political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Friday, January 26, 2007
Are You Against Taxpayer Funding of Political Parties?
Next week 18 Doughty Street is going to make a one minute political commercial to fight the State Funding taxpayer funding of political parties. We've got three options to choose from. Click HERE to vote which one you think we should make...
16 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Yes. I think they should be sponsored by the BBC since they focus more on the media than on the public.
Am I against taxpayer funding of political parties?
No. I think it's necessary, but that naturally it should be kept to a minimum. The key thing is to put a cap on the excessive and wasteful election campaign spending that routinely takes place, and also to remove the influence of business, the unions, or any other organisation.
That's a tough call Iain. Do I support the taxpayer funding political parties out of the public purse?
Or do I support political parties abusing the honours system and providing endorsements/backing to private businesses in return for the cash donations/loans they need to operate?
I would not like to see my tax pounds spent on Labour, the Lib Dems or UKIP, so I guess the answer is a firm no.
Some very facile ideas here - I am all in favour of State Funding - better than getting the mess we have with 'cash for influence' we have at the moment.
I loathe the idea of taxpayer money going to support any political party, never mind parties whose ideologies the taxpayer may feel violently opposed to.
It is subsidising failure - just as is government funding of the arts. In other words, if you cannot attract voluntary funding, it means you're not good enough.
Produce an appealing manifesto and the people will queue up to give you money. Just as, if you have a good idea for a film, you will find a backer. If you can't find a backer, the taxpayer shouldn't be forced to take pity on you.
I don't think any of the three ideas proposed has any mileage. They're trite.
Taxpayer funding is to subsidise failure and idea is, in itself, a loser.
I am not in favour of the taxpayers funding political parties. I believe that some basic limited funding for administration may be in order for the taxpayers to cough up up but that should be it.
Political parties should have to fund themselves. If they are not liked, then their funding will dry up, tough. I have no objections to firms or private individuals donating, lending or whatever to political parties of their choice. What I am against, is donors and sources remaining secret. All parties should therefore have to declare every penny they recieve and identify the source. If full disclosure puts some donors or recievers off, then they have a choice, put up or shut up.
Anonymous 7:04 - More to the point, what is your point?
The points I made are perfectly lucid. If you can't get funding, whether to produce a movie or an opera or to run a political party, that means you have been rejected as not being good enough.
That should be the end of the story. You tried. You failed. It is not up to the British taxpayer to finance failures.
If you come up with a political agenda that appeals to people, the funds will flow in.
Labour wants to push this nazi-esque state funding because it is a failure, its programme does not appeal to voters and it is going bankrupt. The socialist solution, as always, is ... dip into the public purse.
Look at Germany - masive funding of political parties - the FDP have castles in Spain.
Then Kohl ran secret accounts in Switzerland and had commissions on arms exports to Saudi Arabia handed in suitcases for his men to take to Switerland...with this fund...plus the money Mitterand had transferred through the Leuna Refinery deal with Elf-Acquitaine....he bribed regional party bosses.
Then we had the FDP with Juergen Moellemann and his Arab money in Luxembourg bank accounts used to publish election material smearing Ariel Sharon
The SPD is Germany's richest party with huge holdings in newspapers and radio stations and publishers
Yet they all get public funding worth a few hundred million Euros
Politics is about greed - ask Kohl about the Flick Affair and how F K Flick bribed ALL the German parties to change the tax law so he could buy W R Grace, Inc. and avoid Capital Gains Tax when he sold Daimler-Benz to Kuwait
If you want really dirty politics and corruption on a grand scale let political parties near taxpayers money
Unlike Verity, I do pay UK taxes and I second her point whole-heartedly.
If I am in agreement with a party's ideals and values I will support it. But, to continue with Verity's analogy, I'll be damned if I'm happy giving a penny to the political equivalent of "Sex Lives of the Potato Men" that is the Labour Party.
Verity's points are a bit simplistic aren't they? Where do you draw the line? Maybe we should say that schools, hospitals and the armed forces need to attract their own funding. And if they don't get it, as failures, they should all be disbanded.
The RAF needs to appeal to businesses and the public alike to attract investment otherwise it proves that they are not good enough.
I think probably on balance they should be funded - much as I hate the idea myself of paying for parties I dislike peddling their views - it seems the fairest way.
16 comments:
Yes. I think they should be sponsored by the BBC since they focus more on the media than on the public.
I don't want to pay MPs let alone their parties.
Can't get to my registration details ...
Alas Smith and Jones Format but hinting at apeing the What Have the Romans Done for Us pythons.
First talking head:
The government pay for the hospitals
Second:
No, we do
First talking head:
The government pay for the schools
Second:
No, we do
etc
First-Second-First-Second-finally ...
