It must be an extraordinary Spring for one to read some sense in one of Polly's diatribes, this one on Party funding, but here it is;
State funds could be allocated per vote cast in elections, though Helena Kennedy's Power Inquiry came up with something better: voters could tick a box on their ballot paper to allocate their share of state funding to a party of their choice.
Actually, she doesn't grasp the importance of the difference between the two - which is fundamental. She also neglects to mention that voters should be able to choose to 'give' absolutely nothing at all.
The first option, giving Parties with sitting MPs tax funds on the basis of votes cast in the previous general election, is the corrupt and sleazy stitch-up recommended both by Hayden Phillips and Christopher Kelly, skewed so strongly in favour of the Big Three so as to be blatantly anti-democratic. Such a move would be a 'soft' coup d'état, establishing Labour, Conservative and LibDem parties as the official State Parties for evermore - or at least until violent revolution unseats them.
Yesterday's result in Bradford West shows just what voters think of the Big Three. Still mired in the filth of the Rotten Parliament, an isolated and privileged metropolitan elite remote from the electorate, stained with the grief and blood of pointless war, the popular reputation of the Big Three is lower than a snake's arse.
In a healthy democracy, as parties and party groupings change, grow and evolve, constitutional arrangements must mean no 'barriers to entry', no insurmountable obstacles, and a level playing field for new arrangements to challenge the old. First past the post works, as Bradford proves. If we're to have tax funding at all, it must be fair and equitable, de-coupled from the vote cast at general elections - and up to each individual voter. For this reason, voters must also have the chance to veto any funding at all in their name.
We cannot let them get away with this.