Political Party Funding - Should it be funded by public money?

[davieG]

BBC

The Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have met for talks about how political parties are funded.

Nick Clegg confirmed talks had begun on the issue, which has dogged the biggest parties for years.

An independent inquiry's proposal that more public money should be used to reduce reliance on big donations met with a lukewarm response last year.

But the issue has since come back under the spotlight after revelations about Tory co-treasurer Peter Cruddas.

He resigned after being recorded by undercover Sunday Times reporters, apparently offering policy influence in return for donations.

It is understood representatives from the biggest three Westminster parties have met at the Cabinet Office in Whitehall.

Deputy Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg, who was giving a speech in London, told reporters: "There are talks occurring today.

"I attended the first few minutes of it to launch it with representatives of the three main parties, thrashing out what I hope will be a deal on party funding."

Mr Clegg said negotiations would explore suggestions from Committee on Standards in Public Life chairman Sir Christopher Kelly, who investigated party funding following previous rows.

He said: "There is a blueprint for change from Sir Christopher Kelly and his panel.

"We need to crack on with this and I am impatient to see urgent progress on this on a cross-party basis."

But he questioned one of Sir Christopher's key recommendations, saying his report had "certainly overstated the public appetite" for boosting taxpayer-funding of political parties.

[Zingari]

I think however political parties are funded they can easily be open to corruption.

For instance it would be very easy to set up or buy advertising companies , rather than give actual donations .

These companies could then give much more favourable rates or do a much better job to promote the party of their choice.

Let’s just face it , we are stuffed by big business , multi nationals etc whatever we do .

[Captain...]

It doesn't matter how you slice it, there will always be political favours in return for support, whether it is financial support, or using influence to sway public opinion, it will take something drastic to break the power hold Labour and Conservative have over British politics, the Lib Dems could have done it, but shot themselves in the foot by hopping into bed with the Tories. The AV could have done it, but we said no because the papers that have the politicians on their pockets told us to. Our only hope now is George fvcking Galloway, and people like him.

The only fair way to do it is to actually ban newspapers and TV programs from discussing it and letting each party provide a manifesto online and a 10 minute promotional video (funded by public money) and let the people watch them discuss them and make up their own minds free from "interpretation" by journalists. If people actually voted based on the policies then it would also, hopefully persuade the Government to stick to these policies.

I know this will never happen and no other party will break into politics, unless done so with the backing of Murdoch and his like, i which case they would be even worse than the current lot.

[Guest]

only read the title. definitely not. we'd have to fund the extreme parties too.

get their own finances, have to declare where every penny comes from, have a Cap on the amount.

Poltiics is becoming pure celebritism nowadays. It was one way that British politics was so much better than Yank or French or .... but people are voting for the perceived person and not the real person or the belief.

[Guest BlueBrett]

Absolutely it should.

The main difficulty I can see is how to you apportion the funding. If it was done on share of vote or number of MPs or anything that relates to the popularity of the party then you would inevitably create a situation that just further entrenches the status quo. Practical legislative issues aside though I can't see how anyone could possibly oppose the idea. My only worry is that our lawyers and politicians would make a mess of implementing it. The idea itself is unassailable.

[Guest]

Absolutely it should.

The main difficulty I can see is how to you apportion the funding. If it was done on share of vote or number of MPs or anything that relates to the popularity of the party then you would inevitably create a situation that just further entrenches the status quo. Practical legislative issues aside though I can't see how anyone could possibly oppose the idea. My only worry is that our lawyers and politicians would make a mess of implementing it. The idea itself is unassailable.

Sorry I'd oppose it simply because all parties are not made equal. Why should the tax payer fund so many parties that they would NEVER want elected.

A cap and transparency. simples.

[Guest BlueBrett]

Sorry I'd oppose it simply because all parties are not made equal. Why should the tax payer fund so many parties that they would NEVER want elected.

A cap and transparency. simples

But your money already gets spent on thousands of policy initiatives that you probably wouldn't agree with. Personally I find the idea of Labour getting their hands on one penny of my money abhorrent but then I consider that it would be a small indignation to bear in return for cleaning up the political process.

You're bang on with your

celebritism comment though. They've got it all backwards these days. I don't want my politicians to try to second guess what I want to hear I want them to stand firm and voice their own ideology and then I'll vote for the ones I agree with. You have no idea what you are actually voting for these days thanks to the effect New Labour and their stinking 3rd Way had on British Politics. Drives me mental on a daily basis.

[Guest Bilo]

No they shouldn't, drawing the line is the problem.

Will it go towards the Big Three? If so, that's undemocratic and unfair towards the smaller parties.

Will it go towards all registered political parties? I don't like the prospect of my taxpayers' money going towards the BNP or Respect thanks.

If I want to donate money towards a political party, I'll do it of my own volition. There's more than enough money wasted on politicians as it is.

