Labour's bright idea to solve its funding crisis... us!

If the taxpayer does fund political parties I think the Government should get the least amount of money. If they stick to the promises they made when they got elected they wouldn't need to convince people to vote for them again.

The party with the least votes should get the most money. This might encourage the party in power to actually persuade people to vote by actions rather than fancy PR campaigns.

Obviously this is the very reason Labour needs as much cash as it can get its hands on via whatever means necessary. By foul means or fair ...

Of course the taxpayer already funds political parties to a certain extent anyway. Personally I am totally and utterly opposed to it. Under Blair the Leadership have consistently alienated the trade unions, and state funding would be another step down the road to ending the link with Labour. The solution to the Parties funding crisis is to stop spending tens of millions at election time on glossy tv advertisements, billboards on every street corner etc, and full page media ads slagging each other off. Then maybe they would be forced into entering into mature political debate about their objectives.

We all know that parliament will vote for lots of 'free' money for the parties to play with so that none of them can get caught up in the peerages for cash thing again. However, there must be open and very public accountability in the form of rules with some sort of 'value for money' indicator system to ensure that such funds are not squandered on Cherie Blair's barnet and daft things like that. I would like to see the money requisitioned in relatively small tranches, with a full justification in support of the request. The requaition would go to an independent committee who would have the option of insisting on an account of the actual spending in relation to the original justification, just like most businesses. The committee would soon find out who's worth funding and who's not.

Hazel Blears makes me sick... I wonder why nulab allow this silly woman anywhere near the media.

It might be a good idea, but it should only be on the table *after* those who have breached the current law have been prosecuted and the situation can be coldly assessed. Otherwise it's nothing more than an attempt by the current elite to avoid their immediate accountability, and it proves that there's no point in writing new laws for them anyway since they would probably ignore them as much as they do the old ones.

If it is mainly for media access, I think it should not be in terms of money, but intead be dealt with as a media resource. In short, rather than give them money to buy ads at market rate, we should seize one page a week from every newspaper, one in every fifty billboards, and one hour a week from every TV channel as the conditions of their broadcasting license, and distribute them among the political parties. In other words, just expand party political broadcasting, which costs nothing, and a large part of the problem will be solved.

"Why should taxpayers fork out for Labour's mismanagement of money?" - what else have we been doing for the last nine years? When such records as haven't been detroyed are eventually made public they will reveal a financial and management incompetence unrivalled in modern times. Blears' appraoch is entirely consistent with the entire Nu-Labour approach to their problems - when in doubt squeeze the taxpayer harder.

More debates on TV, more soapbox speeches. It's the UK trying to be like the US and say, Oh, we spent more than you, so we must be a better party and other claptrap.

Parties should be funded on merit, ie, paying membership. If you can't get that, then there is a problem, you don't have any merit to deserve funding.

For some reason initial comment went astray. Never mind. Executive summary: I would be willing to make a substantial personal contribution if Hazel, Hilary A and Patricia H all withdrew permanently from public life and took a vow of perpetual silence. I'd pay a substantial additional premium if Tessa joined them. And I'd wager the children of Islington would be pleased to do a whip-round to accomplish the same denouement for Margaret Hodge, provided she was someplace accessible. A bit like they were.

I think we should be very wary of this proposal. I agree with most of the comments here, but there is no doubt that this issue is gaining momentum. I reckon they're just sounding us out to gauge the reaction, but eventually they will try and introduce this crazy proposal. It is tempting to be cynical, but I think we should utilise the poltical funding review website (http://forum.partyfundingreview.gov.uk ) to articulate our views in the most forceful manner. Additionally, a strongly worded communication to your local MP could possibly send them the message that they don't want to hear...

Over my dead body.

Labour - the "natural party of government". Don't make me laugh Hazel. The last 9 years has put me permanently off voting Labour again.
Government is not:

triangulation

passing a new Criminal Justice Act every couple of weeks to try to patch up the cock-ups in an earlier version

re-organising the NHS on an annual basis based on some kind of "lucky dip" approach to policy

having grandiose 5 Year Plans announced in the run up to an election and then scrapping them 18 months later because they were crap.

using the public purse as your own private piggy bank because you can't even run a political party, never mind a country.

I could go on but I won't.

I forgot to mention: having your foreign policy faxed over from Washingtion.

