Friday, 30 March 2012

Even Toynbee rejects Kelly's Sleaze Fund

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'├ętat, 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.

11 comments:

cuffleyburgers said...

Mixed feelings about Bradford - Gorgeous George is a loathsome shit eater, but he has scored a notable and very amusing result.

Better check the postal votes though...

Sniper said...

Better check the postal votes though...

If so, the words hoist and petard would seem apt.

My sides may yet split.

DeeDee99 said...

I'm no fan of Galloway - although he can be amusing and he is certainly a street fighter.

But we need to break the stranglehold of LibLabCON and Galloway is one more nail in the coffin - so from that point of view, his election is a good thing.

As for party funding by the state - personally I am against it. The size of personal (and union) donations must be capped so the parties are forced to expand their membership base by offering both policies and power to their membership. But if it does go ahead, then most definitely it must be on the basis of individual voters deciding which party should benefit - not on the basis of previous performance. That would give the incumbent/s another massive advantage over the opposition and small parties.

malvoisin said...

You state;

Yesterday's result in Bradford West shows just what voters think of the Big Three.

No, it does'nt. It shows that another part of England is lost just has Tower Hamlets has been.
Galloway proved he was more a Muslim than his Muslim opponent and won by a landslide.

It saddens me that you and the 2 commentators above do not grasp the implications. So keep on being amused and just think, this can now happen where ever a large muslim popuation now resides.

Bernie in pipewell said...

Toynbee, Damascus?

Anonymous said...

Bradford: A vote for the Anti West candidate by the peripatetic Islamabad West constituency.

Galloway - 'lower than a snakes arse'.

Never a truer word written.

jaded said...

Vote early and often in these ghettos.

G. Tingey said...

jaded ...
Like the City of Westminster (Remeber Shirley Porter?)....
erm.

Anonymous said...

Being forced to pay for political parties that you don't like or want? You just couldn't make it up!

Coney Island

anon 2 said...

Well we're forced to pay to, by, for, and with the euSSR. From is a problem; he only thing we can't seem to afford is to get away from it.

"Where there's a will, there's a way." And I don't mean inheritance tax, either.

DP111 said...

malvoisin

You are right. Galloway got the vote because he stated that he was a better Muslim then the Muslim candidate that Labour put up.

This is is true elsewhere, where despite the MSM rejoicings that the Arab Spring would give rise to genuinely democratic politicians, what it led to was a thumping majority of hard line Sallafists.