Wednesday, 10 July 2013

State-Funded Political Parties?

No Thanks! And here's why.

At present, British political parties operate on shoe-strings. They have to scrabble round for money. Which means they can't lose touch with people. In Labour's case, they can't get too far from the Unions and their membership. And the Tories rely on their membership and business. This need for money keeps them honest, so long as these donations are in the open, declared and public (which I accept they sometimes aren't.)

Imagine a world where politicians could vote for political staffers to be paid by the state. Anyone think this bill would ever go down? Anyone think it would rise alongside wages? No. It will go from a few million to a hundred million very quickly. A billion would become "the price of democracy".

All state funding would do is support the incumbents against the likes of UKIP (with whom I disagree, but who's right to fight in the arena on a level playing field I will defend to the death). UKIP are building a movement on private donations, and they're able to do so BECAUSE THE ESTABLISHED PARTIES HAVE LOST TOUCH with much of their base. State funding would hamstring UKIP who're successfully stepping into the void left by parties squabbling over a managerialist middle, while preventing the Tories and Labour ever having to engage with their people ever again.

State funding is a solution to a problem that exists only in the minds of people who can only see corruption in a business-owner supporting a party. It says more about the cynicism of the people who support it than about the problems politicians face now.

State funding is anti-democratic, foolish and will more profoundly corrupt the British body politic than any rich man ever could.

Why? Because the state is richer than any man.



3 comments:

JimmyGiro said...

What's so sacred about any party, that we need them for democracy?

Any donation, to any party, should be regarded as purchasing democracy from the people. Does a whore need a pimp?

A candidate is only as good as his word. If he is part of an expensive party machine, then he is already part of some fraud in the waiting.

If he has the means to blog, then he has more than sufficient to get his word across to the people. His existence as a possible candidate would be catered by his deposit, and a public registry of candidates.

Receiving money, by or for any candidate, should be seen as bribery.

Rosscoe said...

Couldn't agree more. With all of this party funding debate the attitude of the parties is "we're a bunch of shits, and the only way to make us behave is to give us taxpayers money so we don't have to be corrupt any more" when what we really want is transparency- personally I don't care if Labour solicit donations by renting Ed Millibands ring piece to Len McClusky whilst letting him write the parties policy or if the Tories are funded by a bunch of puppy farming tobacconists who want to prop up the banks and sell orphans to McDonalds- If I know about it I can infer who's pulling who's strings and then vote accordingly. If the government are funding parties vested interests will still find away to corrupt the system but we’ll never know about it and new parties like UKIP or the Referendum Party will be impossible to create and old parties like the Tories and Labour will never die.

Rafael said...

Great!

There was an error in this gadget