted by politicians, “MARKET FORCES”. If you have no money in the kitty because of poor membership due to a lack of interest then it is no one’s fault except your own. A popular party will have a healthy membership, healthy kitty and lots of glossies come election time. I pay enough for mismanagement thrust upon us by incompetent and unaccountable government and I deeply resent being asked to pay for advertising leaflets destined to become unopened landfill. If needs be, let the people with too much money continue funding, as the golden rule of physics dictates, “The biggest Shits will always rise to the top”.
The solution is very simple and so often spouted by politicians, “MARKET FORCES”. If you have no money in the kitty because of poor membership due to a lack of interest then it is no one’s fault except your own. A popular party will have a healthy membership, healthy kitty and lots of glossies come election time. I pay enough for mismanagement thrust upon us by incompetent and unaccountable government and I deeply resent being asked to pay for advertising leaflets destined to become unopened landfill. If needs be, let the people with too much money continue funding, as the golden rule of physics dictates, “The biggest Shits will always rise to the top”.
I agree that we do not want down the path towards state funding for parties, particularly because this will lead to yet further resentment by the masses for the political class.
However, in order to combat voter apathy, it is important that parties have significant resources to educate the unengaged of the differences between the parties... too often the apathetic use their reason for not voting as "there is no difference between the major parties - so what is the point?"
The one good thing to come out of this whole debacle over cash for peerages etc is that party funding will have to be increasingly transparent.
Shameless.
It's ripe for a party of the people to emerge (via the internet), and if it did and won I'd be in no doubt it would end up stuffing it's pockets in weeks.
Anyone who wants to be a politician isn't fit to be a politician - does that make sense?
It is because the media are so powerful that political parties require substantial means to get their message through the all-enveloping din.
Abolish newspapers and magazines, switch off all television channels, shut down the internet, and any party could easily run its election campaign on a shoestring.
It is difficult to know which is the most outrageous issue at present. My blood pressure peaks at the criminal warmonger, posturing, incompetent freeloader Bliar; the incompetent investigation into the Stockwell murder; the ludicrous, lecherous bloated incompetent Prescott; greedy incompetent (repetition!) cowardly Brown; and now they will want millions more to spend on telling us how much we need them! If you can think of a more appropriate word than 'incompetent' above, feel free to insert it.
Guido's right (again!), we must not allow this criminal government to get away with it.
"What is Guido's solution to the party funding riddle?"
What riddle? A party is just an association of individuals with a common aim. Let them raise funds by voluntary subscription and there will be a rough correspondence between the success of their efforts and the extent of their appeal.
In my opinion the less money they have the better, and the only way I can express that view is by spending my money on something more desirable.
theo spark is also right. It's time to vote only for Independents, and make the Criminal Parties realise the game is up.
I have had to vote for "None of the above" far too often!
Your barbecue invitation photo thing at the top of the post doesn't have a time or a date telling us when it's happening. Still, let me know when and I'll be there with enough heavy-duty kebab spikes for all.
Back to jumble sales is what I say. The bloody charity shops are far too expensive now. I'll join a political party again just for the thrill of sniffing stale jumble and the chance to pillage the best the night before!
Guido, it's the Oxbridge mafia. In fact the Lib Dems are as full as Con and Lab with the graduates of the Oxbridge school of crime. They may look like normal people coming to your streets, but in fact the Lib Dems are no different and have as many Oxford and Cambridge men capable of fiddling the best accountacy system. I thought these universities used to teach their graduates honour, instead they merely swindle us out of money and sell off peerages for a bit of cash. They are all a bunch of loosers!
Guido,
One of the ghastly side effect of state funding of political parties would be that all the Loonies would come out of the woodwork, and get paid by the State to spout their bile.
It would be far better to have legal capping of Election spending, and a mandatory no of hours for election broadcasting on TV than have state money given to Political parties.
how about the national lottery?
first prize is £7 mill, second is becoming PM for the week.
I've got to agree with anon at 3.40pm. It's not enough to point out what doesn't work; we need to come up with a solution that does work.
The simple fact is that politics is an expensive business and many of those (though clearly not all) expenses are necessary in the present system.
Leaflets are getting glossier and the consultants pricier (witness Lord Saatchi's bill to the Conservatives after the last election). It's the major parties' answer to voter apathy to model themselves on companies who successfully sell overpriced products which we don't really need. As a result they all follow the same "business plan": seeking the support of the same key voters with the same messages using the same methods.
If a funding solution was found that drastically cut the big three parties' relative spending power, it is likely that the political field would be opened up to parties that don't follow this middle ground consensus.
If this were to happen, the plus side is that this might address the question of voter apathy. The downside is the likely increased voice for the headbangers on the far right.
But if a party's message were strong enough it would attract necessary support, and the arguments put forward by the BNP simply aren't strong enough to do that.
