who should pay for political party electoral campaigns?

[Distortio]

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=434112006

 

first half of the story is about new labour sleaze, cash for peerages, the second part mentions how the new labtory parties are both massively in debt after spunking £18,000,000 each at the last election, and now all major parties seem keen to have the taxpayer bankroll their respective propaganda machines. i'm not sure how they can justify that without including every party. (keep your eyes peeled for the distortio party: making a difference! or pocketing £18m for spouting sharn, whatever...) as that would be rather undemocratic.

 

leaving it up to the parties to appeal to the wealthiest donators, as we've seen, results in an inevitable shift towards a right wing, capitalistic agenda, as the thing about wealthy corporate backers is that they like to make money, and to donate big £ to a party who isn't going to help you make more £ isn't really in their financial interest.

 

but then, having the taxpayer pay for it seems to be adding insult to injury: we all moan about mps giving themselves huge pay rises and generally being a bunch of ineffectual toadying whores on the political gravy train (it's not just me is it?), but to then be told you're going to have to pay for their agents to tell you why you should vote for them might just stick in the throat a bit, no?

 

so... what do shetlinkers think about this?

[Styles]

I think there should be a cap on the ammount they can spend on an election

[Distortio]

there is already a cap on spending at election campaigns, £20m is the current limit but they were on the verge of that last lime. new tory boy is suggesting a limit of £50,000 from any one donor, and £15m on an election. i'm sure with all their experience of dodgy financial dealings and spinning figures they'll find a way round that though.

 

but where should the money come come?

[peeriebryan]

but where should the money come come?

MPs doing a sponsored silence

[Distortio]

 

i have a half-baked notion that might just work... (more later)

[turrifield]

The taxes should pay for it they should get a set amount per seat being contested. I think it would make elections more interesting and probably encourage more independants and comedy/nutter parties

[petergear]

Blimey Distortio, you've come up with a real conundrum! This is going to keep me awake all night. Hmm.... ......blimey.

[Distortio]

how about the taxpayer pays for it, up to a maximun of £1m, but in the form of a loan (topical, eh? ) which the parties would have to pay back to the taxpayer (one possible use for this nationwide database and ID cards is they'll have all our details so there should be no problems with late payments). if a party should be unable to pay back its loan it could be reposessed, turned into a touring circus, sold to the highest bidder, sold on the stock market, whatever could be done to recoup the loss. the threat of maybe having to tour inner city housing schemes to pick up dog turds if they can't pay it back should be enough to ensure only responsible, well meaning politicians aspire to do the job. and best of all, we'd own them. a government there to serve the people, even if ultimately it's only by sweeping the streets.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think that Peter Gear should donate some of his business funds towards both political parties. After that, they should just all call it quits and let that be the end of it.

 

[peeriebryan]

I think that Peter Gear should donate some of his business funds towards both political parties. After that, they should just all call it quits and let that be the end of it.

 

 

Just make Peter Gear the Prime Minister, After THAT they should just all call it quits and let that be the end of it

 

VOTE GEAR

[JustMe]

Not sure that we really want public money spent on political parties. I mean would you want to see your taxes spent on the rabid right or the loony left. If it has to come I think the most sensible way would be for funds to be allocated on a seat by seat basis with the allocation being in direct proportion to the votes cast for that party in the previous election.

 

This would stop minority parties getting lots of cash simply by contesting every seat yet give some incentive for supporters of fringe parties to vote so their candidate had more to spend next time.

 

Alternative could be a benevolent dictator......would save lots of money but there would need to be a scheme to finance those who plotted against him (or her).

[Njugle]

How about a political lottery? You buy a ticket for your chosen party, and the party gets the funding, whilst you actually have a chance of gaining something out of 'voting'.

 

Oh wait, that's a raffle really isn't it...hmm, needs refining....

 

 

erm, and the party everybody thinks will win will sell the most tickets, 'cos people will be after maximum prize......that'll be lots of refining needed then

 

i still reckon i'm onto something