Saturday, 26 November 2011

Party funding insanity

Sir Christopher Kelly's Committee has consulted comprehensively, deliberated and cogitated, and after all that has gone back to Hayden Phillips' corrupt and anti-democratic party funding proposals like a dog to its vomit. It is a conclusion that defies sanity. The electorate are to be deprived of any choice in the matter, and the three big parties are to be established as fixed and permanent State political parties to carve Westminster up between them evermore. Sinn Fein will get oodles of State cash, UKIP will get none, despite the party now running neck to neck with the Lib Dems in the opinion polls. Even the Speaker - a 'Party' of one MP, according to Kelly - is set to gain £67k of taxpayer's money. 


The only option a voter has to deprive the State parties of cash is to cast a vote for a party that holds no seats in the Commons, like, erm, UKIP. For many voters, a vote against Kelly's corrupt and sleazy proposals will be more important than traditional ballot box loyalty. 


Commentators have suggested that Kelly's proposals are already dead, that the proposed £10k limit on donations has effectively killed the report at birth. Perhaps so. But we shouldn't underestimate the cupidity and vice of our Parliament; MPs could still vote for a much higher donations cap, and keep the State funding proposal intact. Let's see where this goes, but I've said before I'll never consent to compulsory State funding of these private clubs in my name - and that this is the one issue that will propel me onto the barricades. And I'm damn sure I'm not alone.  

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Public pays for fkcuwit politicians and all of their trappings, how EU is that?

NO.

Anonymous said...

Let them destroy themselves. The general population will revolt once they 'cotton on'
B-)

right_writes said...

"Sir Christopher Kelly's Committee has consulted comprehensively, deliberated and cogitated, and after all that has gone back to Hayden Phillips' corrupt and anti-democratic party funding proposals like a dog to its vomit."

This has got European Commission diktat smeared all over it….

A pretend enquiry….

A pretend "consultation"…

Decision made, the day that Farage made his first "killer" speech in the (so-called) parliament, and only strengthened as his calls for democracy have become ever more robust.

BTW: how's that "new government" doing in Italy?

BJ said...

Yes, right_writes has it - this is an extension of the technocratic set.

They'll pick and support who 'they' want - nobody else will be allowed in.

It would be nice to raise this issue to a more prominent place; an e-petition maybe.

yokel said...

"And I'm damn sure I'm not alone. "
No, you are not.

Of course it is an EUssr diktat. Just the same as Heseltine announced the other day that it has been decided that Britain will destroy its own currency in favour of the €uro.

Pat said...

Of course funding is important to a political party or candidate. As I recall from "Freakonomics" having double the money of you opponent gives you 1% more of the vote (in a two horse race). So it is perhaps not as crucial as is commonly supposed- and there is the potential for a major change around, especially for third place.

Henry_Tree said...

Sorry to query this, but where is there a simple explanation to "the three big parties are to be established as fixed and permanent State political parties to carve Westminster up between them evermore. Sinn Fein will get oodles of State cash, UKIP will get none, despite the party now running neck to neck with the Lib Dems in the opinion polls."

I understood they got 3 quid per vote and as someone suggested elsewhere: "No buggas vote! No money for parties! SIMPLES!"

Obviously, I though there was more to it than this but what is this Sinn Fein getting oodles and UKIP nix! (Also if UKIP are running neck to neck with the Lib Dems then, of course, the Lid Dems should also get nix if that's what the UKIP earn under the rules.)

So, how come the Lib Dems will end up a "fixed and permanent State political party"? There should be no such thing. Rememember the Whigs!

And also, still the point that baffles me, I though each party got 3 quid for every vote cast for it in a General Election. Wot changed?

DP111 said...

State funded and controlled parties - What is there not to like?

DP111 said...

"Sir Christopher Kelly's Committee has consulted comprehensively, deliberated and cogitated, and after all that has gone back to Hayden Phillips' corrupt and anti-democratic party funding proposals like a dog to its vomit."

Was there a referendum on this issue? I must have missed it.

Raedwald said...

Henry - Kelly's proposals restrict funding to parties that already have at least one MP sitting; Sinn Fein have, UKIP haven't. The divvy of the loot is set out in the linked report

Edward Spalton said...

This is part and parcel of the process of deliberate, calculated over-regulation which has so affected businesses, particularly smaller ones. Now it is transferring to politics. Big business and big government (with the EU the biggest of governments) get together to make regulations which raise the bar for entry into any economic activity.

I was in the animal feed business, mostly dealing with small to medium sized firms like our own. A business friend moved from a very nice medium-sized firm of millers to one of the multinationals.

Meeting him some months later after a whole slew of complicated regulations had come into force, I was grumbling about it. "We like this sort of thing" he said "We can afford to pay specialists to keep on top of it. When I was with XXXX & Co, this meant one or several of us having to take on extra work. It was unproductive and driving us nuts. Margins wouldn't permit us to take on a specialist. Now I can just leave it to our regulatory department". It wasn't long before XXXX & Co were absorbed by his new multinational employer.

This proposal for party funding will entrench the stranglehold which the big parties already have on the political process. Sir James Goldsmith would not have been able to fund the Referendum Party if these proposals had been in force. Even he could not break into Parliament but he did give them a good scare and this will prevent it ever happening again.

The parties are now no longer real mass organisations. Their membership is declining. They are simply vehicles for different politicians to achieve office - marketing brands, if you like.

This is a proposal to enslave voters to the existing corrupt structure and make them fund it compulsorily and in perpetuity.

outsider said...

Happy to join you on the barricades. Civil disobedience would be the proper course if there were no referendum, but please try to make it during the summer months.