The latest 18 Doughty Street political ad attacking the State Funding of political parties can be seen HERE. If, like me, you oppose the further expansion of state funding, please add a link on your own blog if you have one.
We've also done a futuristic film about what might happen the night after the next General Election. Is a Con-Lib coalition on the cards? Click HERE - it's just a bit of fun...
38 comments:
My answer to that is NO NO NO
you want to play politics and a group wants to plat politics ,spend you own money not mine ,isn't that part of Thatcherism Iain ?
Very much agin the public funding of parties. They might as well complete the loop and bring in Ozzy style compulsory voting. New media and old skool public meetings combined bring more effective communication - its only out of laziness and duplicity that huge figures are needed for negative TV advertising.
Gus @ www.1820.org.uk
Yes, I am strongly against funding politics from tax, but I still find this ad embarrassingly feeble, albeit not quite as bad as last week's anti-tax-everything ad.
Really, just look at any real ad on any UK TV channel, and see how much slicker, generally more intruiging and more engaging it is to the casual viewer, and see how much more subtly it achieves its effects. This clunking effort is reminiscent of Stalin-era soviet propaganda as much as anything. It just doesn't do the business in the West in 2007.
(I comment here because 18DS wouldn't let me comment without registering on their site -- why should I bother to do that?)
David Cameron would surely have to resign if his 'triumphant' leadership had merely achieved a hung parliament with a Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition.
Iain, the combination of re-imposed censorship and relentless progaganda for your TV station is getting a bit tiresome. This isn't the USSR, yet. I think I'll give you a miss in future.
Iain, great bit of fun and some real concerns that might well face us after the next election. So Gordon to go for May 2007 then? I am not so sure ;-)
Yes- just a bit of fun - so long as I can emmigrate before it happens.
Maybe you should have introduced a few "what ifs". For example, there are significant doubts as to whether Mings health will hold up until the next election - so who would replace him? An internal coup in the Cons would be entertaining, successful or no - and it wouldn't be impossible for the likes of Kate Hoey or Frank Field to abandon Labour - though not for the Cons, I'd agree.
And you forgot to mention what happens to Georgeous George - shame on you!
Such public money would be used to :
1.pay for coaches to ferry labour party supporters/officials to televised Conservative party election rallies where "spontenuous" protests can thus be arranged.
2. Pay for Munch "scream" masks etc for said theatrical "spontaneous" protests.
3. No doubt to pay the journos or moles for the tip-offs of where such "spontaneous" protests need to occur.
Of course such tactics are asymmetrical - no type of protest "spontaneous" or otherwise were ever allowed near Blair/Brown for "security reasons".
Ironically this is what the cash in the cash for honours scandal funded.
And I'm not in favour of it!
Why bother producing an ad to oppose state funding of political parties, Iain?
You can't really care about this issue as it won't stop you going ahead anyway and standing to become a Tory MP which has produced its own proposals to extend state funding for the big parties.
If it won't make to change the way you vote, it can hardly be an important issue to it, can it?
A thousand times NO!
We have this state supported funding of political parties and it is a scandal just how much they spend. Believe me, when you have the two largest parties level-pegging as we do (and for that matter the UK also!)then they will support each other in approvals to spend as much as they possibly can.
To all those criticising the ad (although I do think the tax ad was better myself), why don't you submit your own ideas on how to make the next ones "generally more intruiging and more engaging... to the casual viewer"?
Iain
I posted earlier (about 3.15) with something along the lines of the following (below). I see that a few other contributions made by later commenters have appeared on the board and was wondering whether you'd publish mine.
I'm not a Tory supporter and I doubt you'll be selected to fight my constituency (Tottenham) so I won't be voting for you.
I recognise and accept that this may make you less likely to answer my earlier post, but I would be grateful for a reply - if for no other reason to confirm that there are good people in all parties and that your campaign isn't one of self-interest or agent and principal.
If on the other hand, you were planning to publish my post and perhaps respond, please feel free to delete the entirety of this comment.
I didn't keep a copy of my post, but it was along the lines of this:
Dear Iain
I am deeply worried by your campaign against state funding. I know that Lord Ashcroft funded your campaign in Norfolk North at the last election. The Noble Lord cherry picks the seats that he wants to support. This means that he bypasses COnservative Central Office and the recognised party structure. This is less than democratic as it means that voters in Ashcroft-funded constituencies are voting Tory but getting Ashcroft.
