The idea that the party nominated "working peers" are bad is ludicrous. Fertility expert Lord Winston and Olympic athlete Lord Coe were both 'working peers'.
What is Guido's solution to the party funding riddle? State grants? Because so long as you have private funding for political parties, there are going to be party funding scandals.
So let's get rid of private funding. How's this- parties can charge a membership fee fixed by parliament - say £5 a year. Each party then gets a fixed amount from the taxpayer to cover offices and modest expenditure - say £1m for each major party with 20% or more of the vote, proportionately less for minor parties. And that's it - no donations allowed. They'd have enough to run their organisations, but no glossy commercials, brochures, etc. And no sleaze.
July 18, 2006 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anonymous 3:40pm... you've not really got the point, have you...?
Whether Lord Winston is a suitable legislator because he spent a working life playing with other peoples' sperm, and whether Lord Coe is suitable because he has slightly longer legs than most people, is hardly important.
What is important is that we're all about to be royally ripped off to pay for political campaigning. And if paying for the "mainstream" parties doesn't worry you, what about funding the UKIP/BNP Alliance?
Personally I'd rather spend my spare cash on smarties.
July 18, 2006 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
State funding of parties is a crime. There's no way the voters would accept paying for stupid adverts or posters. or for Cherie to have her hair done. Guido is right - it's a disgrace. They've got themselves into this mess and they expect the taxpayer to get them out of it.
July 18, 2006 at 3:54 PM
Anonymous
said...
I would not pay a penny more to any of them. We can't really hold them accountable for what they do with the funds they already get at any level of goveernment. Why should we all pay for them to indulge their hack-egos?
July 18, 2006 at 3:57 PM
Anonymous
said...
Guido PLEASE don't jump on this too soon, this could be a great petard for this inept bunch of numbskulls. I want to see the formula before we all go crazy. Because either it will give the BNP and other loony-fringe types access to our cash (which the population really won't accept)... or pressure group charities will turn to parties over night to increase revenue... or independents will increase like buggery.
I cannot see a way they can do this without seriously fucking up, could be funny?
July 18, 2006 at 4:00 PM
Anonymous
said...
I believe it is my right to give a donation to whomever I choose.
However all donations/loans to political parties should be declared publicly (yes even the small ones) and any donor must be automatically disbarred from appointment to any position of privilege.
Any appointee to a privileged position must have earned their title by their real service to the country.
This should enable us to see who is worthy to receive an honour.
Anon at 3.40. I would propose a cap of say £100 per head, as apart from anything else it will make them spend more intelligently.
July 18, 2006 at 4:08 PM
Anonymous
said...
Who do you think is going to fund the election campaigns of these independent candidates then?
July 18, 2006 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
So how about banning political parties?
July 18, 2006 at 4:10 PM
Anonymous
said...
Are they all morons? If they vote for state funding, who's going to be holding the purse-strings? Two scenarios -- either they'll be clients of the Chancellor, or they'll vote themselves even more funding just the way they have for their pensions.
Fantastic: Let's look at the options: 1. The way of the good ol' USA in which two parties dominated by rich corporations and lobby groups exclude all others from the national debate, and pork barrel politics rules at state and local level. 2. An end to those unloved politicians for good! Let's bask in the reflected glory of some enlightened ruler who'll look after us all without our having to bother our pretty little heads.
Sorry Theo can't agree. Aside from the fact that indies are usually mad as a barrel of frogs they are utterly unaccountable. If one gets elected and sits on his/her arse for 4 years there is nothing you can do and noone cares a damn - local people have no leaverage and nowhere to go.
Equally there is no more wasted vote than for an independent - at both local and Westminster level even if they are elected they are powerless nobodies with no influence - with the rare exception where they form the balance of power.
By all means encourage people to vote for whatever crackpot party favours your views best - but a vote for an independent is an utterly wasted one.
July 18, 2006 at 4:23 PM
Anonymous
said...
Well well partly as a result of your rather splendid if rather hyper campaign to expose what we have all known for years ie political parties reward their large benefactors by giving them seats in the House of Lords whether its Lord Dodgy of Carpets or Baroness Dozey of Donkeys, UK taxpayers will have to pay for their political parties. Guess if you don't like the idea perhaps you should move to that beacon of political probity the USA and watch those federal dollars wiz into the funds of presidential candidates!! Perhaps the dead tree press are not so stupid afterall.
July 18, 2006 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous
said...
There's nothing wrong with private funding as long as it's all declared, in the open and with no strings (promises) attached. As an exercise in reality it would let the parties see just how popular they are/aren't. Maybe the parties should be cutting their cloth accordingly rather than tapping up the dear old taxpayer again just to fund their operating costs, hairdressing bills and the like.
Maybe the country would have more respect for politicians if they were seen to always put the interests of the citizens of this country first and foremost.
July 18, 2006 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous
said...
The problem may lie in our having an appointed upper house. If it was elected then access to political power would be based on appeal to the electorate rather than slipping fivers to Lord Levy. The success of the USA owes something to the excellence of its constitutional arrangements. An elected head of state, separation of powers, fully elected bicameral legislature - Perhaps we could learn something.
July 18, 2006 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous
said...
Nationalize political parties! New Labout = GDR SED.
July 18, 2006 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous
said...
Will the taxpayers kindness be extended to the BNP and Class war as well?
July 18, 2006 at 4:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
Nationalize political parties. New Labour = GDR SED.
July 18, 2006 at 4:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
I don't think there should be any left wing parties. The prospect of paying for two is appalling.
July 18, 2006 at 4:32 PM
Anonymous
said...
The private funding of the political parties allows people to choose which political party to support. Let's not lose that freedom along with all the others that seem to be disappearing at an alarming rate.
July 18, 2006 at 4:36 PM
Anonymous
said...
Surely the solution, Anonymous, should not be rewarding unpopular, bankrupt and at least notionally corrupt parties with yet more public money. That's like telling me I shouldn't rob a bank but here's 50k for, you know, stuff...
Rather, if the parties, you know, weren't so utterly repugnantly bent they may be able to get some money from their members... remember them? I'm not suprised if you don't because there are fewer in most Parties than ever before...
However, rather than actually compete for the public's love (or at least membership and subscriptions) people like you prefer to just have these thieving pols help themselves to another chunk of our cash.
Or is this what Blairistas meant by being tough on crime and tackling the causes of crime? By paying off criminals...
July 18, 2006 at 4:36 PM
Anonymous
said...
It's a load of crap it costs nothing for some drivelmeister to stand on a street corner and mutter about his policies.
What I find most offensive is that Blair is prepared to mortgage the reputation of the Labour party to the man who brought us Alvin "not a pervert like Gary Glitter" Stardust and such great cultural landmarks as My Coo Ca Choo and the blatantly sick Red Dress..
July 18, 2006 at 4:38 PM
Anonymous
said...
Well said, Guido! Tell these political scroungers where to get off. They ran up all these debts for their own benefit alone - to get elitist salaries, perks and pensions. Make them pay their own debts.
What will they do for money if they aren't publicly funded? How about saving and WORKING for it,like the rest of us? If they can't do that, are they fit to run our country? Let them rely on their policies to win the election instead of con merchant consultants and advertising scams.
How much is required to fight a bare bones election campaign? I was one of a protest group of seven local election candidates who fought a local election for just over a £1000 for all of us. We all chipped in and had a few donations from supporters. That paid for all of our leaflets and posters plus some printing/postage costs.
Multiply that by 4 and you'd need about £5000 to cover a town of about 80,000 people. The Parties can easily raise that sort of sum - make them do it, Guido!! The claims of the big three parties to need a circus of hoardings, election buses and all the other vastly expensive paraphenalia are total crap! Let's see them live within their means for a change.
July 18, 2006 at 4:43 PM
Anonymous
said...
anon 3.40 solutions = pay the fuckers a LOT less , basic expenses, Cull the numbers . Limit the ammount of legislation they can pass.
July 18, 2006 at 4:44 PM
Anonymous
said...
theo spark 3.40. Fully in favour of locals getting elected, but there is nothing wrong with some Con Lib or Lab locals getting elected.They may be boring or arseholes, but unlike the "A list" and Lib and Lab equivalents, they are local bores and arseholes and the electors should know what they are like.
July 18, 2006 at 4:46 PM
Anonymous
said...
I am confused. You cannot hit a party for receiving money which they had no knowledge was not kosher. Suppose a famous multimillionaire with a fabulous 'legit' business gave you millions, then you found out that three quarters of his wealth came from drug running? You can't 'unspend' the cash, can you? So why should you have any liability? There is plenty of olitical corruption about - i've just heard today of a local chief planner who plays golf every weekend with two top local councillors fom different parties. So why are you pointing at a wrong target?
On simpler stuff, I see Tommy Sheriden's 'going down'. I wonder who's flogging the video?
July 18, 2006 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous
said...
It is very simple - introduce the following three rules: (1) political parties may only derive funding from membership fees (no donations, no business activities, no dinners with bigwigs); (2) membership fees must be equal for all members (so that you can't have some rich members in a special class) (3) candidates of any party (for any position, including local councils) must be paid-up members of that party (this prevents a few very rich people forming a party and effectively sponsoring their own candidates). Couldn't be fairer than that - AND importantly: it will show how much the public cares about political parties... (There may be other things to do instead, such as more direct rather than representative democracy - but that's another story.)
