Is It Now Time To Look For Alternative Funding Approach?

[youngmafbog]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-cash-crisis-trade-unions-2252249

Perhaps as a Tory I should gloat over this, however I firmly believe a good Government is created by a strong opposition, if labour loose their funding then this would likely have a major impact on them being this, let alone forming a Government.

As we continually have squabbles about all parties on their funding, is it time now to come up wil a public funded solution?

In the past I have been against this, but am now having doubts.

[AB Editor]

If elections were publicly funded, would you like to see them ONLY publicly funded?

While many complain that it would be an expense to the taxpayer, isn't it worse to have a "free-to-the-taxpayer-election" - but a bought government for the next 5 years?

This doesn't mean the government couldn't be bought - but it would be bribery of individuals, which is a lot more politically toxic.

[Gromit]

Yes, funding should be reformed to avoid this...

// More than half of donations to the Conservative Party last year came from the City of London, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Firms and individuals donated £11.4m in 2010, the bureau said, bringing the total from the City since David Cameron became leader to more than £42m. //

It is no coincidence that there has been no reform of the banking sector which crashed us into the longest recession and involved massive bailouts by the taxpayer. And nothing is done. Infact the Government are resisting regulation that the rest of Europe have accepted. The reason is the vast amounts of money that the City give to the Conservative Party. That is clearly wrong and the donations system should be cleaned up. Of course Blair and Brown were also guilty of the same offence.

[AB Editor]

"The reason is the vast amounts of money that the City give to the Conservative Party"

It's not just that - on a European scale London is a powerful financial city, I think it annoys the Germans :)

[weecalf]

Why is the party not funded from with in .The mps get millions should some of it not go toward party funds or does it already

[AB Editor]

"The mps get millions"

Do they? Where from?

[weecalf]

Are they not paid?

[youngmafbog]

They do sometimes get millions, like Mr Blair and many others from all parties. but it was not from Government but private enterprise; a different topic.

Gromit, the Banks will get us out of this mess. It is what we in the UK are good at. Far more positive things are achieved daily by banks than the few things that the press blow up. And it was International Banking that was the problem, but I guess you would like to tie our hands behind our backs so our competitors win and FFT becomes powerful for your wonderful EU.

And lets face it New labour are responsible for a lot of the UK problems we have coming out of it.

[AB Editor]

Yes... but not millions?

"The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2013 is £66,396"

http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/

You know this money comes from the taxpayer anyway, right?

[AB Editor]

"They do sometimes get millions, like Mr Blair and many others from all parties. but it was not from Government but private enterprise; a different topic."

Is that's what Weecalf meant, I now understand. Maybe they should - if they want to support the party from their own pocket. But why do that when Citibank will bung you a couple of million for nothing? (Other than leaving them along for the next few years?)

Sorry for wandering off topic.

[AB Editor]

"And lets face it New labour are responsible for a lot of the UK problems we have coming out of it."

The biggest problems we face come from further back than that! Lets not do the mud slinging bit just yet.

How much would an election cost the taxpayer?

How do we decide on funding? What about a new party being formed? How do they get their funding?

[weecalf]

Nearly 200 times 66 thousand is a lot of money .If other firms ,business are in trouble then the work force at times do come to their aid by getting less wages and in other ways .Why could the members not bail the party out .

[Gromit]

Political donations is effectively asking for bribes. No company or Union should be allowed to give money to any political party. If people want to give money they should join the party and give to it on an individual basis. Even that should be capped at a low amount, say £1000 and should not be tax deductable.

The Parties should be centrally funded by the tax payer after they meet certain criteria. The top two parties should recieve the exact same amount, and the rest a % of that based on members/total votes/elected representatives on a sliding scale.

[Octavius]

Maybe they should adopt the socialist approach from the olden days where they get their MP salary, take out the same amount as an average industrial worker earns per annum as earnings, and the remainder goes into the party coffers.

[AB Editor]

Weecalf, I prefer this argument:

Reduce the number of MPs by 50%, use their basic wage to fund parties. You'd get £19,918,800 to split out.

But that's not nearly enough.

The laste election cost £80m! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#cost

[AB Editor]

Sorry, the one before last... 2005

[AB Editor]

"If people want to give money they should join the party and give to it on an individual basis. Even that should be capped at a low amount, say £1000 and should not be tax deductable."

I believe this system is in force in the US and they simply arrange hundreds of individual donations, rather than one big one.

[jno]

the Banks will get us out of this mess

Wrong way round: we're having to get the banks out of their mess. That's how they come to be publicly owned.

[Old_Geezer]

All finding should be public, but the rules should be sorted out first to ensure correct allocation and no misuse. In the interests of democracy I suggest the first rule is, no political parties. Representatives of the people should be putting forward the view of those they represent not their own, or some power block. And if they opt to vote against the view of their constituents they should be obliged to explain why they were persuaded to do so to those same constituents.

[FredPuli43]

The US has an odd system though. They have a form of cap on individual or corporate donations, but they also have a scheme whereby any action group can give what it likes, provided that it does not provide positive support for one candidate or party. So it spends the money attacking the candidate or party that it doesn't want. As there is generally only one significant candidate or party, this amounts to promoting the one that they want. Nobody seems to have noticed this obvious defect or, if they have, been able to cure it.

Public funding with no donations from elsewhere or a very tight limit on individual and corporate donations are the only answers.

[jno]

I don't know why people want fewer MPs, unless they think their own voice should be even less important.