The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Politics:
UK Elections & Politics

UK political party funding talks begin

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
[Read OP] How should parties be funded?
Uncapped donations
Capped donations (
Capped donations (
State-funded
Other (please post and explain)
View Results
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#1New Post! Apr 16, 2012 @ 21:47:24
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.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17677195

---------------------

The Labour leader Ed Miliband has proposed a £5,000 cap on individual donations to parties, while the Conservative leader David Cameron has suggested a £50,000 cap. A report last year by Christopher Kelly, Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, recommended a £10,000 cap, as well as more taxpayer funding for parties.

What do you think?
sister_of_mercy On March 11, 2015




London, United Kingdom
#2New Post! Apr 16, 2012 @ 21:49:23
I like Milliband's idea but I can't imagine Cameron agreeing to a threshold that low.
jmo On April 29, 2021
Beruset af Julebryg





Yorkshire, United Kingdom
#3New Post! Apr 16, 2012 @ 21:49:55
The £5,000 cap thing I would support, but a cynical part of me thinks the reason that Labour support it is because of the nature of their funding. Union funding would mean that they are technically being funded by thousands and thousands of people paying a small amount, even though in reality the unions are paying excessive amounts (far more than £5,000) whilst it technically counts as lots of small donations.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#4New Post! Apr 17, 2012 @ 12:31:18
@sister_of_mercy Said

I like Milliband's idea but I can't imagine Cameron agreeing to a threshold that low.


@jmo Said
The £5,000 cap thing I would support, but a cynical part of me thinks the reason that Labour support it is because of the nature of their funding. Union funding would mean that they are technically being funded by thousands and thousands of people paying a small amount, even though in reality the unions are paying excessive amounts (far more than £5,000) whilst it technically counts as lots of small donations.


Cameron proposed a £50,000 cap. I presume this is because it would avoid the Conservative party having to overhall their 'Donor Clubs' structure: https://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx

The most exclusive donor club in the Tory party is the Leader's Club, whose members give the party £50,000 p/a and are invited to meet David Cameron and other senior figures in the party at dinners and other events. There are a hierarchy of other clubs who give £25,000 p/a, £10,000 p/a, £5,000 p/a and so on, each receiving benefits proportional to the amount they give. I suspect the whole thing is just a policy exchange network for wealthy lobbyists.

Labour obviously have a natural advantage in this issue. They've wanted a lower cap for a while; I think a £50 cap was even proposed not long ago. The Conservatives would suffer a lot as a result of this. Yes, Labour are funded by the unions, who are funded by their members, but I don't think it's cynical to admit that. It's more democratic, in my opinion, to be funded by hundreds of thousands of workers than by a few rich people. Labour should probably budge, though, on the 'opt-out' Labour donations policy of the big unions, if they want to be consistent. Then again, it's arguably for the unions and their members to decide on that, not political parties.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#5New Post! Apr 18, 2012 @ 15:30:28
Can there be party funding consensus? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15830934

I think it really depends on some unambiguous indicator of public opinion in favour of a particular move. Polls should be conducted, but not before a careful and well-publicised debate. There's no question that the political process, which is supposed to be based on equal rights, needs to be insulated from the massive socio-economic inequalities that are sadly present in this country.

I don't think people should be so skeptical about taxpayer-funded parties, it's not as silly as it sounds. The reason MPs, for example, are paid salaries is that otherwise only the wealthy could afford to go up for election. But maybe a more modest reform, like a cap on donations (preferably a low enough cap that anyone could realistically afford to donate the maximum) will do until the economic situation improves and the public are more likely to accept higher taxes (Christopher Kelly suggests about £3 per vote for each party).
townie_guy On May 07, 2013

Deleted



, United Kingdom
#6New Post! Apr 22, 2012 @ 21:07:36
I reckon they should be able to get there funding by any means they can.
GeneticAnomaly On May 25, 2020
Marvellous, simply m





, United Kingdom
#7New Post! Apr 22, 2012 @ 21:12:56
Uncapped donations.

Wealth creators are the future of all societies. Politics is a rich mans game. Why donate without an expectation of favours.
townie_guy On May 07, 2013

Deleted



, United Kingdom
#8New Post! Apr 22, 2012 @ 23:38:12
I agree with the above. If I was gonna donate to an upcoming goverement it would be for a reason. I aint gonna invest into the running of the country with no return. And however you look at it, that is what it comes down to in the end.

If you are an investor, you invest in a political party that will suit your agenda and you help them. Then they help you in return.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#9New Post! Apr 23, 2012 @ 19:29:18
@GeneticAnomaly Said

Uncapped donations.

Wealth creators are the future of all societies. Politics is a rich mans game. Why donate without an expectation of favours.



Well, because it makes a mockery of democracy and equal liberties. If political influence is up for sale (or rental), then equal political liberties - one of the most basic premises of Western democracies - are merely nominal. In practice, the wealthiest will have greater control of the political process and will direct it to their advantage, while th rest will be marginalised, impoverished and misinformed. That's a problem for the same reasons that allowing any sectional interest to rule the political sphere is a problem. It has been, since the industrial revolution, the single largest problem with liberal democracy which is the modern paradigm of government.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#10New Post! Apr 23, 2012 @ 19:32:51
@townie_guy Said

I agree with the above. If I was gonna donate to an upcoming goverement it would be for a reason. I aint gonna invest into the running of the country with no return. And however you look at it, that is what it comes down to in the end.

If you are an investor, you invest in a political party that will suit your agenda and you help them. Then they help you in return.



Liberal Western democracies are premised on the idea that we are all equals when it comes to politics, not 'investors' with varying amounts of capital.
townie_guy On May 07, 2013

Deleted



, United Kingdom
#11New Post! Apr 23, 2012 @ 21:10:36
Well no because the giverments will still have interests and want backing from investors with the same veiw as them. Not everything is a conspiracy funnily enough.

And Poilatics is a cut throat game,

At end of day if you dont like a politicians veiws and there backers, then dont vote for them its simple really. No one is forcing you too.

And if you havnt got enough money too run a political campaign successfully then you should be prepared to fail.

Like it or not everything comes down to money. However peope should be able to see through the money if the message that a candidate is putting up is right,

If I try at anything I want every advantage I can get. I reckon politics is pretty similar. If you are gonna limit yourself to give opponents a better chance then you are an idiot. And I wouldnt lice in a country run by that sort of idiot.
davii On January 14, 2013
I'm Awesome


Deleted



London, United Kingdom
#12New Post! Apr 23, 2012 @ 21:15:19
Always easier to pull the strings of a puppet with the strings attached...
townie_guy On May 07, 2013

Deleted



, United Kingdom
#13New Post! Apr 23, 2012 @ 21:40:26
Well unfortunately politics is more than a game so there will never be a level playing field.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Mon Jun 08, 2009 @ 13:03
22 1101
New posts   Politics
Sun May 24, 2009 @ 13:57
18 1464
New posts   Languages
Fri May 16, 2008 @ 13:19
3 1073
New posts   Politics
Fri Jul 14, 2006 @ 13:08
7 817
New posts   Politics
Mon May 02, 2005 @ 14:11
1 375