[Rincewind]

Well in America it's very open. For instance radio stations may not feature ads from companies that support a different party that they do. But it'll go on no matter how they regulate it.

[Guest]

But your money already gets spent on thousands of policy initiatives that you probably wouldn't agree with. Personally I find the idea of Labour getting their hands on one penny of my money abhorrent but then I consider that it would be a small indignation to bear in return for cleaning up the political process.

You're bang on with your

celebritism comment though. They've got it all backwards these days. I don't want my politicians to try to second guess what I want to hear I want them to stand firm and voice their own ideology and then I'll vote for the ones I agree with. You have no idea what you are actually voting for these days thanks to the effect New Labour and their stinking 3rd Way had on British Politics. Drives me mental on a daily basis.

I'm glad we agree on the celeb point.

I'd blame it on Maggie as opposed to New Labour (who are really maggie's children). Michael Foot was the man who should have led our country. .

Your argument about them already wasting money is accurate but sadly your new idea would have them needing to waste more. I may be more Red than Blue in my politics (as opposed to you) but I think Political parties should be funded by people who believe in them, thus pushing the extremists further out of the picture but I think we need to know who is doing the funding and but a reasonable limit on the total amount to be used;

I'll try not to repeat that again in this thread.

[Captain...]

With the internet now though it is much easier to give everyone the same platform, it would not cost much to get a manifesto and a campaign video hosted on the internet, it should then be there for all members of the public to access and make informed decisions on policy*, scrap this baby kissing, Greggs visiting, black man handshaking crap and vote on the policies only the policies and nothing but the policies.

We need to get back to people actually voting for the person who they think will best represent their constituency in parliament and not on which leader has the smoothest skin.

*Hard copies to be printed and made available on request for those that don't have access to the internet.

[Guest]

With the internet now though it is much easier to give everyone the same platform, it would not cost much to get a manifesto and a campaign video hosted on the internet, it should then be there for all members of the public to access and make informed decisions on policy*, scrap this baby kissing, Greggs visiting, black man handshaking crap and vote on the policies only the policies and nothing but the policies.

We need to get back to people actually voting for the person who they think will best represent their constituency in parliament and not on which leader has the smoothest skin.

*Hard copies to be printed and made available on request for those that don't have access to the internet.

you get my vote.

[Daggers]

Short answer: 'no'

Longer answer: 'ban them from spending money in an attempt to get elected'

If your local MP or prospective MP hasn't made themselves known to you through their actions before the election they don't deserve your vote.

[The Doctor]

No. From what I can gather all you need is an open-top bus and a loud speaker, then to drive round the city constantly shouting - vote for me. I'm (insert name of the majority group in the area). - and you'll win by a landslide.

[21st Century Fox]

Pffffffttt who needs schools and hospitals anyway.

[Guest Bilo]

No. From what I can gather all you need is an open-top bus and a loud speaker, then to drive round the city constantly shouting - vote for me. I'm (insert name of the majority group in the area). - and you'll win by a landslide.

Can't think who you're referring to Mr Bradford West.

[The Doctor]

Can't think who you're referring to Mr Bradford West.

To waste extra money you can also hire out a hall, then go visit an anarcho-communist club and request to borrow a podium. I still can't work out the thought process that lead from "need a podium" to "visit that club".

[21st Century Fox]

Can't think who you're referring to Mr Blackburn.

[Guest Bilo]

I had almost forgotten about George 'Gizzajob' Galloway's internal sat-nav being completely fvcked.

It's bad enough my taxes help to pay that cvnt's wages without them funding his rabble of a party as well.

[Jon the Hat]

Wahey! Brilliant idea Ed. Ban big donations except the ones we get! A bit like "dont change constituency boundaries! (unless it benefits Labour)!"

[Jon the Hat]

We would be better off putting rules in place which require MPs to live and have lived in their constituency for at lest say a decade. That was we end the scam of the parties managing their own pipeline of MPs past voters who vote on party thereby allowing the same identakit politicians into parliament.

[Jon the Hat]

Brilliantly, Eds suggestion would cost Labour the sums total of 1% of their funding in the last year. What a twat. Another point, given that 25% of unions members vote Tory, why does all the union money go to Labour?

[Zingari]

Brilliantly, Eds suggestion would cost Labour the sums total of 1% of their funding in the last year. What a twat. Another point, given that 25% of unions members vote Tory, why does all the union money go to Labour?

Maybe some of the corporate donations to the Tory party have board members that support Labour or Lib.

The union members can opt out of donations to Labour can’t they ?

[Guest MattP]

No.

I've only ever donated to the Tories and UKIP and it should be a personal choice. Taxpayers funding parties is quite a shocking thought.

[Saxondale]

Absolutely not. Why should taxpayers fund various groups of people with whom they don't necessarily agree.

And if the purpose of this would be to destroy corporate political influence, the influence would be exerted in other ways.