July 18, 2006 at 4:50 PM
Anonymous
said...
There are real problems with the funding of Political parties. There will be no simple solution but neither full state funding or only private donations will work.
July 18, 2006 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous
said...
'but taking taxes from people with no interest in politics to finance their foolery would be making crime pay.'
Some would say GB is increasingly doing so.
What hope is there for the treasury?
July 18, 2006 at 4:54 PM
Anonymous
said...
No state funding. It will only further bankrupt 'democracy'. Parties to survive financialyy will have to reconnect with voters. To survive they will have to recruit members prepared to work and canvass. They will have to cut budgets and do what any business does in recession. The parties will emerge better and stronger. Politics and politicians will lose pariah status. No bail out of the gutless gormless political heavyweights. politicians will will be
Anon 3:40. Simple. Coth & coat-cutting spring to mind and some old sack cloth & ashes sounds about right to me too. If their aspirations were genuine public-service instead of bloody useless self-important, self-service, they'd soon get the message - and we'd all be better off.
July 18, 2006 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous
said...
Can somebody please explain how this state funding of parties works??? Through my taxes, I am paying someone to come back to justify why they are (or should be) running the country? Is total insanity now the norm? This adds a totally new meaning to the "snouts in the trough" phrase... If they can't properly manage their own accounts, how on earth can we trust them with the economy? ...
July 18, 2006 at 5:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anarcho-capitalism is beginning to look like an attractive political philosophy. We don't owe these parasites a living.
July 18, 2006 at 5:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
anon - why does Guido have to have a solution or taxpayer fund?
Open & honest fundraising, clear accounts, no party honours except when vetted by honours/appointments commission, ministerial code enforced by law.
If the buggers can't operate that way let them go bankcrupt/be jailed.
July 18, 2006 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
The solution is very simple and so often spouted by politicians, “MARKET FORCES”. If you have no money in the kitty because of poor membership due to a lack of interest then it is no one’s fault except your own. A popular party will have a healthy membership, healthy kitty and lots of glossies come election time. I pay enough for mismanagement thrust upon us by incompetent and unaccountable government and I deeply resent being asked to pay for advertising leaflets destined to become unopened landfill. If needs be, let the people with too much money continue funding, as the golden rule of physics dictates, “The biggest Shits will always rise to the top”.
July 18, 2006 at 5:15 PM
Anonymous
said...
The solution is very simple and so often spouted by politicians, “MARKET FORCES”. If you have no money in the kitty because of poor membership due to a lack of interest then it is no one’s fault except your own. A popular party will have a healthy membership, healthy kitty and lots of glossies come election time. I pay enough for mismanagement thrust upon us by incompetent and unaccountable government and I deeply resent being asked to pay for advertising leaflets destined to become unopened landfill. If needs be, let the people with too much money continue funding, as the golden rule of physics dictates, “The biggest Shits will always rise to the top”.
July 18, 2006 at 5:17 PM
Anonymous
said...
Shameless.
It's ripe for a party of the people to emerge (via the internet), and if it did and won I'd be in no doubt it would end up stuffing it's pockets in weeks.
Anyone who wants to be a politician isn't fit to be a politician - does that make sense?
July 18, 2006 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous
said...
It is difficult to know which is the most outrageous issue at present. My blood pressure peaks at the criminal warmonger, posturing, incompetent freeloader Bliar; the incompetent investigation into the Stockwell murder; the ludicrous, lecherous bloated incompetent Prescott; greedy incompetent (repetition!) cowardly Brown; and now they will want millions more to spend on telling us how much we need them! If you can think of a more appropriate word than 'incompetent' above, feel free to insert it. Guido's right (again!), we must not allow this criminal government to get away with it.
July 18, 2006 at 5:26 PM
Anonymous
said...
"What is Guido's solution to the party funding riddle?"
What riddle? A party is just an association of individuals with a common aim. Let them raise funds by voluntary subscription and there will be a rough correspondence between the success of their efforts and the extent of their appeal.
In my opinion the less money they have the better, and the only way I can express that view is by spending my money on something more desirable.
July 18, 2006 at 5:27 PM
Anonymous
said...
theo spark is also right. It's time to vote only for Independents, and make the Criminal Parties realise the game is up. I have had to vote for "None of the above" far too often!
Your barbecue invitation photo thing at the top of the post doesn't have a time or a date telling us when it's happening. Still, let me know when and I'll be there with enough heavy-duty kebab spikes for all.
July 18, 2006 at 5:42 PM
Anonymous
said...
Back to jumble sales is what I say. The bloody charity shops are far too expensive now. I'll join a political party again just for the thrill of sniffing stale jumble and the chance to pillage the best the night before!
July 18, 2006 at 5:47 PM
Anonymous
said...
Guido, it's the Oxbridge mafia. In fact the Lib Dems are as full as Con and Lab with the graduates of the Oxbridge school of crime. They may look like normal people coming to your streets, but in fact the Lib Dems are no different and have as many Oxford and Cambridge men capable of fiddling the best accountacy system. I thought these universities used to teach their graduates honour, instead they merely swindle us out of money and sell off peerages for a bit of cash. They are all a bunch of loosers!
July 18, 2006 at 5:50 PM
Anonymous
said...
Guido, One of the ghastly side effect of state funding of political parties would be that all the Loonies would come out of the woodwork, and get paid by the State to spout their bile. It would be far better to have legal capping of Election spending, and a mandatory no of hours for election broadcasting on TV than have state money given to Political parties.
July 18, 2006 at 5:58 PM
Anonymous
said...
how about the national lottery? first prize is £7 mill, second is becoming PM for the week.
July 18, 2006 at 6:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
I've got to agree with anon at 3.40pm. It's not enough to point out what doesn't work; we need to come up with a solution that does work.
The simple fact is that politics is an expensive business and many of those (though clearly not all) expenses are necessary in the present system.
Leaflets are getting glossier and the consultants pricier (witness Lord Saatchi's bill to the Conservatives after the last election). It's the major parties' answer to voter apathy to model themselves on companies who successfully sell overpriced products which we don't really need. As a result they all follow the same "business plan": seeking the support of the same key voters with the same messages using the same methods.
If a funding solution was found that drastically cut the big three parties' relative spending power, it is likely that the political field would be opened up to parties that don't follow this middle ground consensus.
If this were to happen, the plus side is that this might address the question of voter apathy. The downside is the likely increased voice for the headbangers on the far right.
But if a party's message were strong enough it would attract necessary support, and the arguments put forward by the BNP simply aren't strong enough to do that.
Labour, Tory and LibDem need to recognise that no amount of glossy leaflets can paper over the cracks in the respective ideologies - if indeed any of them have any ideology left. Concentrate on the message and it will sell itself.
July 18, 2006 at 6:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
Party funding riddle? Quite frankly, I'm buggered if the taxpayer should pay anymore to these parasites. I reckon I've got at least 20 million backers too. I say put a cap on the amount allowed to be donated/lent. That would cut down on the amount of paper wasted on leaflets, and less shite to be spouted on telly & radio. The parties can post their policies on their websites, and we can see them if we wish to. Perhaps a quid pro quo for this solution would be compulsory voting. And 'none of the above' on ballot papers!
July 18, 2006 at 6:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anonymous told us that "so long as you have private funding for political parties, there are going to be party funding scandals."
It's a bit like that rare flash of self-knowledge by a paedophile who begs to be castrated/ locked up, because he knows he can't help doing what he does. It may be honest, but it doesn't reflect very well on the guy who says it.
Do we really have to shrug our shoulders and meekly accept that our politicians have no choice but to be corrupt?
Here are a couple of suggestions for how to address the funding problem.
1) Full disclosure. Maybe you have upper limits, maybe you don't, but let the people judge the parties by their friends and by the extent to which they are in hock to them.
2) (And, yes, I know this is a little contentious)How about political parties having a go at developing a sense of right and wrong? So to take an example purely at random - when you make a big song and dance about how virtuous you are in reforming the party funding rules, and then secretly bypass those rules yourself; why not take a moment to ask yourself "Is this the act of a moral human being or of a cynical charlatan with less ethical sense than an amoeba?"
July 18, 2006 at 6:17 PM
Anonymous
said...
this post by yourself Mr Fawkes is really interesting! However, say the public is not bothered enough to reject the political "flow"....and find it acceptable to fund politics....does it mean that the whole of your very personal project is jeopardised Mr Fawkes? Who are you Mr Fawkes...if I may use the sentiments of Mr Robin Day....a "here today gone tomorrow" blogger to reject or even fight against the wishes of the great British public!
July 18, 2006 at 6:24 PM
Anonymous
said...
fruitcake said... how about the national lottery? first prize is £7 mill, second is becoming PM for the week.
6:02 PM
Right Now, I think Cherie would tell TB to take the £7 million!
July 18, 2006 at 6:34 PM
Anonymous
said...
I don't agree with anonymous (3.40). There should be no conflict between honours and financial support for parties provided that there is openness and even-handedness. If we understood that a new peer was also a donor, but that the donation was not related to the conferring of honours, then this whole cash-for-peerages thing would be a non-story. The issue is that it appears that honours have been sold or that it was implied that a substantial donation or loan on favourable terms would secure an honour - and that is why Guido and others are rightly making an issue of it.