Please can you explain to me that your campaign is not related to your erstwhile funder and that there is no connection in his financial support for you and your support for his model of politics?
Anonymous 1.15. Bye bye.
Chad, Sigh. Listen, when we agree on something why not just admit it and welcome it? I have made clear live on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark that I oppose David Cameron's proposal to extend state funding. I do have a mind of my own. I do not cast my vote on a single issue, and nor, so I understand do you.
cheers iain
Pete, I don't know what happened to the earlier post. I didn't delete it. maybe it was on another thread?
You said "I know that Lord Ashcroft funded your campaign in Norfolk North at the last election".
Incorrect. I received a total of £10,000 if I remember correctly.
You said: "The Noble Lord cherry picks the seats that he wants to support. This means that he bypasses COnservative Central Office and the recognised party structure. This is less than democratic as it means that voters in Ashcroft-funded constituencies are voting Tory but getting Ashcroft."
Not true. The seats were analysed according to which seats needed the most support. Seats which had adequate funding did not receive any. All candidates had to submit a properly costed business/campaign plan and they were analysed on that basis. Your last point is ridiculous. He bypassed CCO because he rightly thought that the money would be wasted.
You said: "Please can you explain to me that your campaign is not related to your erstwhile funder and that there is no connection in his financial support for you and your support for his model of politics?"
I make up my own mind. My own stance on this bears no relation to Michael Ashcroft, whom I regard as a friend. Michael's speech in the House of Lords was indeed a powerful criticism of state funding and I agree with most of the points he made in that speech. Even the Labour Minister admitted it was a powerful speech.
I am not sure what you mean by "support for his model of politics". My own position is my own position. It is not influenced by anyone else and it would certainly never be influenced by personal financial considerations.
I have gone into some detail on this. I have seen your own blog and it is quite clear that you are no supporter of mine or my Party's. But please do not assume motives which just aren't there when you ask accusatory questions.
I hope you will feel I have been as explicit as possible in this answer. If not, well...!
Iain
Thanks for your answer - I'm not out to lob accusations willy-nilly, but I am very uncomfortable about the Ashcroft issue. So I appreciate your candour.
Isn't £10k almost the limit at which you can spend? Therefore I'm not entirely incorrect when I say that he funded your campaign.
I suppose that on this, as in so many other issues in politics, it comes down to whether or not the individual voter trusts his or her individual representative. I read your blog a fair bit and though we don't share many political views, I don't believe that you are in any way crooked (FWIW).
However, I do think that the Ashcroft model - in effect "buying" a free rein to influence individual constituency elections - is far too open to corruption to be a plausible method for campaign funding - even if the man himself isn't.
State Funding is a pretty crap way of doing things - but it's the least crap of all the options I've seen.
Just when we thought there were no new levels for the NuLab infestation to gnaw their way down to, they have now try to introduce a Soviet/Maoesque meme putting the state in charge of people's consciences.
Thus, the jackbooted intention to force the Catholic Church to place vulnerable, damaged children with gay couples for adoption.
Now they want to force people to contribute to political parties that have policies that are profoundly against the consciences of millions of people. I personally think the Labour Party as currently constituted is morally foul. I think the Thought Police and "hate crimes" and every single form of "political correctness" (aka thought fascism) is wicked and I do not wish to contribute to those aberrations.
Equally, there are many old style Labourites who think the Tories are merciless and greedy and lack humanity. They have a perfect right to think as they choose and they should not be forced to contribute to the funding of the Conservative Party against their will.
This is a conscience issue.
Tony Blair (P'lice Be upon Him) is deluded, deranged and dangerous if he thinks he can force people to go against their consciences to fund his bankrupt, seedy party machine, or, indeed, force people to fund any party that goes against their conscience.
If people don't contribute of their own free will, that means an they don't want Labour; they don't want the slithy toves in the cabinet and they don't want Tony Blair (P'lice Be upon Him) or the foetid Gordon Brown.
My own position is my own position. It is not influenced by anyone else
Not even the patronage of Mr David Cameron, which you explicitly enjoy as an "A" lister?
Put simply I would not want my money to be funded to any political party other than Labour, via the taxpayer. Can you imagine how you would feel if you found that your cash had help fund another Lib Dem bar chart! ;)
Seriously though, it's not on.