I will reduce my next tax bill by what I think appropriate.

No party has a God-given right to exist.
If New Labour can't raise the cash from the membership, tough titty.
Dont make your problem mine Mr Blair.
JO

I /will/ stop work if they implement this. I would rather starve on income support than continue to work hard to pay hundreds of pounds per month in income tax to be used for god knows what.

If political parties insist on alienating their own supporters and cannot pay the bills then they should just fade away.

I AM NOT WORKING TO PAY TAX TO PAY FOR THE LABOUR PARTY. NO FSCKING WAY ON EARTH IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN. I WILL USE THE LAST OF MY WAGES TO START A CAMPAIGN OF STRIKES AND ACTION IF THEY EVER IMPLEMENT THIS!

This could work I think, opposition parties get state funding and the government stands on its record.
like they keep telling us .

Yes, this could be better than the current system.

The argument in favour of controlled and audited state funding is relatively simple, as well as pointing out most of the problems with current UK and US politics.

At the moment we have a situation where any party requires around £20,000,000 in election year to stand any realistic chance of being elected. These funds are required in order to achieve sufficient media exposure of their 'manifestos' and 'promises' as we all know these are works of fiction Jeffrey Archer would be proud of. The sole purpose of a 'manifesto' is to press the electorates buttons by playing on the key fears of the key swing voting groups.
This results in those parties selling themselves to donors, either wealthy individuals or corporates. In the past Labour policy was largely dictated by the TUC as they held the purse strings. What has changed most with Nu_Labour is that they now get their funding the same way the Conservative party always did so their policies have been sold to the same people and companies.

The second part of this problem comes from consolidated corporate media ownership. It is well known that Rupert Murdoch has more influence on who wins a British general election than any member of a political party as he controls enough media to control voting.

Nowhere is this problem more visible than in the US where Bush and his evil Republican cohorts have sold themselves to Oil, Manufacturing, Finance and Weapons companies. These same companies also own the media that 'inform' the voters on 'issues'. This is an obvious and unsustainable conflict of interest as any party wishing to get itself enough favourable airtime to get elected must bend over and pull down it's trousers for Halliburton and General Electric amongst others.

The US did try to control this rampant centralisation of power by restricting the funds that any one party could use in election advertising / promotion and the maximum individual donation but the Republicans managed to keep two loopholes in this.
1) The regulations restricting individual donations are circumvented by using large numbers of people to make the same donation (frequently all from one real donor).
2) Any third party is allowed to buy any amount of advertising for political purposes so long as this is not funded by the party concerned. An example of this is the campaign slandering John Kerry in the last presidential 'election' after voters were told Bush was a draft dodger. These adverts were run by organisations such as 'Friends of George Bush' and were funded by the 'restricted' individual donors.

We are slipping into the same trap here in the UK, which some bright spark in Nu-Labour spotted back in the 90s and restructured Labour to be more attractive to corporate funding and media owners. This is, in large part, what is wrong with our current 'Labour' government. (of course Tony is still an evil, mentally unstable pathological liar which does not help)

If we are to escape this trap of having the Likes of Lord Levy, BP and Rupert Murdoch choosing our government for us we must break the control that these agencies have established. There are a number of simple but probably unpopular steps to achieve this:

1) Permanently ban any individual, company or political party from buying advertising for any political purpose.

2) Require each media agency to set aside a portion of their publication or airtime for political advertising to be evenly distributed across parties with more than 2% of the national vote. (as suggested above by JT)

3) Require each media agency to set aside a portion of their publication or airtime for open debate between representatives of parties with more than 2% of the national vote.

4) Grant each party with more than 2% of the national vote a set fund for other campaigning such as leaflets, mailshots, badges and staff wages. Monitor 'volunteer' staffing to ensure these volunteers are not being paid for their time working for a party by any other employer (this is how the Republicans get all their 'volunteers').

5) Restict any company from owning any more than 20% of media across the UK or in any specific region to break the Murdoch Sky News-International type monopolies.

6) Set up an independent commission with public hearings to review and audit the political bias of each media company with the ability to impose strong penalties, force broadcast corrections and in extreme circumstances bar that company from renewing it's license at next renewal.

Quote: 'Hazel Blears, the party chairman, told The Times yesterday that Labour, as the Party of Government, should get more public money to support political work.'