But then maybe I am naive to trust in the innate good nature of human beings. Perhaps, in fact, Guido is merely using this website as a springboard to his plans to become PM and will appoint those of us who make favourable comments and cash donations as his ministers. In which case, can I be minister for beer? Here's my five pounds.
July 18, 2006 at 6:34 PM
Anonymous
said...
The political establishment is so out of touch. The punters rumbled that the whole Party Politics System is a scam long ago. Even someone who didn't pay much attention in History at school knows the British system elects MPs to represent the interests of their constituents so when we constantly see our elected representatives representing the interests of the people who are bunging party leaders many of us decide we are voting for "None Of The Above." Next time we should have a clear majority.
Read The Party's Over on the Machiavelli blog
July 18, 2006 at 6:38 PM
Anonymous
said...
The reason we have parties is because different interest groups want to control the government to put their grandiose schemes into action.
Maybe if we had a constitutionally limited government i.e. government only runs the police force and army then the whole party system would collapse and we could live free of state officials pestering us.
Fine. Let there be state funding, but let's cap it at a million per political party with over 100 candidates each per diem, cut the deposit necessary to field a candidate so that the little guys can get a look in and tie the funding with a heap of conditional stuff.
Suggestions for conditions please.
Regards
Bill
July 18, 2006 at 6:51 PM
Anonymous
said...
Mashtots complains 'In effect it [asking political parties to raise money from their own supporters] would subvert democracy, as it would allow the richest members of the society to have a greater say in political discourses, thereby rendering citizens unequal in the democratic proccess.'
It, though, has always been demonstrably the case and, for better or for worse, probably always will be, that the wealthy and powerful do have a greater say in political discourse in democracies and any other form of government you care to name. That's one of the attractive things about being wealthy and powerful, or so I'm told.
July 18, 2006 at 6:57 PM
Anonymous
said...
Whilst were are about it, I would get rid of the TV licence immediately and force that bunch of Labour Luvvies who run the BBC to live and die by what they broadcast. It would force them to look at political bias at the BBC, a matter they continually ignore, because it suits them to, and IMHO, the BBC website is the worst..
July 18, 2006 at 7:00 PM
Anonymous
said...
Dear Anonymous at 6.24pm - I can assure you that the public is extremely bothered about the political "flow" - particularly the "flow" of public money into politicians' pockets! They already get far too much of our cash and the public will not stand for the taxpayer funding political parties any more than they do already, which is far too much anyway. Why is the poor bloody taxpayer funding John Prescott's jaunts to see his "good friend of many years" Rosie Winterton or Cherie Blair's car and driver?
You may be hopefully posting from No.10 or Labour Party HQ in the (surely you realise by now) forlorn hope that the public are all stupid - but they ain't - and you've been rumbled.
Guido is right - and his other identity is irrelevant!
(Mind, if your post was a wind-up and I've suffered severe sense of humour failure, I shall blame the hot weather............)
July 18, 2006 at 7:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
"this post by yourself Mr Fawkes is really interesting! However, say the public is not bothered enough to reject the political "flow"....and find it acceptable to fund politics"
If they find it acceptable to fund politics then they can do it themselves out of their own wallets. Last time I heard the vast majority were against state funding.
July 18, 2006 at 7:03 PM
Anonymous
said...
spot the boring anonymong at 6:24 Your supposition is that the great British public is interested in politics...it might be, but not the current version we have, I would (sorry Guido I'm breaching the guidelines here) make the supposition that apathy is the majority party, I agree with Slim Jim, give us a "none of the above" option, make the b*st*rds work for a living....pass me the wine bottle, I'm getting serious.
July 18, 2006 at 7:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anony-muse said:
this post by yourself Mr Fawkes is really interesting! However, say the public is not bothered enough to reject the political "flow"....and find it acceptable to fund politics....does it mean that the whole of your very personal project is jeopardised Mr Fawkes? Who are you Mr Fawkes...if I may use the sentiments of Mr Robin Day....a "here today gone tomorrow" blogger to reject or even fight against the wishes of the great British public!
If that is the case they should be taken outside and slapped with a trout until they come around to something resembling common sense.
A political party should stand or fall on the strength of it's supporters and policies. Nothing more.
July 18, 2006 at 7:18 PM
Anonymous
said...
Fantastic stuff Mr Fawkes. Churchillian almost. Lunch must have been good today...
July 18, 2006 at 7:42 PM
Anonymous
said...
We already have state funding of parties!
What do you think the SpAds are? Why else does the party chairman have ministerial rank and sit in the cabinet? Who pays for ministerial travel to party fundraisers? And on a more topical note, who is paying for the contracts to companies which then turn around and fund the parties?
July 18, 2006 at 7:43 PM
Anonymous
said...
Is it time for a "none of the above" candidate to be fielded in every constituency? Their remit would be to instigate a small number of constitutional reforms - a proper Bill of Rights, enforceable sanctions against the executive, the cleanup of public life - before standing down after one term.
July 18, 2006 at 7:57 PM
Anonymous
said...
Off topic I know but perhaps relevent to mentions of independant candidates above: With all this talk of sleaze rattling around has anyone canvassed the views of that pillar of probity, the man in the white suit (of blessed memory)? One well remembers his stunning victory agaist the forces of darkness in '97. One followed his venture into the wilds of Essex in the following fixture. One heard rumour of an unsuccessful bid for the fleshpots of Brussels in '04. But the only news Googleable is a puff piece from Auntie last year. Has the independant voice of public morals no views at all on the current shenannigans? Or is the steely gaze of public virtue blind in it's left eye?
July 18, 2006 at 8:08 PM
Anonymous
said...
I understand that there will be quite a few redundancies at Labour Party HQ now that they are embarking on an "an active programme of cost containment." Fortunately everybody concerned has been told they will be helped into positions as ministerial advisors.
July 18, 2006 at 8:17 PM
Anonymous
said...
Tax is theft. This is mugging.
July 18, 2006 at 8:18 PM
Anonymous
said...
Perhaps the blame lies with modern medicine. Both the capitals of the USA and Britain were established along fetid estuaries, our Founding Fathers operating under the theory that malaria or plague would self cleanse the political process. The corpses could also be deposited into said estuaries with the rest of the effluvia. Clearly antibiotics and quinine are to blame for the Augean stables we call governments. Perhaps political parties should be abolished and political office be assigned like jury duty?
July 18, 2006 at 8:30 PM
Anonymous
said...
Completely OT, but has Recess Monkey been abducted by the govt for tests at Porton Down? His website has gone!
Everyone here should write to their MP's and demand to know why he/she has not raised the question of cash for peerages!
But there is a bigger problem which the electoral commission has allowed to happen.
Many say become Independent! but you will not get any time whatsoever on TV, if you can afford an advertisement! Only the 3 parties can have them and those with Euro MP's can have one or two. Parties with No MP's or Euro MP's cannot have any!!
Democracy? we have got the worst of all worlds. What will happen? They will vote money fopr themselves and as guido says this whole business, unless The Yard say different, will be forgotten.
It is a scandal which the BBC will not do anything about nor Sky (come to my wedding) Bolton nor any of the daily's.
God help us.
I fear for my country.
July 18, 2006 at 8:34 PM
Anonymous
said...
If they do it, then I'm going to start a new party.
It will cost nothing to join but all members will be entitled to "expenses" which are a suitable division of the taxman's handout.
Hence if everyone joins the party and votes for it, they'll get their money back. Only flaw is those that don't pay tax won't have an incentive - but then what's new?
July 18, 2006 at 8:36 PM
Anonymous
said...
Try this one, a regulator, The Office of Political Party Regulation OfPPol, Similar to the authority used to regulate the utilities.
If for instance each political party were to be given £2.0 for every vote in a GE, that money would go into an account administered by OfPPol. All parties would have to register to be entitled to the grant, each voter would look on it as a donation. The Political Party would then set up direct debits for day-to-day running. Money donated to a Political Party would be vetted by OfPPol and deposited or rejected. In effect parties would lose control of their donations. All withdrawals would have to be justified. At the end of each financial year OfPPol would publish accounts showing all ins/outs, no anonymity allowed.
July 18, 2006 at 8:53 PM
Anonymous
said...
State funding removes the parties from their dependency on [Tories-big business; Labour- trade unions; Liberals- dodgy businessmen].
What is the problem with political freedoms? Anyone would think you were a libertarian or something, Guido.....s
We already have state funding through the represetation of the people act, but as with Guido I'm strongly against further institutionalising it. So what if a few rich dudes contribute to party coffers - so long as it is above board and done openly then it's fine. I for one am not prepared to have my taxpayers mone spent on the BNP or lunatic UKIP, and god forbid the Lib Dems!
July 18, 2006 at 8:58 PM
Anonymous
said...
OfPPol? Yeah, because organisations like Ofcom and Ofwat do such a damn fine job..!
July 18, 2006 at 9:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
"State funding removes the parties from their dependency on [Tories-big business; Labour- trade unions; Liberals- dodgy businessmen]."
And forces the taxpayer to fund them. How free!
"What is the problem with political freedoms? Anyone would think you were a libertarian or something, Guido.....s"
Since when did libertarians support state funding of political parties? Or are you implying that libertarians are opposed to freedom?