First:
Now the government are going to pay for politics
Second:
No, they want us to pay
First:
Really? For those hoardings and leaflets and party political broadcasts and all that?
Second:
Yeah, because they say it's not fair and leads to unwelcome pressures on political parties
First:
Well stuff their unwelcome pressures. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen
Am I against taxpayer funding of political parties?
No. I think it's necessary, but that naturally it should be kept to a minimum. The key thing is to put a cap on the excessive and wasteful election campaign spending that routinely takes place, and also to remove the influence of business, the unions, or any other organisation.
That's a tough call Iain. Do I support the taxpayer funding political parties out of the public purse?
Or do I support political parties abusing the honours system and providing endorsements/backing to private businesses in return for the cash donations/loans they need to operate?
I would not like to see my tax pounds spent on Labour, the Lib Dems or UKIP, so I guess the answer is a firm no.
Some very facile ideas here - I am all in favour of State Funding - better than getting the mess we have with 'cash for influence' we have at the moment.
I loathe the idea of taxpayer money going to support any political party, never mind parties whose ideologies the taxpayer may feel violently opposed to.
It is subsidising failure - just as is government funding of the arts. In other words, if you cannot attract voluntary funding, it means you're not good enough.
Produce an appealing manifesto and the people will queue up to give you money. Just as, if you have a good idea for a film, you will find a backer. If you can't find a backer, the taxpayer shouldn't be forced to take pity on you.
I don't think any of the three ideas proposed has any mileage. They're trite.
Taxpayer funding is to subsidise failure and idea is, in itself, a loser.
my answer YES YES YES if want to play then you betta pay
I am not in favour of the taxpayers funding political parties. I believe that some basic limited funding for administration may be in order for the taxpayers to cough up up but that should be it.
Political parties should have to fund themselves. If they are not liked, then their funding will dry up, tough. I have no objections to firms or private individuals donating, lending or whatever to political parties of their choice. What I am against, is donors and sources remaining secret. All parties should therefore have to declare every penny they recieve and identify the source. If full disclosure puts some donors or recievers off, then they have a choice, put up or shut up.
verity - do you pay UK taxes ? If not, then what is your point ?
Anonymous 7:04 - More to the point, what is your point?
The points I made are perfectly lucid. If you can't get funding, whether to produce a movie or an opera or to run a political party, that means you have been rejected as not being good enough.
That should be the end of the story. You tried. You failed. It is not up to the British taxpayer to finance failures.
If you come up with a political agenda that appeals to people, the funds will flow in.
Labour wants to push this nazi-esque state funding because it is a failure, its programme does not appeal to voters and it is going bankrupt. The socialist solution, as always, is ... dip into the public purse.
Look at Germany - masive funding of political parties - the FDP have castles in Spain.
Then Kohl ran secret accounts in Switzerland and had commissions on arms exports to Saudi Arabia handed in suitcases for his men to take to Switerland...with this fund...plus the money Mitterand had transferred through the Leuna Refinery deal with Elf-Acquitaine....he bribed regional party bosses.
Then we had the FDP with Juergen Moellemann and his Arab money in Luxembourg bank accounts used to publish election material smearing Ariel Sharon
The SPD is Germany's richest party with huge holdings in newspapers and radio stations and publishers
Yet they all get public funding worth a few hundred million Euros
Politics is about greed - ask Kohl about the Flick Affair and how F K Flick bribed ALL the German parties to change the tax law so he could buy W R Grace, Inc. and avoid Capital Gains Tax when he sold Daimler-Benz to Kuwait
If you want really dirty politics and corruption on a grand scale let political parties near taxpayers money
YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YESYES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,
YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YESYES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES
YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,
YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YESYESYES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YESYES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YESYES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES
YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,
YES!
I am totally opposed to taxpayer funding of political parties.
Unlike Verity, I do pay UK taxes and I second her point whole-heartedly.
If I am in agreement with a party's ideals and values I will support it. But, to continue with Verity's analogy, I'll be damned if I'm happy giving a penny to the political equivalent of "Sex Lives of the Potato Men" that is the Labour Party.
Dr. Syn
The political parties want to take money from the public because the public do not want to give money to the political parties.
If the public wanted to pay for having had their lives ruined by these parties those parties would be rich.
Verity's points are a bit simplistic aren't they? Where do you draw the line? Maybe we should say that schools, hospitals and the armed forces need to attract their own funding. And if they don't get it, as failures, they should all be disbanded.
The RAF needs to appeal to businesses and the public alike to attract investment otherwise it proves that they are not good enough.
I think probably on balance they should be funded - much as I hate the idea myself of paying for parties I dislike peddling their views - it seems the fairest way.
Pay them or they'll only help themselves anyway. How would we know?
Post a Comment