Unite

Choose Labour to have a government that is influenced by left wing possibly corrupt unions
Choose Conservative to have a government that is influenced by possibly corrupt corporations and rich despots
Choose Liberal to have a government that does not know where it's going will cozy up to the biggest looser of the first two parties

You pays your money and takes your choice

Until some one finds a way to remove monetary influence from the political process this will always happen. Which suggests that political parties should be funded by the tax payer and to my mind that's just another recipe for more corruption by politicians along the lines of the expenses scandal.

Crickey, I'm so cynical

 

If we are going to have a democratic system with periodical elections contested by a range of competing parties, it will certainly cost money and that money has to come from somewhere. But wherever it comes from - corporations, trades unions, wealthy individuals, pressure groups, the public purse - somebody complains about it. So stand up and say it: where exactly should the money come from? What source of funds for the political process would you not condemn as "corrupt"?

 

Fine. So a party which appeals to well-off people will be able to fund itself by its members donating £5K each, which they can afford. And a party which appeals to poorer, working class people will have to make do with its members donating £5 each, which they can afford. There's a word for that type of political structure: plutocracy.

 

Why is it necessary to have a Party system at all?
I'd prefer to vote for a local person,who's declared his/her views on such-and-such,to pay his own electoral expenses,or if you are that good/popular you might get your mates to chip in and help you out
And then get into Parliament and find like-minded members to support whatever causes that group of people agree on.
He/she would only then have to find the funds to convince the electorate of his own constituency,no huge costs involved in knocking on doors,printing a few thousand leaflets etc.
And in my mind you get one term,maybe two maximum.
You might get people who actually want to do good for the country,not get their fat arses onto the benches for a lifetime of good living at the taxpayers expense.
The whole party/professional politician system is why there's such apathy towards voting.
They say one thing to get your vote and keep their jobs,but when they get in it's the same tired merry-go-round of excuses to do sod- all,instead of radical thinking and ideas

 

So a party which appeals to an awful lot of poorer people will be able to fund itself by asking for a small amount from each person voluntarily.
And a party which funds itself by asking for slightly larger,(but limited in size),donations from the far-smaller number of wealthy people,(who will voluntarily be willing to pay anywhere near the maximum),will have to make do with what they can raise.
Therefore balancing the amount of funds each Party can raise.
I think they used to call that,"Democracy"....it'll never catch on.

 

Sorry Lightning but I don’t think that’s democracy because it would mean that a small number of rich people could have as much or more influence as a large number of poor people. In a democracy they should all have the same influence.



Other than Lightning and Johnv’s suggestions the only methods of funding political parties regularly touted are the current system of self-financing (generally from donations) or by direct financing from the exchequer.

In the case of the first method I believe people and organisations only donate to political parties out of self-interest, such as influence or honours, and for that reason such donations could at best be considered to be undemocratic. I suppose if that is generally accepted you could say that as well as voting for the flavour of government you are also voting for the sort of influence that you are most happy for your government to accept.

When it comes to funding from the exchequer I am very doubtful that this would be free from the sort of corruption that seems to be prevalent with any financial dealing that directly involves politicians (like I said in an earlier post, I’m very cynical!).

So, as was asked earlier by Pete1950, How to fund political parties? I have to confess that I don’t know. So Pete I’m afraid I’m going to turn your challenge around and ask for your constructive contribution!:wink:

 

Instead of a House of Commons in which the government party/ies of the day always has to command a majority of the 650 votes, it would be possible to have a loose system of numerous smaller groups with shifting alliances on different issues. Each issue which comes along could be resolved by a process of political debate, argument, log-rolling and arm twisting. That is in fact exactly the way the European Parliament works, so congratulations Lightning on coming out in favour of the Brussels parliamentary system.

 

Since you ask, no trades unionists at all are forced to support Labour. Unions can make political donations only from their political fund, which has to be kept separate from the general funds of the union. And every member has the right to opt out of making contributions to the political fund [see the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 sections 71-108 etc].

In the UK (unlike the USA) election expenditure is indeed capped, and the limits enforced by the electoral court.

 

Would you prefer to have amateur surgeons, untrained pilots, ignorant teachers, inexperienced admirals? Or is politics the only field in which you think an untrained, inexperienced, ignorant amateur can do a better job than someone who has spent years studying one of the most complicated and demanding of professions and thus might actually know what they are doing?

 

Come on Pete,you'll have to do better than that me old mate.
Have a look at this and tell me how many are trained politicians...
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01528.pdf‎

 

And for those who can't be bothered to look,it's 90 out of 621 MP's
But theres also 84 Lawyers and Barristers,which is probably far more important to some....

 

It certainly helps if some of the people whose job it is to make laws, amend laws, and repeal laws have some idea how the law works, and a sprinkling of doctors, academics, soldiers, journalists, and financiers is also beneficial. But it helps a lot if a good proportion of politicians have some understanding of politics. You are right in pointing out that it is not an exclusive profession - so what?

 

It appears,( by the list referred to by the hyperlink),that the majority of politicians are in fact untrained,inexperienced,ignorant amateur Politicians.
Or are you inferring that only members of the "Professions",are likely to make good Politicians? Maybe the rest of us should go away and play nicely,while our betters decide whats good for us then....
Might have been like that in the Fifties,but I thought we'd moved on,average educational achievement being that much higher these days...

 

We can all agree that the existing system has a mixed lot of MPs with various backgrounds, but that quite a large proportion of them know something about politics or law, or both. May I refer back to your post #7? You said that you would prefer "local people" instead of the existing system. That presumably means you would prefer to get rid of all those MPs who have some relevant professional knowledge, and replace them with untrained, inexperienced, ignorant amateurs. You justify this by saying that some of the existing MPs are in that category already. Well, if that is your view so be it; I beg to disagree.