July 18, 2006 at 9:06 PM
Anonymous
said...
...Lynton Crosby was quizzed today at 4.30pm.
http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/hoc_news3.cfm
July 18, 2006 at 9:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
Guido old chap,just wondering how that image you`ve posted of Parliament going up in flames might be percieved by those who would dearly love to see this site terminated.At a stretch it might just be seen as inciting terrorism.Far-fetched maybe but "organisations" consisting of a few disgruntled blokes in Wolverhampton who spout off a bit have been proscribed for less.In days when the Old Bill turn up on someone`s doorstep because they`ve given a point of view on a radio phone-in that might just be giving them the inch they need,just a thought old lad.
July 18, 2006 at 9:32 PM
Anonymous
said...
Guido -
Brilliant post. Well said that man.
BTW, what is the stunning graphic? Where did you find it?
Please note that Plaid have done as much as the SNP on this issue....
July 18, 2006 at 10:03 PM
Anonymous
said...
As I understand it, large donations to political parties are not illegal, it is just that the donors have to be identified. Why the bloody hell, are these rich, public spirited pillars of society so scared of being publicly identified? It makes one wonder whether their generosity is not as noble as we are led to believe. If these gents don't want to pay any more, then why should we?
I seem to remember Tony, saying, in a recent interview, that "The public may be 'invited', to contribute".
Message to Tony. If you e mailing training has progressed well enough for you to read political blogs and you are reading this. If you are considering sending me an invitation, forget it, I reject the invitation outright. Save Gordon some money and don't bother sending me the card.
Please, Please, Please F.O. (and I'm not referring to Mrs Beckett's new department).
July 18, 2006 at 10:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
steppenwolff said... Completely OT, but has Recess Monkey been abducted by the govt for tests at Porton Down? His website has gone!
8:33 PM
Reports of his demise are unfounded, the website is back up and running.
July 18, 2006 at 10:15 PM
Anonymous
said...
Steppenwolf asks 'Completely OT, but has Recess Monkey been abducted by the govt for tests at Porton Down?'
Strapworld and Guido Here Here to all that. I do not just fear for my country but also the world. This country is watched by other nations more than we might appreciate. Democracy is in troble enough without this place going "nazi" on it. We spend more effort and time on raising party funds than discusing politics, which is how it should be. The system is fine as it is. Especialy as we have now laws to clean up corruption. If the police do their job right the crooks will end up in jail, which is also how it should be. Why not just wait and see what happens?
The magor parties have been in financial shit before and they still get by. If they dont get by, they will go bust, which again is how it should be.
Laws to limit the amount of funds borrowed by parties would help. As would the privateisation of the BBC. Who are the biggest hand in the cookie jar anyway, and the people whos job it is to blow the whistle. A whistle that never seems to get blown. Show me a political party that would not like a cool 3.5 billion a year for doing bugger all to help the people.
You all know what I meen. "You give us 3.5 billion of the publics money, and we will help you convice the public that giving political parties state finance is good for them."
It's all getting a bit worthy, isn't it? In the comments, I mean. I remember when this used to be funny....
But on the current note, and to cut, I think, to the chase, why do we pay these wankers in excess of £100,000 to ponce about to no effect whatsoever? And please let nobody argue that the money goes on their assistants and researchers because if you look at the register of researchers' interests you will find that many of the beneficiaries of public largesse have the same surname as the MP they work for. And I looked from man to pig...
Sorry, further to that, let us look at Mike Penning, working class Tory, former soldier, ex-fireman, adviser to anti-Europe nutbags like "Sir" Teddy Taylor, and then John Redwood, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, scourge of Labour waste and corruption (quite rightly, of course - he had a very good point). Who is his secretary as the MP for Hemel Hempstead as he now is? Good lord it is his wife! I am sure she does a very good job but there's nothing like keeping it in the family. I am proud to be paying for the secretarial support that Mr Penning receives in his own home....Tax me baby!
July 18, 2006 at 11:56 PM
Anonymous
said...
Selling honours has allways gone on. In the same taking home a pen from the stationary cupboard at work has, no real problem untill someone pulls up in a HGV and clears out the cupboard. Tony Blair is the guy with the HGV
No to state funding, yes to limits to GE budgets (which is why they get so into debt to start with).
Less mealy-mouthed spin by marketing a-h's. Lets have some blunders by politicians accidentally saying what they mean.
Thats what we want!
July 19, 2006 at 12:11 AM
Anonymous
said...
graybo said...
Perhaps, in fact, Guido is merely using this website as a springboard to his plans to become PM and will appoint those of us who make favourable comments and cash donations as his ministers. In which case, can I be minister for beer? Here's my five pounds.
In that case, can I be Minister for ASPBOs - Anti Social Political Behaviour Orders - Guido? The basic idea is that any Pollie who proposes or votes for a new law gets to spend their life making reparations for it.
Orders will be retrospective, of course, so, for example, Presa gets to work as a diary secretary and live in one of the vile, high density flats he's forced on us - and ride a moped.
Harriet Harman gets a community service order making her personally restore to their rightful resting places all the 75 year old corpses she's had exhumed and compacted.
Gorgon gets his pension nicked and given to the poor, no, on second thoughts, all pollies get their pensions nicked, but Gorgon has to count his before handing it over in person.
Blair, if he ever gets out of war crimes chokey - were he'd a gatso for a cell mate - gets to work as a brickie rebuilding Iraq, I'm quite willing to personally pay for his economy flight over there, though I accept there'll be a massive queue of donors for this.
July 19, 2006 at 12:47 AM
Anonymous
said...
Stalin's Gran: The Register of Members Interests reveals nothing of the sort, since it doesn't give details of research assistants etc. The Register of Interests of Members' Secretaries and Research Assistants does, though; I've just run those tables through Access looking for identical surnames of MPs and their staff (sad, I know) and got 43 hits out of 1472 staff. Quite possibly there are many more who are related to their sponsoring MP by marriage and use their maiden name, of course, but those are the figures.
July 19, 2006 at 12:50 AM
Anonymous
said...
Not only should political parties not be funded, MPs should not be paid either. Career politicians are a bane.
July 19, 2006 at 12:59 AM
Anonymous
said...
Dear Guido
You are right - if political parties are given even a small grant of taxpayers' money, within a year or two the small grant will become an ever growing large, annual grant - the funding will never be enough ..... the political establishment will have no motivation to keep it under any control
Your obedient servant
G Eagle
July 19, 2006 at 7:42 AM
Anonymous
said...
You want to see where it leads look at Germany - at System Kohl - how much he used to collect from Friedrich-Karl Flick and how much came into Swiss accounts and through arms deals with Schreiber, and how much the Leuna Refinery deal brought Kohl's Party from Francois Mitterand.
Then look at Juergen Moelleman and the Luxembourg accounts.
German politics is riddled with corruption and massive State funding to boot. The SPD is Germany's richest party.
July 19, 2006 at 8:12 AM
Anonymous
said...
Not so long ago, we elected people we knew to represent us in Parliament. Now the parties try to decide who should be elected. Give them more state funding [preferably NO State funding]and we will just entrench the existing parties. Takes us back to before the 1832 Reform Act and to captive Parliamentary seats in the gift of the oligarchs!
July 19, 2006 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous
said...
Not only should political parties not be funded, MPs should not be paid either. Career politicians are a bane.
Er, so only city-wankers and morons with inherited wealth can be MPs?
July 19, 2006 at 9:36 AM
Anonymous
said...
What's the problem with MPs emplying their spouses? I'm sure some spouses insist on it, so they can keep an eye on their other half at work, and make sure his/her eye isn't turned by the thousands of beautiful, lissome researcher assistants who work in Parliament (hollow laugh).
Politics being what it is, it helps to have people who are loyal to the cause (personal cause, that is) working in the office too.
Unless of course, you're suggesting that some MPs spouses are employed but don't do any work. That would be illegal - anyone care to mention MPs whose working spouses tend to spend a fair amount (ie all) of their time) out of the office?
July 19, 2006 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous
said...
Sheep-Shagger 5.55, nice find ! who EB ?
Final word on state funding of parties, watch Al-beeb put its well nourished (by the tax payer) weight behind this one - after all, they wouldn't want the natives getting ideas above their station, would they !
July 19, 2006 at 10:15 AM
Anonymous
said...
From the picture it seem as though this time Guido succeeded.
Bloody hell, Guido. You seem to have touched a nerve with this post. Over a hundred comments in less than 24 hours. Is that a record?
I wonder if the silent watchers from the MSM are taking note. I guess the question the broadcasters and dead tree processors will need to answer is which side will they be on when this proposal is aired officially? With the people or their chums in Westminster?
RM
July 19, 2006 at 11:39 AM
Anonymous
said...
I personally think political parties should be sponsored from the BBC Licence Fee - they supply the scripts anyway and MPs provide the soap opera to fill up the schedules.
July 19, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Anonymous
said...
If you want to get incensed how about this: A former Labour MP and chairman of the health select commitee has landed a lovely non-job paying £5,730 a year at South West Yorkshire Mental Health Trust as a non - executive director. With the NHS as an entity suffering problems with funding / spending control/ employment cutbacks is it really necessary to have somebody in this role. WHat can they possibly bring to the organisation that they did not already have.