As I understand it, HB is only talking about NuLabour getting public money to support its politics. So no reason why any other parties should support this.

Actually, it already does. The BBC license fee is a huge levy on taxpayers for their largely involuntary funding of Blair propaganda.

As I recall, at the last election, NuLabour only received some 30 or so per cent of the popular vote. The suggestion that two thirds of the population should pay to promote politics it abhors is hardly likely to be well-received. More of a pox tax than the poll tax.

All the same, not even a 20m ad campaign will get NuLabour re-elected. Hazel Blears doesn't realise that this a yet another ploy by the greedy Blairs to get their fingers in the till before they're run out of town.

The more I see of TB and Cherie, the more I am reminded of Mr and Mrs Ceaucescu. Or of Mussolini and his mistress at the end of WW2. The only salvation for the Labour party is to put them on meat hooks now.

Look folks, I think Cube is right. Much as I hate the idea of my taxes funding either the Tories or NuLab (let alone UKIP, BNP etc) it is better than the current situation here or in the US, whereby all serious contenders for government end up in the pockets of big business and other lobbyists like AIPAC.

The only other alternative that I can think of is to restrict parties to revenue raised through individual membership fees (from UK citizens only). Even then the Tories would have an advantage with the wealth of their members.

Any other ideas?

Following up with some timely evidence, see the recent MediaLens article.
"In 2004, the Financial Times described “the air of euphoria” in board rooms and corporate lobbies following George Bush’s election victory, because “US business expects a clear run” now that the “political landscape [is tilted] in favour of corporate America more dramatically than at any period in modern American history”. (Dan Roberts and Edward Alden, ‘Corporate America hopes the clearer Republican mandate will ease the passage of favourable legislation,’ Financial Times, November 4, 2004)"

We must remove the tools of corporate ownership of our governments.

I oppose state funding of political parties, but agree the issue of who funds, ie, controls those parties is equally pertinent.

At its heart, we (as citizens) have to really ask ourselves what political parties are for, exactly. If parties totally or largely captured the sentiment of their members or people who affiliate with them, the need for external financing should in principle fall away. If parties really engaged with, and listened to, their members and interested citizens, people would be more active in their support.

The reason people don't join, and don't pay is that they struggle to identify their own interests with those of any particular party, whether nulab or nucon and the latter two show little sign of paying attention to the concerns of their membership or even people they would like to vote for them. We have a political elite that has, literally, cut its teeth in the political arena. It has next to no experience of how most of us live our lives, struggle to survive and seek to improve not only our own lot but that of the generation to come. They have no touch point with the realities of running a business, working in a company where you wonder whether there will be a pension left for you at the end of the day, and worry about whether, if you get ill, you will be able to access the medical help and medication you need.

To those that would say such issues are too personal and parish pump to form the fabric of national political discourse, I would answer that unless national political discourse is relevant to those concerns it will go nowhere -- eg, exactly where we are now. Policy set from on high, agreed amongst a small circle of political and social insiders, and imposed on the rest of us. I won't even go near the subject of foreign policy, because we saw precisely how little impact 2 million of us protesting in the streets of the UK had on government policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have an autocracy; a group of elected individuals and wholly unaccountable civil servants who operate the country like a fiefdom. They send our troops to die abroad for lack of proper equipment and resources, so it is no surprise they feel no shame at having wasted billions of pounds of our money on projects that are serially abandonned at home. Support them further with my tax money? Never. But I confess that a better solution eludes me, because we need to start with a better way of organising ourselves to secure proper representation by people who actually care about the citizens of this country and with restoring demoracy to the political process.

Oh God, where do we start wi Nu Labour?Education,Health,Pensions,Tax,Employment,Defence...especially defence.Why are our lightly armed brave lads being shot at at all? The answer is? Democracy.Oh, and I think in the case of Helmand,poppies.Why are the Paras still holding?Cos they will do the job.Regardless of Blair,Brown,Blears,Blah,Blah,Blah......

I think we should all go on strike anyway, wether or not they implement these ridiculous ideas. We must be the most indolent and pathetic bunch of people on the planet if we continue to put up with this utter crap. Everything is in a shambles from education to the health service, transport to social services, not forgetting the shamefully lenient "legal system" . The whole lot needs tearing down and lets start all over again. Anyone up for a revolution?