Topic: Tax payer funding of General Election campaigns

[winsome]

Having just listened to an interesting discussion on funding of election campaigns, I wondered what the general consensus/thoughts exist on the possibility of tax payers funding these campaigns. It would only take 50p from each all possible electors to fund (once every few years) and would eliminate the possibility of governments being compromised on decision making.  There could also be a 'cap' on the amount they receive from individual supporters to minimise possible bias. As both the Tory and Labour campaign costs run into millions (with the Conservatives being way out in front on the amount to be spent) it might make a change in nominations to the New Years honours list and could also ensure that tax dodgers are chased as much as the benefit claimants seem to be.

[Bob DeBilda]

You have several different issues here.

Having just listened to an interesting discussion on funding of election campaigns, I wondered what the general consensus/thoughts exist on the possibility of tax payers funding these campaigns. It would only take 50p from each all possible electors to fund. 

I would think that idea would go down like a lead balloon!

Having just listened to an interesting discussion on funding of election campaigns, I wondered what the general consensus/thoughts exist on the possibility of tax payers funding these campaigns. It would only take 50p from each all possible electors to fund (once every few years) and would eliminate the possibility of governments being compromised on decision making.   

Don't know what you mean by eliminating governments being compromised on decision making? Unless you mean the same thing as your next point;

There could also be a 'cap' on the amount they receive from individual supporters to minimise possible bias. As both the Tory and Labour campaign costs run into millions (with the Conservatives being way out in front on the amount to be spent)

I don't think capping donations will make any difference. All party's will bias their decisions/policies in favour of their supporters. The Tory's have always had more money to run election campaigns as their money comes from big corporations that have made 'deals' with them, especially over tax .So capped donations or not, the deals will still be made.  Which brings me on to your next point:

it might make a change in nominations to the New Years honours list and could also ensure that tax dodgers are chased as much as the benefit claimants seem to be.

Probably wont make any difference to the honours list as both parties (labour and Cons) will still hand out gongs to their mates. Same goes for chasing tax dodgers. I wouldn't be surprised if half the government are involved in this themselves. They don't want to catch themselves now do they. That would be stupid?

[charlie finbow]

Bob, the voice of reason again well said. 

[Michael]

OK Bob DeBilda thinks the idea of public funding of political parties is not a good idea, so what's his alternative, keep things as they are?
Has he never heard it said that the Labour Party is in the pay of the Trade Unions, or that the Tories are paid by big business?
Does he believe that there should be no limit to spending by political party's and in effect they can sell there ideas and policies just like any trader?
Is he happy with the honours system, where in effect a good many people can buy their honours irrespective of there contribution to society?
Has he got any views of his own or is he against any ideas for change?
Come on Bob give us a clue what you think would help to improve democracy, or do you think it's all fine and dandy. 

[Bob DeBilda]

OK Bob DeBilda thinks the idea of public funding of political parties is not a good idea, so what's his alternative, keep things as they are?

I didn't say that. In theory it is probably a good idea. I said the general public, i.e. the taxpayer wouldn't like it (my opinion of course)

Has he never heard it said that the Labour Party is in the pay of the Trade Unions, or that the Tories are paid by big business?

Of course I have. That's the way it has been for a long time. Big business has more money than the trade unions which is why the Tories have more to spend.

Does he believe that there should be no limit to spending by political party's and in effect they can sell there ideas and policies just like any trader?

No limit sounds ok to me. I don't think the public are naive enough to believe all the hype and advertising. If big business are happy enough to give the money away, that's their business. However, there should be no tax breaks for donations to political parties. Don't know if there is or not?

Is he happy with the honours system, where in effect a good many people can buy their honours irrespective of there contribution to society?

No I don't like the idea that people can effect buy honours. And I don't like this random picking of road sweepers or cleaners who may have worked 40 odd years sweeping the streets but don't really deserve an MBE any more than anyone else who has worked all their life.
There should be an independant board of gong giver outers. Though no doubt they will get corrupted.

Just as an aside. I hate people who measure their success in life by how much money they have amassed. To achieve success in life has no association with money.

[Michael]

Well it seems that Bob and I have a good many points of agreement here, but there is a general disillusionment with politicians and politics, and I wonder how this can be changed .
Who governs us, and the way we are governed is very important, but in many cases only about a third of the population bother to have a say, there  is something wrong here.
How do we change this, do we make voting a legal requirement, do we demand that prospective candidates if elected honour their promises, do we limit the amount they can spend? 

[charlie finbow]

Or can we sue the bastards under the trades description act.