I would be interested to know if David Hinchliffe was against the trust as this would firmley put snout in trough if he spoke or voted against them.
July 19, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Anonymous
said...
Stalin's gran writes of Mike Penning MP, 'Who is his secretary as the MP for Hemel Hempstead as he now is? Good lord it is his wife!'
I believe our leaders should be treated as the Kalahari Bushmen's Chief is - and we should run UK over the internet, everyone voting on everything - especially politicians' pensions.
Loosely, the Bushmen have two Parliaments, the 'Talk', which decides ordinary, every day matters, and the 'Shout' which decides disputes. Both meetings involve the whole tribe sitting around their bush fire.
This is where the internet would come in as the modern day version of the camp fire. The Bushmen's Chief has the casting vote - and, if you ignore the huge respect he commands, he's rewarded less than everyone else in Bushman society.
The Kalahari being a dreadfully harsh environment, the young male hunters who are responsible for the meat element of the tribal diet catch very little - the odd scrawny squirrel. The Chief divides this equally between all the tribe - at a 'Sharing' ceremony, around the bush fire again. Everyone must have a fair share of the catch, even if they each get only .005 gms. The Chief divides the portions and gives himself smallest one. His reward is the love and respect of his people. Figuratively speaking, that's the way it should be here.
July 19, 2006 at 11:08 PM
Anonymous
said...
I believe our leaders should be treated as the Kalahari Bushmen's Chief is - and we should run UK over the internet, everyone voting on everything - especially politicians' pensions.
Loosely, the Bushmen have two Parliaments, the 'Talk', which decides ordinary, every day matters, and the 'Shout' which decides disputes. Both meetings involve the whole tribe sitting around their bush fire.
This is where the internet would come in as the modern day version of the camp fire. The Bushmen's Chief has the casting vote - and, if you ignore the huge respect he commands, he's rewarded less than everyone else in Bushman society.
The Kalahari being a dreadfully harsh environment, the young male hunters who are responsible for the meat element of the tribal diet catch very little - the odd scrawny squirrel. The Chief divides this equally between all the tribe - at a 'Sharing' ceremony, around the bush fire again. Everyone must have a fair share of the catch, even if they each get only .005 gms. The Chief divides the portions and gives himself smallest one. His reward is the love and respect of his people. Figuratively speaking, that's the way it should be here.
July 19, 2006 at 11:08 PM
Anonymous
said...
you must have enjoyed V for vendetta guido!
July 20, 2006 at 4:49 AM
Anonymous
said...
But nony, the Kalahari Bushmen's system apparently results in an irritating echo effect...
July 20, 2006 at 4:58 AM
Anonymous
said...
I find it hard to believe that anyone not sucking on the public tit is in favour of state funding of political parties - we're told that elections are now too expensive for party machines to fund from party memberships: fine. Make elections cheaper then. Scrap all those damned posters and battle buses. Get back to local campaigning, local meetings, local representative democracy - take the party name OFF the ballot sheet, make your election victory depend on the quality and engagement of your local candidates - if it were possible I'd ban parties altogether, as it is we need to break the tribalism, break the identification between local issues and national issues, break the stranglehold that conservatism (small c) has on political life. State funding is a terrible terrible idea, disasterous. Anyone who supports it is a stalinist.
Yes the Kalahari is a forbiding and desolate place especially when the last of the ice in the cooler box has melted and the beer's getting warm.
For this reason the Khoi-san (the pc name for the Bushies) tend to live in small family groups rarely numbering more than ten or fifteen. Thus most matters are arranged in a way familiar to most of us - the family feud.
I've seen how families resolve problems and quite frankly if this is the model you have in mind for the country I'd even choose Stalinism as an alternative.
On the matter of food sharing; microscopes are not considered essential survival equipment in the Kalahari.That being so I think it would be rather difficult for even exceptional hunters like the Khoi-san to find prey weighing in at less than 0.1 g let alone divvy it up into 0.005g portions. Sensible chaps that they are, they wouldn't even bother wasting the energy to pick up your 0.1g game.
Might I suggest you look to some more realistic philosophers than Rousseau for ideas on governance. His concept of the "noble savage" is, after all, complete hogwash.
112 comments:
The idea that the party nominated "working peers" are bad is ludicrous. Fertility expert Lord Winston and Olympic athlete Lord Coe were both 'working peers'.
What is Guido's solution to the party funding riddle? State grants? Because so long as you have private funding for political parties, there are going to be party funding scandals.
Time to begin voting for the local independent candidates, not some shyster 'parachuted' in by the so called democratic parties!
Will the jocks be putting up candidates south of the border or do we all have to move to Scotland?
So let's get rid of private funding. How's this- parties can charge a membership fee fixed by parliament - say £5 a year. Each party then gets a fixed amount from the taxpayer to cover offices and modest expenditure - say £1m for each major party with 20% or more of the vote, proportionately less for minor parties. And that's it - no donations allowed. They'd have enough to run their organisations, but no glossy commercials, brochures, etc. And no sleaze.
Anonymous 3:40pm... you've not really got the point, have you...?
Whether Lord Winston is a suitable legislator because he spent a working life playing with other peoples' sperm, and whether Lord Coe is suitable because he has slightly longer legs than most people, is hardly important.
What is important is that we're all about to be royally ripped off to pay for political campaigning. And if paying for the "mainstream" parties doesn't worry you, what about funding the UKIP/BNP Alliance?
Personally I'd rather spend my spare cash on smarties.
State funding of parties is a crime. There's no way the voters would accept paying for stupid adverts or posters. or for Cherie to have her hair done.
Guido is right - it's a disgrace. They've got themselves into this mess and they expect the taxpayer to get them out of it.
I would not pay a penny more to any of them. We can't really hold them accountable for what they do with the funds they already get at any level of goveernment. Why should we all pay for them to indulge their hack-egos?
Guido PLEASE don't jump on this too soon, this could be a great petard for this inept bunch of numbskulls. I want to see the formula before we all go crazy. Because either it will give the BNP and other loony-fringe types access to our cash (which the population really won't accept)... or pressure group charities will turn to parties over night to increase revenue... or independents will increase like buggery.
I cannot see a way they can do this without seriously fucking up, could be funny?
I believe it is my right to give a donation to whomever I choose.
However all donations/loans to political parties should be declared publicly (yes even the small ones) and any donor must be automatically disbarred from appointment to any position of privilege.
Any appointee to a privileged position must have earned their title by their real service to the country.
This should enable us to see who is worthy to receive an honour.
Amen Guido.
Anon at 3.40. I would propose a cap of say £100 per head, as apart from anything else it will make them spend more intelligently.
Who do you think is going to fund the election campaigns of these independent candidates then?
So how about banning political parties?
Are they all morons? If they vote for state funding, who's going to be holding the purse-strings? Two scenarios -- either they'll be clients of the Chancellor, or they'll vote themselves even more funding just the way they have for their pensions.
Fantastic: Let's look at the options:
1. The way of the good ol' USA in which two parties dominated by rich corporations and lobby groups exclude all others from the national debate, and pork barrel politics rules at state and local level.
2. An end to those unloved politicians for good! Let's bask in the reflected glory of some enlightened ruler who'll look after us all without our having to bother our pretty little heads.
Sorry Theo can't agree. Aside from the fact that indies are usually mad as a barrel of frogs they are utterly unaccountable. If one gets elected and sits on his/her arse for 4 years there is nothing you can do and noone cares a damn - local people have no leaverage and nowhere to go.
Equally there is no more wasted vote than for an independent - at both local and Westminster level even if they are elected they are powerless nobodies with no influence - with the rare exception where they form the balance of power.
By all means encourage people to vote for whatever crackpot party favours your views best - but a vote for an independent is an utterly wasted one.
Well well partly as a result of your rather splendid if rather hyper campaign to expose what we have all known for years ie political parties reward their large benefactors by giving them seats in the House of Lords whether its Lord Dodgy of Carpets or Baroness Dozey of Donkeys, UK taxpayers will have to pay for their political parties. Guess if you don't like the idea perhaps you should move to that beacon of political probity the USA and watch those federal dollars wiz into the funds of presidential candidates!! Perhaps the dead tree press are not so stupid afterall.
There's nothing wrong with private funding as long as it's all declared, in the open and with no strings (promises) attached. As an exercise in reality it would let the parties see just how popular they are/aren't. Maybe the parties should be cutting their cloth accordingly rather than tapping up the dear old taxpayer again just to fund their operating costs, hairdressing bills and the like.
Maybe the country would have more respect for politicians if they were seen to always put the interests of the citizens of this country first and foremost.
The problem may lie in our having an appointed upper house. If it was elected then access to political power would be based on appeal to the electorate rather than slipping fivers to Lord Levy. The success of the USA owes something to the excellence of its constitutional arrangements. An elected head of state, separation of powers, fully elected bicameral legislature - Perhaps we could learn something.
Nationalize political parties!
New Labout = GDR SED.
Will the taxpayers kindness be extended to the BNP and Class war as well?
Nationalize political parties. New Labour = GDR SED.
I don't think there should be any left wing parties. The prospect of paying for two is appalling.
The private funding of the political parties allows people to choose which political party to support. Let's not lose that freedom along with all the others that seem to be disappearing at an alarming rate.