Labour, Tory and LibDem need to recognise that no amount of glossy leaflets can paper over the cracks in the respective ideologies - if indeed any of them have any ideology left. Concentrate on the message and it will sell itself.
Party funding riddle? Quite frankly, I'm buggered if the taxpayer should pay anymore to these parasites. I reckon I've got at least 20 million backers too. I say put a cap on the amount allowed to be donated/lent. That would cut down on the amount of paper wasted on leaflets, and less shite to be spouted on telly & radio. The parties can post their policies on their websites, and we can see them if we wish to. Perhaps a quid pro quo for this solution would be compulsory voting. And 'none of the above' on ballot papers!
Anonymous told us that "so long as you have private funding for political parties, there are going to be party funding scandals."
It's a bit like that rare flash of self-knowledge by a paedophile who begs to be castrated/ locked up, because he knows he can't help doing what he does. It may be honest, but it doesn't reflect very well on the guy who says it.
Do we really have to shrug our shoulders and meekly accept that our politicians have no choice but to be corrupt?
Here are a couple of suggestions for how to address the funding problem.
1) Full disclosure. Maybe you have upper limits, maybe you don't, but let the people judge the parties by their friends and by the extent to which they are in hock to them.
2) (And, yes, I know this is a little contentious)How about political parties having a go at developing a sense of right and wrong? So to take an example purely at random - when you make a big song and dance about how virtuous you are in reforming the party funding rules, and then secretly bypass those rules yourself; why not take a moment to ask yourself "Is this the act of a moral human being or of a cynical charlatan with less ethical sense than an amoeba?"
this post by yourself Mr Fawkes is really interesting! However, say the public is not bothered enough to reject the political "flow"....and find it acceptable to fund politics....does it mean that the whole of your very personal project is jeopardised Mr Fawkes? Who are you Mr Fawkes...if I may use the sentiments of Mr Robin Day....a "here today gone tomorrow" blogger to reject or even fight against the wishes of the great British public!
fruitcake said...
how about the national lottery?
first prize is £7 mill, second is becoming PM for the week.
6:02 PM
Right Now, I think Cherie would tell TB to take the £7 million!
I don't agree with anonymous (3.40). There should be no conflict between honours and financial support for parties provided that there is openness and even-handedness. If we understood that a new peer was also a donor, but that the donation was not related to the conferring of honours, then this whole cash-for-peerages thing would be a non-story. The issue is that it appears that honours have been sold or that it was implied that a substantial donation or loan on favourable terms would secure an honour - and that is why Guido and others are rightly making an issue of it.
But then maybe I am naive to trust in the innate good nature of human beings. Perhaps, in fact, Guido is merely using this website as a springboard to his plans to become PM and will appoint those of us who make favourable comments and cash donations as his ministers. In which case, can I be minister for beer? Here's my five pounds.
The political establishment is so out of touch. The punters rumbled that the whole Party Politics System is a scam long ago. Even someone who didn't pay much attention in History at school knows the British system elects MPs to represent the interests of their constituents so when we constantly see our elected representatives representing the interests of the people who are bunging party leaders many of us decide we are voting for "None Of The Above."
Next time we should have a clear majority.
Read The Party's Over on the Machiavelli blog
The reason we have parties is because different interest groups want to control the government to put their grandiose schemes into action.
Maybe if we had a constitutionally limited government i.e. government only runs the police force and army then the whole party system would collapse and we could live free of state officials pestering us.
They'd have to take the money out of my cold, dead hands.
Fine. Let there be state funding, but let's cap it at a million per political party with over 100 candidates each per diem, cut the deposit necessary to field a candidate so that the little guys can get a look in and tie the funding with a heap of conditional stuff.
Suggestions for conditions please.
Regards
Bill
Mashtots complains 'In effect it [asking political parties to raise money from their own supporters] would subvert democracy, as it would allow the richest members of the society to have a greater say in political discourses, thereby rendering citizens unequal in the democratic proccess.'
It, though, has always been demonstrably the case and, for better or for worse, probably always will be, that the wealthy and powerful do have a greater say in political discourse in democracies and any other form of government you care to name. That's one of the attractive things about being wealthy and powerful, or so I'm told.
Whilst were are about it, I would get rid of the TV licence immediately and force that bunch of Labour Luvvies who run the BBC to live and die by what they broadcast.
It would force them to look at political bias at the BBC, a matter they continually ignore, because it suits them to, and IMHO, the BBC website is the worst..
Dear Anonymous at 6.24pm - I can assure you that the public is extremely bothered about the political "flow" - particularly the "flow" of public money into politicians' pockets! They already get far too much of our cash and the public will not stand for the taxpayer funding political parties any more than they do already, which is far too much anyway. Why is the poor bloody taxpayer funding John Prescott's jaunts to see his "good friend of many years" Rosie Winterton or Cherie Blair's car and driver?
