British National Party

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

That you tube clip is excellent .

[paulb]

I get so angry that that party gets any publicity at all.

Yes the BNP has the same right as any other party to freedom of speech. Yes the beeb was right to allow them a chair on question time.

But why the publicity?

For those who watched it shame on you, to give that man and his party credance by the increased viewing figures.

does he deserve all this hype?

was it even worth watching?

let the BNP pay for it's publicity like any other party, not have the tax payer do it for them.

 

they have to be treated like anyother party. it leaves a nasty taste i know but over a million voted for them. so its hard to deny them the same standing as say the tories in scotland. odd how a lot of the bnp policies are very simular to theirs.

[MJ]

I have no problem with the Tories in Scotland, to be honest a lot of them are more "left wing" than many of the SNP. The Conservatives in England, well that's another matter.

 

I do have a problem with the BBC hyping up having the BNP on Question Time.

 

Do they Hype up every time they have a Green on?

 

No.

 

The Beeb have purposely made the BNP appearing on Question time an issue, giving the party unnecessary publicity - paid for by the tax payer.

 

as an edit just one question

 

How many who have seen the programme, would have watched it anyway?

[unlinkedstudent]

I get so angry that that party gets any publicity at all.

Yes the BNP has the same right as any other party to freedom of speech. Yes the beeb was right to allow them a chair on question time.

But why the publicity?

For those who watched it shame on you, to give that man and his party credance by the increased viewing figures.

does he deserve all this hype?

was it even worth watching?

let the BNP pay for it's publicity like any other party, not have the tax payer do it for them.

 

My understanding is that the main political parties do get a certain amount of money via the tax payer to pay for their campaigns.

[MJ]

my understanding is that they don't, they want it though. saves having to suck up to unions etc. any MP, MSP, councilor caught using tax payers money to campaign is usually disciplined and hung out to dry for the press.

[unlinkedstudent]

my understanding is that they don't, they want it though. saves having to suck up to unions etc. any MP, MSP, councilor caught using tax payers money to campaign is usually disciplined and hung out to dry for the press.

 

I thought they got a small amount and were arguing for more dosh saying that what they got was by no means enough? If I'm wrong, I'll quite happily admit to it though, no problem.

[MJ]

I am wrong sorry according to the bbc athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6065322.stm

 

How are parties funded?

 

All parties receive membership subs. But that is not enough to pay for modern campaigning - especially with the general decline in membership over recent decades. The Conservatives rely mainly on donations from individuals and companies. Labour also receives these, but a large chunk of its income comes from trade unions. Lib Dem coffers have also been boosted by large donations in recent years.

 

So, the UK doesn't have state funding for parties, then?

 

Actually, yes it does. Opposition parties receive money to pay for administration and other costs. Otherwise, the ruling party - with its access to the instruments of government, such as the civil service - would have an unfair advantage, it is argued. In the second quarter of 2006, the Tories were given £1.15m by the state and the Lib Dems got £456,000.

[unlinkedstudent]

Found on the web:

 

The Electoral Commission administers the policy development grant scheme under section 12 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA).

The scheme allows the Commission to make payments of policy development grants to eligible political parties. The Commission can allocate up to £2 million each year to assist in developing policies for inclusion in manifestos for elections to the following:

 

* European Parliament

* UK Parliament

* Scottish Parliament

* National Assembly for Wales

* Northern Ireland Assembly

* local government

 

The allocation of £2 million is divided between the eligible parties according to a formula set out in legislation.

Eligible parties are, on the 7 March each year, those that have at least sitting two Members of the House of Commons who have taken the oath of allegiance provided by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866.

 

The parties currently eligible for a grant are:

 

* the Conservative Party

* the Democratic Unionist Party

* the Labour Party

* the Liberal Democrats

* Plaid Cymru - The Party of Wales

* the Scottish National Party

* the Social Democratic and Labour Party

 

Here you can find information on the amount of grant allocated to each party since 2002, and the amounts claimed against those allocations.

Other public funds

 

There are also public funds paid by other bodies.

 

These are:

 

* Short Money, paid by the House of Commons

* Cranborne Money, paid by the House of Lords

* Assistance to registered political parties, paid by the Scottish parliament

 

For more information on other public funds, please visit the relevant websites.

 

For enqueries (sic), please contact us by telephone (020 7271 0616) or email (pef@electoralcommission.org.uk).

[unlinkedstudent]

Apologies MJ; we were both probably scanning the net at the same time! I posted my last post and then saw yours.

[MJ]

with Griffin standing in Barking in the next general election i was wondering, can he run while a sitting MEP? Seem to remember something about not being able to run for brussels while sitting in westminster. Or could heaven forbid he end up with seats in both?

[paulb]

mr salmond should be able to tell him.

[MJ]

mr salmond should be able to tell him.

Wasn't aware mr salmond ever stood for europe, he's got the wrong surname.

I was questioning european rules not westminster.

[paulb]

Many are former members of national parliaments (about 35%) or former ministers or ... Since 2004, they can no longer hold a dual mandate (except for a few legacy cases

 

so why should an smp hold a Westminster posts. but not Europe one.

 

if and its a very large if nick griffin could get 18000-30000 people to vote for him in one small area then he would have to step down in Europe.

 

as the British system of first past the post stops the smaller parties getting elected we should be safe from a bnp member of parliament. however as the Scottish parliament is pr then they will get a seat if they poll the same level as they did in Glasgow.

[JAStewart]

as the British system of first past the post stops the smaller parties getting elected we should be safe from a bnp member of parliament. however as the Scottish parliament is pr then they will get a seat if they poll the same level as they did in Glasgow.

 

Yeah, and 'safe' from a Green party candidate too?

 

Heaven forbid our system be more democratic!

[paulb]

so your in favour of a bnp members. they polled over a million votes at the European elections. this if it was very fair system would have given them about 20 mps. lets recognizes that they even nearly pushed the Tories into 4 place in Glasgow. think 1 in 20 of them voted for a Nazi party. yes there would be the odd green and communist but would that be worth it. i don't.