Surely the solution, Anonymous, should not be rewarding unpopular, bankrupt and at least notionally corrupt parties with yet more public money. That's like telling me I shouldn't rob a bank but here's 50k for, you know, stuff...
Rather, if the parties, you know, weren't so utterly repugnantly bent they may be able to get some money from their members... remember them? I'm not suprised if you don't because there are fewer in most Parties than ever before...
However, rather than actually compete for the public's love (or at least membership and subscriptions) people like you prefer to just have these thieving pols help themselves to another chunk of our cash.
Or is this what Blairistas meant by being tough on crime and tackling the causes of crime? By paying off criminals...
It's a load of crap it costs nothing for some drivelmeister to stand on a street corner and mutter about his policies.
What I find most offensive is that Blair is prepared to mortgage the reputation of the Labour party to the man who brought us Alvin "not a pervert like Gary Glitter" Stardust and such great cultural landmarks as My Coo Ca Choo and the blatantly sick Red Dress..
Well said, Guido! Tell these political scroungers where to get off. They ran up all these debts for their own benefit alone - to get elitist salaries, perks and pensions. Make them pay their own debts.
What will they do for money if they aren't publicly funded? How about saving and WORKING for it,like the rest of us? If they can't do that, are they fit to run our country? Let them rely on their policies to win the election instead of con merchant consultants and advertising scams.
How much is required to fight a bare bones election campaign? I was one of a protest group of seven local election candidates who fought a local election for just over a £1000 for all of us. We all chipped in and had a few donations from supporters. That paid for all of our leaflets and posters plus some printing/postage costs.
Multiply that by 4 and you'd need about £5000 to cover a town of about 80,000 people. The Parties can easily raise that sort of sum - make them do it, Guido!! The claims of the big three parties to need a circus of hoardings, election buses and all the other vastly expensive paraphenalia are total crap! Let's see them live within their means for a change.
anon 3.40 solutions = pay the fuckers a LOT less , basic expenses, Cull the numbers . Limit the ammount of legislation they can pass.
theo spark
3.40.
Fully in favour of locals getting elected, but there is nothing wrong with some Con Lib or Lab locals getting elected.They may be boring or arseholes, but unlike the "A list" and Lib and Lab equivalents, they are local bores and arseholes and the electors should know what they are like.
I am confused. You cannot hit a party for receiving money which they had no knowledge was not kosher. Suppose a famous multimillionaire with a fabulous 'legit' business gave you millions, then you found out that three quarters of his wealth came from drug running? You can't 'unspend' the cash, can you? So why should you have any liability? There is plenty of olitical corruption about - i've just heard today of a local chief planner who plays golf every weekend with two top local councillors fom different parties. So why are you pointing at a wrong target?
On simpler stuff, I see Tommy Sheriden's 'going down'. I wonder who's flogging the video?
It is very simple - introduce the following three rules:
(1) political parties may only derive funding from membership fees (no donations, no business activities, no dinners with bigwigs);
(2) membership fees must be equal for all members (so that you can't have some rich members in a special class)
(3) candidates of any party (for any position, including local councils) must be paid-up members of that party (this prevents a few very rich people forming a party and effectively sponsoring their own candidates).
Couldn't be fairer than that - AND importantly: it will show how much the public cares about political parties...
(There may be other things to do instead, such as more direct rather than representative democracy - but that's another story.)
There are real problems with the funding of Political parties. There will be no simple solution but neither full state funding or only private donations will work.
'but taking taxes from people with no interest in politics to finance their foolery would be making crime pay.'
Some would say GB is increasingly doing so.
What hope is there for the treasury?
No state funding. It will only further bankrupt 'democracy'. Parties to survive financialyy will have to reconnect with voters. To survive they will have to recruit members prepared to work and canvass. They will have to cut budgets and do what any business does in recession. The parties will emerge better and stronger. Politics and politicians will lose pariah status. No bail out of the gutless gormless political heavyweights. politicians will will be
Anon 3:40. Simple. Coth & coat-cutting spring to mind and some old sack cloth & ashes sounds about right to me too. If their aspirations were genuine public-service instead of bloody useless self-important, self-service, they'd soon get the message - and we'd all be better off.
Can somebody please explain how this state funding of parties works??? Through my taxes, I am paying someone to come back to justify why they are (or should be) running the country? Is total insanity now the norm? This adds a totally new meaning to the "snouts in the trough" phrase...
If they can't properly manage their own accounts, how on earth can we trust them with the economy?
...
Anarcho-capitalism is beginning to look like an attractive political philosophy. We don't owe these parasites a living.
anon - why does Guido have to have a solution or taxpayer fund?
Open & honest fundraising, clear accounts, no party honours except when vetted by honours/appointments commission, ministerial code enforced by law.
If the buggers can't operate that way let them go bankcrupt/be jailed.
The solution is very simple and so often spouted by politicians, “MARKET FORCES”. If you have no money in the kitty because of poor membership due to a lack of interest then it is no one’s fault except your own. A popular party will have a healthy membership, healthy kitty and lots of glossies come election time. I pay enough for mismanagement thrust upon us by incompetent and unaccountable government and I deeply resent being asked to pay for advertising leaflets destined to become unopened landfill. If needs be, let the people with too much money continue funding, as the golden rule of physics dictates, “The biggest Shits will always rise to the top”.
The solution is very simple and so often spouted by politicians, “MARKET FORCES”. If you have no money in the kitty because of poor membership due to a lack of interest then it is no one’s fault except your own. A popular party will have a healthy membership, healthy kitty and lots of glossies come election time. I pay enough for mismanagement thrust upon us by incompetent and unaccountable government and I deeply resent being asked to pay for advertising leaflets destined to become unopened landfill. If needs be, let the people with too much money continue funding, as the golden rule of physics dictates, “The biggest Shits will always rise to the top”.
Shameless.
It's ripe for a party of the people to emerge (via the internet), and if it did and won I'd be in no doubt it would end up stuffing it's pockets in weeks.
Anyone who wants to be a politician isn't fit to be a politician - does that make sense?
It is difficult to know which is the most outrageous issue at present. My blood pressure peaks at the criminal warmonger, posturing, incompetent freeloader Bliar; the incompetent investigation into the Stockwell murder; the ludicrous, lecherous bloated incompetent Prescott; greedy incompetent (repetition!) cowardly Brown; and now they will want millions more to spend on telling us how much we need them! If you can think of a more appropriate word than 'incompetent' above, feel free to insert it.
Guido's right (again!), we must not allow this criminal government to get away with it.
"What is Guido's solution to the party funding riddle?"
What riddle? A party is just an association of individuals with a common aim. Let them raise funds by voluntary subscription and there will be a rough correspondence between the success of their efforts and the extent of their appeal.
In my opinion the less money they have the better, and the only way I can express that view is by spending my money on something more desirable.
theo spark is also right. It's time to vote only for Independents, and make the Criminal Parties realise the game is up.
I have had to vote for "None of the above" far too often!
Your barbecue invitation photo thing at the top of the post doesn't have a time or a date telling us when it's happening. Still, let me know when and I'll be there with enough heavy-duty kebab spikes for all.
Back to jumble sales is what I say. The bloody charity shops are far too expensive now. I'll join a political party again just for the thrill of sniffing stale jumble and the chance to pillage the best the night before!
Guido, it's the Oxbridge mafia. In fact the Lib Dems are as full as Con and Lab with the graduates of the Oxbridge school of crime. They may look like normal people coming to your streets, but in fact the Lib Dems are no different and have as many Oxford and Cambridge men capable of fiddling the best accountacy system. I thought these universities used to teach their graduates honour, instead they merely swindle us out of money and sell off peerages for a bit of cash. They are all a bunch of loosers!
Guido,
One of the ghastly side effect of state funding of political parties would be that all the Loonies would come out of the woodwork, and get paid by the State to spout their bile.
It would be far better to have legal capping of Election spending, and a mandatory no of hours for election broadcasting on TV than have state money given to Political parties.
how about the national lottery?
first prize is £7 mill, second is becoming PM for the week.
I've got to agree with anon at 3.40pm. It's not enough to point out what doesn't work; we need to come up with a solution that does work.
The simple fact is that politics is an expensive business and many of those (though clearly not all) expenses are necessary in the present system.
Leaflets are getting glossier and the consultants pricier (witness Lord Saatchi's bill to the Conservatives after the last election). It's the major parties' answer to voter apathy to model themselves on companies who successfully sell overpriced products which we don't really need. As a result they all follow the same "business plan": seeking the support of the same key voters with the same messages using the same methods.
If a funding solution was found that drastically cut the big three parties' relative spending power, it is likely that the political field would be opened up to parties that don't follow this middle ground consensus.
If this were to happen, the plus side is that this might address the question of voter apathy. The downside is the likely increased voice for the headbangers on the far right.
But if a party's message were strong enough it would attract necessary support, and the arguments put forward by the BNP simply aren't strong enough to do that.
Labour, Tory and LibDem need to recognise that no amount of glossy leaflets can paper over the cracks in the respective ideologies - if indeed any of them have any ideology left. Concentrate on the message and it will sell itself.
Party funding riddle? Quite frankly, I'm buggered if the taxpayer should pay anymore to these parasites. I reckon I've got at least 20 million backers too. I say put a cap on the amount allowed to be donated/lent. That would cut down on the amount of paper wasted on leaflets, and less shite to be spouted on telly & radio. The parties can post their policies on their websites, and we can see them if we wish to. Perhaps a quid pro quo for this solution would be compulsory voting. And 'none of the above' on ballot papers!
