Monday, 27 August 2012

D'Ancona sock-puppets party tax funding

Matthew D'Ancona is normally quite a sensible chap- unless, that is, he plays the sock-puppet and uses his Telegraph column to plug some risible, shite piece of policy being pushed by Tory central HQ. Today's column is an excellent example. He tells us, in effect, that Cameron has decided to put party above country; that Tory electoral gains from constituency reform are worth giving the LibDems what they want in party tax funding. Well, I for one would rather Labour won those seats than have state funding of political parties. What a weak, utterly corrupt, sleazy self-interested rationale.

D'Ancona attempts to rationalise his fatuous nonsense by presenting a false dichotomy. Would you rather have parties funded by rich, corrupt individuals like Asil Nadir or by clean, neutral tax money? He chooses to ignore completely the third alternative - that parties, as private clubs, are paid for solely by their members' subscriptions and legally limited voluntary donations from the public.

The tax-theft developed by Hayden Phillps and  supported by Christopher Kelly is so corruptly anti-democratic, so skewed and biased in favour of the Big Three that it is nothing more than a blatant third-world banana republic scam, filthily corrupt, a foul perversion of democratic process.

The LibDems are history. Today polling just 10% against UKIP's 12%, with fewer than 50k members, with empty coffers and no longer even funded by £1.7m a year of opposition 'Short' money the Parliamentary party must straggle along until the end of this fixed-term Parliament, when the country will put this party out of its misery. For Cameron to pervert the natural process of democratic evolution, to steal taxes to keep this brain-stem-dead party on life-support for the sake of half a dozen Tory seats, will rebound and will cost him far more in the long term. The NO TO TAX THIEVES campaign is a real one, ready on the starting blocks for the state-funding announcement, encouraging voters to vote for any party except those benefiting from Hayden Phillips' corrupt scam. 

C'mon Mr Cameron. Bring it on. Let the people decide.

13 comments:

Barnacle Bill said...

I can see us having to dip our hands into our already running on empty pockets to fund these "Too Big To Fail" political parties in the not too distant future.

Not content with that con job the piggies now want us to refurbish the sty for them as well!

Oh for some wooden stakes and my trusty mallet to sort these vampire politicians out!

Ian Hills said...

We're meant to cough up for the big society too.

G. Tingey said...

Question.
How is it proposed to spread this distribution of our mooney to the political parties?
If UKIP have greater electoral support than the Lem-o-Crats, will they get more money (could be interesting?)
Or is it based on seats at the PREVIOUS election?
Or what?

Raedwald said...

Greg -

Based on VOTES at the previous election
But only for parties with at least 1 MP in CURRENT parliament

So Sinn Fein and the Green party (1 MP) get cash, UKIP doesn't get a farthing

Anonymous said...

I've just left this at Barnacle's place.


Jim Murphy on Labour List:

“Our task has to be to prevent it from becoming a national phenomena where disenchanted voters who want change send for anyone other than the established parties.”

http://labourlist.org/2012/03/lessons-from-bradford/

I've often wondered how far these people will go to maintain their "established parties" status quo.

Anonymous said...

DP111 wrote..

Party funds are falling. The main political parties realise that their support is waning. It wont be too long before the public decides to shop elsewhere for its representatives.

Thus all the main parties will support state funding of LibLabCon.

It may not be a coincidence that the readership of the main print press, the very ones that support the LibLab Con, is also falling. They too need state funding if civilisation is not to collapse.

So here is the Road Map. The main print newspapers agitate and support state funding. When the main parties achieve this aim, they return the favour.

Anonymous said...

DP111 wrote..
Is there any evidence that the BBC support state funding of the present main political parties?

Raedwald said...

DP111 - The BBC have had a large part to play in creating the problem of central, metropolitan, Statist parties that disempower local political associations, but to be fair I don't think there's an institutional bias towards any particular flavour; so long as a party is central and Statist, the BBC *has the effect* of supporting it.

Lion on the loose in Clacton? rather than a call to the Chief Constable, the BBC will track down the responsible minister to ask what the government proposes to do about captive dangerous wild animals; thus an institutional news organisation shapes an institutional party framework and vice versa.

Demetrius said...

Public funding exists when people either join a party and pay the sub's or make a voluntary contribution out of their own taxed income. If the parties cannot persuade people to pay out of their own pockets they should not be raiding other peoples and their savings. State support is Piggy Bank Politics.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant comment, well said Raewald!

What a way with words you have.

Jublet said...

Surely the worry must be that if the MSM support taxpayer funding, enough of the public will be convinced it is OK and continue to vote for the "big three." Rather like the way Brussels influences referendums on...Brussels.

Ancient+Tattered Airman said...

I'm not , nor ever have been, a goody two-shoes but my conscience simply won't let me vote for any of the big 3. They have all proven themselve inept and venal.

G. Tingey said...

SO
It's delievrately set up to ensure... erm ... "continuity"

So to break in gets even harder, does it?
How very convenient!