Quarter million : nice house or meeting with PM?

[bridge too far]

I think, Pap, that union members can already opt out of the political levy. I thought the proposal was that union members should opt in instead?

[Verbal]

I think, Pap, that union members can already opt out of the political levy. I thought the proposal was that union members should opt in instead?

 

Correct, BTF.

[buctootim]

Party funding is an interesting one. I am not sure how it can be done. You can't split a central pot of money three ways, because it is unfair on the smaller parties and the libs are much smaller than the cons and labs so shouldn't receive the same. You also can't do it on seats held because that favours the big two. It certainly cannot stay the way it is

 

Personally Id prefer some kind of state funding system that supports the candidates rather than the parties. That way it would reduce the power of the whips and increase participation (and success) in elections by independents. For those reasons alone though, like PR, it will never happen because those benefitting from the current system, party leaders, wont allow it.

[pap]

I think, Pap, that union members can already opt out of the political levy. I thought the proposal was that union members should opt in instead?

 

Correct, BTF.

 

Always happy to learn something new, people!

 

As a matter of interest, does the political levy always go to the same political party?

[Verbal]

Always happy to learn something new, people!

 

As a matter of interest, does the political levy always go to the same political party?

 

Union leaderships, following conference resolutions, decide where the money goes, and some goes on Parliamentary lobbying for workers' rights rather than to the Labour Party. I can't quite see Cameron's (tax the poor/give to the rich) Tories being a particularly attractive proposition right now.

[Lord Duckhunter]

We already pay enough to our MP's and parties without spending anymore. As their expenses claims still show, we are paying eye watering amounts of money for things that every other working person has to pay for themselves.Why should the hard pressed tax payer be forced to shell out money because our political parties are incapable of regulating themselves and keep selling themselves to the highest bidder. These greedy bastards will find other ways of fethering their nests,even if the taxpayer funds them even more.

 

There are rules in place, there are anti corruption laws and all donations should be published. If the parties acted in a correct manner and donations were just that, then the tax payer could keep their hand in their pockets. The arguement for state funding seems to be that unless they get it the parties will have to prostitute themselves and have policy influenced by large donors. The more they do that, the less they should be trusted with our money, but bizzarely the reverse seems to be true.To stop corruption lets give the corrupt people our money

[Verbal]

We already pay enough to our MP's and parties without spending anymore. As their expenses claims still show, we are paying eye watering amounts of money for things that every other working person has to pay for themselves.Why should the hard pressed tax payer be forced to shell out money because our political parties are incapable of regulating themselves and keep selling themselves to the highest bidder. These greedy bastards will find other ways of fethering their nests,even if the taxpayer funds them even more.

 

There are rules in place, there are anti corruption laws and all donations should be published. If the parties acted in a correct manner and donations were just that, then the tax payer could keep their hand in their pockets. The arguement for state funding seems to be that unless they get it the parties will have to prostitute themselves and have policy influenced by large donors. The more they do that, the less they should be trusted with our money, but bizzarely the reverse seems to be true.To stop corruption lets give the corrupt people our money

 

Corruption is a two-way street, though. A vast amount of business-to-government dealing is handled in essentially corrupt ways: ex-civil servants mysteriously turning up on the boards of companies that have just won a huge contract from his/her department; politicians being paid 'consultancies' or put on company boards where those politicians have a 'special interest'; companies making large donations to political parties and coincidentally winning large multi-milliuon pound contracts; companies threatening the wellbeing of politicians, police and civil servants who don't toe the line (eg News Corp); criminal enterprises bribing police to look the other way; etc., ad nauseum.

 

The point about public funding is that it comes with a proviso that all these corrupt practices must end, and that there is a very tight cap (of just a few hundred pounds) on donations to political parties, all of which are publicly registered.

[ecuk268]

I hear that an extra 50k ensured that you didn't have to share the 2-person platter with Eric Pickles.