Anonymous told us that "so long as you have private funding for political parties, there are going to be party funding scandals."
It's a bit like that rare flash of self-knowledge by a paedophile who begs to be castrated/ locked up, because he knows he can't help doing what he does. It may be honest, but it doesn't reflect very well on the guy who says it.
Do we really have to shrug our shoulders and meekly accept that our politicians have no choice but to be corrupt?
Here are a couple of suggestions for how to address the funding problem.
1) Full disclosure. Maybe you have upper limits, maybe you don't, but let the people judge the parties by their friends and by the extent to which they are in hock to them.
2) (And, yes, I know this is a little contentious)How about political parties having a go at developing a sense of right and wrong? So to take an example purely at random - when you make a big song and dance about how virtuous you are in reforming the party funding rules, and then secretly bypass those rules yourself; why not take a moment to ask yourself "Is this the act of a moral human being or of a cynical charlatan with less ethical sense than an amoeba?"
this post by yourself Mr Fawkes is really interesting! However, say the public is not bothered enough to reject the political "flow"....and find it acceptable to fund politics....does it mean that the whole of your very personal project is jeopardised Mr Fawkes? Who are you Mr Fawkes...if I may use the sentiments of Mr Robin Day....a "here today gone tomorrow" blogger to reject or even fight against the wishes of the great British public!
fruitcake said...
how about the national lottery?
first prize is £7 mill, second is becoming PM for the week.
6:02 PM
Right Now, I think Cherie would tell TB to take the £7 million!
I don't agree with anonymous (3.40). There should be no conflict between honours and financial support for parties provided that there is openness and even-handedness. If we understood that a new peer was also a donor, but that the donation was not related to the conferring of honours, then this whole cash-for-peerages thing would be a non-story. The issue is that it appears that honours have been sold or that it was implied that a substantial donation or loan on favourable terms would secure an honour - and that is why Guido and others are rightly making an issue of it.
But then maybe I am naive to trust in the innate good nature of human beings. Perhaps, in fact, Guido is merely using this website as a springboard to his plans to become PM and will appoint those of us who make favourable comments and cash donations as his ministers. In which case, can I be minister for beer? Here's my five pounds.
The political establishment is so out of touch. The punters rumbled that the whole Party Politics System is a scam long ago. Even someone who didn't pay much attention in History at school knows the British system elects MPs to represent the interests of their constituents so when we constantly see our elected representatives representing the interests of the people who are bunging party leaders many of us decide we are voting for "None Of The Above."
Next time we should have a clear majority.
Read The Party's Over on the Machiavelli blog
The reason we have parties is because different interest groups want to control the government to put their grandiose schemes into action.
Maybe if we had a constitutionally limited government i.e. government only runs the police force and army then the whole party system would collapse and we could live free of state officials pestering us.
They'd have to take the money out of my cold, dead hands.
Fine. Let there be state funding, but let's cap it at a million per political party with over 100 candidates each per diem, cut the deposit necessary to field a candidate so that the little guys can get a look in and tie the funding with a heap of conditional stuff.
Suggestions for conditions please.
Regards
Bill
Mashtots complains 'In effect it [asking political parties to raise money from their own supporters] would subvert democracy, as it would allow the richest members of the society to have a greater say in political discourses, thereby rendering citizens unequal in the democratic proccess.'
It, though, has always been demonstrably the case and, for better or for worse, probably always will be, that the wealthy and powerful do have a greater say in political discourse in democracies and any other form of government you care to name. That's one of the attractive things about being wealthy and powerful, or so I'm told.
Whilst were are about it, I would get rid of the TV licence immediately and force that bunch of Labour Luvvies who run the BBC to live and die by what they broadcast.
It would force them to look at political bias at the BBC, a matter they continually ignore, because it suits them to, and IMHO, the BBC website is the worst..
Dear Anonymous at 6.24pm - I can assure you that the public is extremely bothered about the political "flow" - particularly the "flow" of public money into politicians' pockets! They already get far too much of our cash and the public will not stand for the taxpayer funding political parties any more than they do already, which is far too much anyway. Why is the poor bloody taxpayer funding John Prescott's jaunts to see his "good friend of many years" Rosie Winterton or Cherie Blair's car and driver?
You may be hopefully posting from No.10 or Labour Party HQ in the (surely you realise by now) forlorn hope that the public are all stupid - but they ain't - and you've been rumbled.
Guido is right - and his other identity is irrelevant!
(Mind, if your post was a wind-up and I've suffered severe sense of humour failure, I shall blame the hot weather............)
"this post by yourself Mr Fawkes is really interesting! However, say the public is not bothered enough to reject the political "flow"....and find it acceptable to fund politics"
If they find it acceptable to fund politics then they can do it themselves out of their own wallets. Last time I heard the vast majority were against state funding.
spot the boring anonymong at 6:24
Your supposition is that the great British public is interested in politics...it might be, but not the current version we have, I would (sorry Guido I'm breaching the guidelines here) make the supposition that apathy is the majority party, I agree with Slim Jim, give us a "none of the above" option, make the b*st*rds work for a living....pass me the wine bottle, I'm getting serious.
Anony-muse said:
this post by yourself Mr Fawkes is really interesting! However, say the public is not bothered enough to reject the political "flow"....and find it acceptable to fund politics....does it mean that the whole of your very personal project is jeopardised Mr Fawkes? Who are you Mr Fawkes...if I may use the sentiments of Mr Robin Day....a "here today gone tomorrow" blogger to reject or even fight against the wishes of the great British public!
If that is the case they should be taken outside and slapped with a trout until they come around to something resembling common sense.
A political party should stand or fall on the strength of it's supporters and policies. Nothing more.
Fantastic stuff Mr Fawkes. Churchillian almost. Lunch must have been good today...
We already have state funding of parties!
What do you think the SpAds are? Why else does the party chairman have ministerial rank and sit in the cabinet? Who pays for ministerial travel to party fundraisers? And on a more topical note, who is paying for the contracts to companies which then turn around and fund the parties?
Is it time for a "none of the above" candidate to be fielded in every constituency? Their remit would be to instigate a small number of constitutional reforms - a proper Bill of Rights, enforceable sanctions against the executive, the cleanup of public life - before standing down after one term.
Off topic I know but perhaps relevent to mentions of independant candidates above: With all this talk of sleaze rattling around has anyone canvassed the views of that pillar of probity, the man in the white suit (of blessed memory)?
One well remembers his stunning victory agaist the forces of darkness in '97.
One followed his venture into the wilds of Essex in the following fixture.
One heard rumour of an unsuccessful bid for the fleshpots of Brussels in '04.
But the only news Googleable is a puff piece from Auntie last year.
Has the independant voice of public morals no views at all on the current shenannigans? Or is the steely gaze of public virtue blind in it's left eye?
I understand that there will be quite a few redundancies at Labour Party HQ now that they are embarking on an "an active programme of cost containment." Fortunately everybody concerned has been told they will be helped into positions as ministerial advisors.
Tax is theft. This is mugging.
Perhaps the blame lies with modern medicine. Both the capitals of the USA and Britain were established along fetid estuaries, our Founding Fathers operating under the theory that malaria or plague would self cleanse the political process. The corpses could also be deposited into said estuaries with the rest of the effluvia. Clearly antibiotics and quinine are to blame for the Augean stables we call governments. Perhaps political parties should be abolished and political office be assigned like jury duty?
Completely OT, but has Recess Monkey been abducted by the govt for tests at Porton Down? His website has gone!
Guido...well said However this lot will win.
Everyone here should write to their MP's and demand to know why he/she has not raised the question of cash for peerages!
But there is a bigger problem which the electoral commission has allowed to happen.
Many say become Independent! but you will not get any time whatsoever on TV, if you can afford an advertisement! Only the 3 parties can have them and those with Euro MP's can have one or two. Parties with No MP's or Euro MP's cannot have any!!
Democracy? we have got the worst of all worlds. What will happen? They will vote money fopr themselves and as guido says this whole business, unless The Yard say different, will be forgotten.
It is a scandal which the BBC will not do anything about nor Sky (come to my wedding) Bolton nor any of the daily's.
God help us.
I fear for my country.
If they do it, then I'm going to start a new party.
It will cost nothing to join but all members will be entitled to "expenses" which are a suitable division of the taxman's handout.
Hence if everyone joins the party and votes for it, they'll get their money back. Only flaw is those that don't pay tax won't have an incentive - but then what's new?
Try this one, a regulator, The Office of Political Party Regulation OfPPol, Similar to the authority used to regulate the utilities.
If for instance each political party were to be given £2.0 for every vote in a GE, that money would go into an account administered by OfPPol. All parties would have to register to be entitled to the grant, each voter would look on it as a donation. The Political Party would then set up direct debits for day-to-day running. Money donated to a Political Party would be vetted by OfPPol and deposited or rejected. In effect parties would lose control of their donations. All withdrawals would have to be justified. At the end of each financial year OfPPol would publish accounts showing all ins/outs, no anonymity allowed.
State funding removes the parties from their dependency on [Tories-big business; Labour- trade unions; Liberals- dodgy businessmen].