You may be hopefully posting from No.10 or Labour Party HQ in the (surely you realise by now) forlorn hope that the public are all stupid - but they ain't - and you've been rumbled.
Guido is right - and his other identity is irrelevant!
(Mind, if your post was a wind-up and I've suffered severe sense of humour failure, I shall blame the hot weather............)
"this post by yourself Mr Fawkes is really interesting! However, say the public is not bothered enough to reject the political "flow"....and find it acceptable to fund politics"
If they find it acceptable to fund politics then they can do it themselves out of their own wallets. Last time I heard the vast majority were against state funding.
spot the boring anonymong at 6:24
Your supposition is that the great British public is interested in politics...it might be, but not the current version we have, I would (sorry Guido I'm breaching the guidelines here) make the supposition that apathy is the majority party, I agree with Slim Jim, give us a "none of the above" option, make the b*st*rds work for a living....pass me the wine bottle, I'm getting serious.
Anony-muse said:
this post by yourself Mr Fawkes is really interesting! However, say the public is not bothered enough to reject the political "flow"....and find it acceptable to fund politics....does it mean that the whole of your very personal project is jeopardised Mr Fawkes? Who are you Mr Fawkes...if I may use the sentiments of Mr Robin Day....a "here today gone tomorrow" blogger to reject or even fight against the wishes of the great British public!
If that is the case they should be taken outside and slapped with a trout until they come around to something resembling common sense.
A political party should stand or fall on the strength of it's supporters and policies. Nothing more.
Fantastic stuff Mr Fawkes. Churchillian almost. Lunch must have been good today...
We already have state funding of parties!
What do you think the SpAds are? Why else does the party chairman have ministerial rank and sit in the cabinet? Who pays for ministerial travel to party fundraisers? And on a more topical note, who is paying for the contracts to companies which then turn around and fund the parties?
Is it time for a "none of the above" candidate to be fielded in every constituency? Their remit would be to instigate a small number of constitutional reforms - a proper Bill of Rights, enforceable sanctions against the executive, the cleanup of public life - before standing down after one term.
Off topic I know but perhaps relevent to mentions of independant candidates above: With all this talk of sleaze rattling around has anyone canvassed the views of that pillar of probity, the man in the white suit (of blessed memory)?
One well remembers his stunning victory agaist the forces of darkness in '97.
One followed his venture into the wilds of Essex in the following fixture.
One heard rumour of an unsuccessful bid for the fleshpots of Brussels in '04.
But the only news Googleable is a puff piece from Auntie last year.
Has the independant voice of public morals no views at all on the current shenannigans? Or is the steely gaze of public virtue blind in it's left eye?
I understand that there will be quite a few redundancies at Labour Party HQ now that they are embarking on an "an active programme of cost containment." Fortunately everybody concerned has been told they will be helped into positions as ministerial advisors.
Tax is theft. This is mugging.
Perhaps the blame lies with modern medicine. Both the capitals of the USA and Britain were established along fetid estuaries, our Founding Fathers operating under the theory that malaria or plague would self cleanse the political process. The corpses could also be deposited into said estuaries with the rest of the effluvia. Clearly antibiotics and quinine are to blame for the Augean stables we call governments. Perhaps political parties should be abolished and political office be assigned like jury duty?
Completely OT, but has Recess Monkey been abducted by the govt for tests at Porton Down? His website has gone!
Guido...well said However this lot will win.
Everyone here should write to their MP's and demand to know why he/she has not raised the question of cash for peerages!
But there is a bigger problem which the electoral commission has allowed to happen.
Many say become Independent! but you will not get any time whatsoever on TV, if you can afford an advertisement! Only the 3 parties can have them and those with Euro MP's can have one or two. Parties with No MP's or Euro MP's cannot have any!!
Democracy? we have got the worst of all worlds. What will happen? They will vote money fopr themselves and as guido says this whole business, unless The Yard say different, will be forgotten.
It is a scandal which the BBC will not do anything about nor Sky (come to my wedding) Bolton nor any of the daily's.
God help us.
I fear for my country.
If they do it, then I'm going to start a new party.
It will cost nothing to join but all members will be entitled to "expenses" which are a suitable division of the taxman's handout.
Hence if everyone joins the party and votes for it, they'll get their money back. Only flaw is those that don't pay tax won't have an incentive - but then what's new?
Try this one, a regulator, The Office of Political Party Regulation OfPPol, Similar to the authority used to regulate the utilities.