Who wants state funding? and, How will it help them?
As oh-joy said, NO NO NO.
Is it too simplistic to ask that political parties fund themselves?
Make the party relevant and thus get more members. I would rejoin if I thought the party worthwhile.
buster said...
Is it too simplistic to ask that political parties fund themselves?
Make the party relevant and thus get more members. I would rejoin if I thought the party worthwhile.
7:42 PM
"Wot he said!"
I'm fully in agreement political parties should not require any subsidies from the taxpayer.
Whilst we are on the subject of 18 Doughty Street, remember the farce with you creasing up over the malapropism of Stephen Ladyman - is it available on YouTube, if so, can you post up a link so we can all share it around?
How about this as an idea?
Each person can nominate a party on their Tax Return / P50 etc by ticking a box that authorises HMRC to pay £1 of the tax bill they pay to a particular political party.
That way each person knows that the £1 is tax they would have had to pay anyway and that it is definitely going to the party thay want it to go to.
I'm an innocent and I don't know and I can't work it out.
Who decides on the allocation of the centrally collected distribution? And how can this be independent?
Pete, 5.59. No, the £10,000 was not for the election campaign. It was the pre election period.
Anonymous 6.18. No. If you read my comment above I made it clear that I said on Newsnight (to the astonishment of Kirsty Wark) that I disagree with David Cameron's line on state funding.
Completely, utterly and implacably opposed to stolen State funding. This is the issue on which I'm prepared to risk imprisonment. Hayden Phillip's review is a total stitch up - it has no credibility whatsoever in any political quarter. No private club - which is exactly what a party is - has the right to steal my taxes. Links will be placed.
Iain,
To be clear, if you were selected to stand as a PPC on the condition of supporting the manifesto commitment to state funding, would you decline the offer?
Re: the spoof news. Hells Bells- you lot were more wooden than the Scottish News presenters!
I would like to see State funding for Independent candidates. Party discipline pretty destroys the much hyped link between an MP and his electors.
..of course Cameron didn't just propose state funding but his proposals only reward the big parties (2+ seats) thereby leaving the independents with nothing and thus denying those who voted for a party that did not win a seat the same financial assistance.
So not just ripping off the taxpayer, but ring-fencing the funds for the big boys too to preserve the status quo.
Doubles all round!
Anonymous 10:10. No. No forced contributions to political parties. They make or break themselves by their policies.
Parties that present policies the voters find appealing and want to see implemented will support them financially of their own free will.
They set out their stall in the marketplace, just like any other enterprise. If a market trader sets out a stall selling rotten fruit and vegetables, he will fail. If a political party sets out a stall offering mouldy, unappealing policies, they will fail. To suggest that the wage/salary earner should subsidise either the failing market trader or the failing political party is outrageous.
Iain,
Silence on my question re being bound as appc to the Tories pro-state funding position.
It would therefore seem that we do *not* hold the same view on political funding, as I could not vote for a party that supports it, but you are quite happy to go as far as standing for them on a pro-state fudning platform.
That's why I am confused why you bothered with the ad (which I enjoyed - it could easily be a UKIP ad), as it is clearly not a button issue for you.
Chad, yes you clearly are confused. I answered your question above. Do you agree with UKIP's policies 100% of the time? Of course not. Do I agree with 100% of official Conservative policy? No. At least I make clear when I disagree, and State funding is one of those issues. No one hauled me over the coals for saying so on Newsnight. Just welcome the fact that on this issue we agree. Rejoice! Rejoice!
Hi Iain,
No-one hauled you over the coals, because they know that you will happily bend and overlook your opposition to state funding if selected as a ppc.
It won't make you stop voting Tory or standing on their platform, so why would the party bother to object to some easy words now that might gain you some additional support?
Of course I do not agree with all of UKIP's policies, but if they suddenly supported state funding like the LibLabCon-sensus, then I would not vote for them, as this is a key issue for me.
Anyway enough of this thread! I agree you don't like the idea, but I'm sure we both know it's not going to sway your vote in any way, so is a pretty pointless opposition.
Chad, no of course it won't make me not vote Tory. And saying such a thing makes you look like a jerk.
And just for the record, if I am selected as a PPC my opposition to state funding will continue and I will continue to speak out about it. Just for the record.
Post a Comment