If for instance each political party were to be given £2.0 for every vote in a GE, that money would go into an account administered by OfPPol. All parties would have to register to be entitled to the grant, each voter would look on it as a donation. The Political Party would then set up direct debits for day-to-day running. Money donated to a Political Party would be vetted by OfPPol and deposited or rejected. In effect parties would lose control of their donations. All withdrawals would have to be justified. At the end of each financial year OfPPol would publish accounts showing all ins/outs, no anonymity allowed.
State funding removes the parties from their dependency on [Tories-big business; Labour- trade unions; Liberals- dodgy businessmen].
What is the problem with political freedoms? Anyone would think you were a libertarian or something, Guido.....s
We already have state funding through the represetation of the people act, but as with Guido I'm strongly against further institutionalising it. So what if a few rich dudes contribute to party coffers - so long as it is above board and done openly then it's fine. I for one am not prepared to have my taxpayers mone spent on the BNP or lunatic UKIP, and god forbid the Lib Dems!
OfPPol? Yeah, because organisations like Ofcom and Ofwat do such a damn fine job..!
"State funding removes the parties from their dependency on [Tories-big business; Labour- trade unions; Liberals- dodgy businessmen]."
And forces the taxpayer to fund them. How free!
"What is the problem with political freedoms? Anyone would think you were a libertarian or something, Guido.....s"
Since when did libertarians support state funding of political parties? Or are you implying that libertarians are opposed to freedom?
...Lynton Crosby was quizzed today at 4.30pm.
http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/hoc_news3.cfm
Guido old chap,just wondering how that image you`ve posted of Parliament going up in flames might be percieved by those who would dearly love to see this site terminated.At a stretch it might just be seen as inciting terrorism.Far-fetched maybe but "organisations" consisting of a few disgruntled blokes in Wolverhampton who spout off a bit have been proscribed for less.In days when the Old Bill turn up on someone`s doorstep because they`ve given a point of view on a radio phone-in that might just be giving them the inch they need,just a thought old lad.
Guido -
Brilliant post. Well said that man.
BTW, what is the stunning graphic? Where did you find it?
Please note that Plaid have done as much as the SNP on this issue....
As I understand it, large donations to political parties are not illegal, it is just that the donors have to be identified. Why the bloody hell, are these rich, public spirited pillars of society so scared of being publicly identified? It makes one wonder whether their generosity is not as noble as we are led to believe. If these gents don't want to pay any more, then why should we?
I seem to remember Tony, saying, in a recent interview, that "The public may be 'invited', to contribute".
Message to Tony. If you e mailing training has progressed well enough for you to read political blogs and you are reading this. If you are considering sending me an invitation, forget it, I reject the invitation outright. Save Gordon some money and don't bother sending me the card.
Please, Please, Please F.O. (and I'm not referring to Mrs Beckett's new department).
steppenwolff said...
Completely OT, but has Recess Monkey been abducted by the govt for tests at Porton Down? His website has gone!
8:33 PM
Reports of his demise are unfounded, the website is back up and running.
Steppenwolf asks 'Completely OT, but has Recess Monkey been abducted by the govt for tests at Porton Down?'
Quite possibly; today's Telegraph reports Rare monkey stolen in zoo night raid
Strapworld and Guido
Here Here to all that.
I do not just fear for my country but also the world. This country is watched by other nations more than we might appreciate. Democracy is in troble enough without this place going "nazi" on it. We spend more effort and time on raising party funds than discusing politics, which is how it should be. The system is fine as it is. Especialy as we have now laws to clean up corruption. If the police do their job right the crooks will end up in jail, which is also how it should be. Why not just wait and see what happens?
The magor parties have been in financial shit before and they still get by. If they dont get by, they will go bust, which again is how it should be.
Laws to limit the amount of funds borrowed by parties would help. As would the privateisation of the BBC. Who are the biggest hand in the cookie jar anyway, and the people whos job it is to blow the whistle. A whistle that never seems to get blown. Show me a political party that would not like a cool 3.5 billion a year for doing bugger all to help the people.
You all know what I meen. "You give us 3.5 billion of the publics money, and we will help you convice the public that giving political parties state finance is good for them."
It's all getting a bit worthy, isn't it? In the comments, I mean. I remember when this used to be funny....
But on the current note, and to cut, I think, to the chase, why do we pay these wankers in excess of £100,000 to ponce about to no effect whatsoever? And please let nobody argue that the money goes on their assistants and researchers because if you look at the register of researchers' interests you will find that many of the beneficiaries of public largesse have the same surname as the MP they work for. And I looked from man to pig...
So called democracy is just an elected dictatorship of self-important, corrupt wankers.
Abolish the slimy parliamentary scumbags. Let Prince Charles run England, Princess Anne run Scotland, Prince Andrew run Wales and Prince Edward run Northern Ireland, all under the guidance of HM the Queen. Lords Lieutenants can provide local administration.
We, the ordinary citizens, would have no less say or influence than we have at present, and it would save us a fortune.