What is the problem with political freedoms? Anyone would think you were a libertarian or something, Guido.....s
We already have state funding through the represetation of the people act, but as with Guido I'm strongly against further institutionalising it. So what if a few rich dudes contribute to party coffers - so long as it is above board and done openly then it's fine. I for one am not prepared to have my taxpayers mone spent on the BNP or lunatic UKIP, and god forbid the Lib Dems!
OfPPol? Yeah, because organisations like Ofcom and Ofwat do such a damn fine job..!
"State funding removes the parties from their dependency on [Tories-big business; Labour- trade unions; Liberals- dodgy businessmen]."
And forces the taxpayer to fund them. How free!
"What is the problem with political freedoms? Anyone would think you were a libertarian or something, Guido.....s"
Since when did libertarians support state funding of political parties? Or are you implying that libertarians are opposed to freedom?
...Lynton Crosby was quizzed today at 4.30pm.
http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/hoc_news3.cfm
Guido old chap,just wondering how that image you`ve posted of Parliament going up in flames might be percieved by those who would dearly love to see this site terminated.At a stretch it might just be seen as inciting terrorism.Far-fetched maybe but "organisations" consisting of a few disgruntled blokes in Wolverhampton who spout off a bit have been proscribed for less.In days when the Old Bill turn up on someone`s doorstep because they`ve given a point of view on a radio phone-in that might just be giving them the inch they need,just a thought old lad.
Guido -
Brilliant post. Well said that man.
BTW, what is the stunning graphic? Where did you find it?
Please note that Plaid have done as much as the SNP on this issue....
As I understand it, large donations to political parties are not illegal, it is just that the donors have to be identified. Why the bloody hell, are these rich, public spirited pillars of society so scared of being publicly identified? It makes one wonder whether their generosity is not as noble as we are led to believe. If these gents don't want to pay any more, then why should we?
I seem to remember Tony, saying, in a recent interview, that "The public may be 'invited', to contribute".
Message to Tony. If you e mailing training has progressed well enough for you to read political blogs and you are reading this. If you are considering sending me an invitation, forget it, I reject the invitation outright. Save Gordon some money and don't bother sending me the card.
Please, Please, Please F.O. (and I'm not referring to Mrs Beckett's new department).
steppenwolff said...
Completely OT, but has Recess Monkey been abducted by the govt for tests at Porton Down? His website has gone!
8:33 PM
Reports of his demise are unfounded, the website is back up and running.
Steppenwolf asks 'Completely OT, but has Recess Monkey been abducted by the govt for tests at Porton Down?'
Quite possibly; today's Telegraph reports Rare monkey stolen in zoo night raid
Strapworld and Guido
Here Here to all that.
I do not just fear for my country but also the world. This country is watched by other nations more than we might appreciate. Democracy is in troble enough without this place going "nazi" on it. We spend more effort and time on raising party funds than discusing politics, which is how it should be. The system is fine as it is. Especialy as we have now laws to clean up corruption. If the police do their job right the crooks will end up in jail, which is also how it should be. Why not just wait and see what happens?
The magor parties have been in financial shit before and they still get by. If they dont get by, they will go bust, which again is how it should be.
Laws to limit the amount of funds borrowed by parties would help. As would the privateisation of the BBC. Who are the biggest hand in the cookie jar anyway, and the people whos job it is to blow the whistle. A whistle that never seems to get blown. Show me a political party that would not like a cool 3.5 billion a year for doing bugger all to help the people.
You all know what I meen. "You give us 3.5 billion of the publics money, and we will help you convice the public that giving political parties state finance is good for them."
It's all getting a bit worthy, isn't it? In the comments, I mean. I remember when this used to be funny....
But on the current note, and to cut, I think, to the chase, why do we pay these wankers in excess of £100,000 to ponce about to no effect whatsoever? And please let nobody argue that the money goes on their assistants and researchers because if you look at the register of researchers' interests you will find that many of the beneficiaries of public largesse have the same surname as the MP they work for. And I looked from man to pig...
Sorry, further to that, let us look at Mike Penning, working class Tory, former soldier, ex-fireman, adviser to anti-Europe nutbags like "Sir" Teddy Taylor, and then John Redwood, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, scourge of Labour waste and corruption (quite rightly, of course - he had a very good point). Who is his secretary as the MP for Hemel Hempstead as he now is? Good lord it is his wife! I am sure she does a very good job but there's nothing like keeping it in the family. I am proud to be paying for the secretarial support that Mr Penning receives in his own home....Tax me baby!
Selling honours has allways gone on.
In the same taking home a pen from the stationary cupboard at work has, no real problem untill someone pulls up in a HGV and clears out the cupboard.
Tony Blair is the guy with the HGV
No to state funding, yes to limits to GE budgets (which is why they get so into debt to start with).
Less mealy-mouthed spin by marketing a-h's. Lets have some blunders by politicians accidentally saying what they mean.
Thats what we want!
graybo said...
Perhaps, in fact, Guido is merely using this website as a springboard to his plans to become PM and will appoint those of us who make favourable comments and cash donations as his ministers. In which case, can I be minister for beer? Here's my five pounds.
In that case, can I be Minister for ASPBOs - Anti Social Political Behaviour Orders - Guido? The basic idea is that any Pollie who proposes or votes for a new law gets to spend their life making reparations for it.
Orders will be retrospective, of course, so, for example, Presa gets to work as a diary secretary and live in one of the vile, high density flats he's forced on us - and ride a moped.
Harriet Harman gets a community service order making her personally restore to their rightful resting places all the 75 year old corpses she's had exhumed and compacted.
Gorgon gets his pension nicked and given to the poor, no, on second thoughts, all pollies get their pensions nicked, but Gorgon has to count his before handing it over in person.
Blair, if he ever gets out of war crimes chokey - were he'd a gatso for a cell mate - gets to work as a brickie rebuilding Iraq, I'm quite willing to personally pay for his economy flight over there, though I accept there'll be a massive queue of donors for this.
Stalin's Gran: The Register of Members Interests reveals nothing of the sort, since it doesn't give details of research assistants etc. The Register of Interests of Members' Secretaries and Research Assistants does, though; I've just run those tables through Access looking for identical surnames of MPs and their staff (sad, I know) and got 43 hits out of 1472 staff. Quite possibly there are many more who are related to their sponsoring MP by marriage and use their maiden name, of course, but those are the figures.
Not only should political parties not be funded, MPs should not be paid either. Career politicians are a bane.
Dear Guido
You are right - if political parties are given even a small grant of taxpayers' money, within a year or two the small grant will become an ever growing large, annual grant - the funding will never be enough ..... the political establishment will have no motivation to keep it under any control
Your obedient servant
G Eagle
You want to see where it leads look at Germany - at System Kohl - how much he used to collect from Friedrich-Karl Flick and how much came into Swiss accounts and through arms deals with Schreiber, and how much the Leuna Refinery deal brought Kohl's Party from Francois Mitterand.
Then look at Juergen Moelleman and the Luxembourg accounts.
German politics is riddled with corruption and massive State funding to boot. The SPD is Germany's richest party.
Not so long ago, we elected people we knew to represent us in Parliament. Now the parties try to decide who should be elected. Give them more state funding [preferably NO State funding]and we will just entrench the existing parties. Takes us back to before the 1832 Reform Act and to captive Parliamentary seats in the gift of the oligarchs!
Not only should political parties not be funded, MPs should not be paid either. Career politicians are a bane.
Er, so only city-wankers and morons with inherited wealth can be MPs?
What's the problem with MPs emplying their spouses? I'm sure some spouses insist on it, so they can keep an eye on their other half at work, and make sure his/her eye isn't turned by the thousands of beautiful, lissome researcher assistants who work in Parliament (hollow laugh).
Politics being what it is, it helps to have people who are loyal to the cause (personal cause, that is) working in the office too.
Unless of course, you're suggesting that some MPs spouses are employed but don't do any work. That would be illegal - anyone care to mention MPs whose working spouses tend to spend a fair amount (ie all) of their time) out of the office?
Sheep-Shagger 5.55, nice find ! who EB ?
Final word on state funding of parties, watch Al-beeb put its well nourished (by the tax payer) weight behind this one - after all, they wouldn't want the natives getting ideas above their station, would they !
From the picture it seem as though
this time Guido succeeded.
Bloody hell, Guido. You seem to have touched a nerve with this post. Over a hundred comments in less than 24 hours. Is that a record?
I wonder if the silent watchers from the MSM are taking note. I guess the question the broadcasters and dead tree processors will need to answer is which side will they be on when this proposal is aired officially? With the people or their chums in Westminster?
RM
I personally think political parties should be sponsored from the BBC Licence Fee - they supply the scripts anyway and MPs provide the soap opera to fill up the schedules.
If you want to get incensed how about this: A former Labour MP and chairman of the health select commitee has landed a lovely non-job paying £5,730 a year at South West Yorkshire Mental Health Trust as a non - executive director. With the NHS as an entity suffering problems with funding / spending control/ employment cutbacks is it really necessary to have somebody in this role. WHat can they possibly bring to the organisation that they did not already have.
I would be interested to know if David Hinchliffe was against the trust as this would firmley put snout in trough if he spoke or voted against them.
Stalin's gran writes of Mike Penning MP, 'Who is his secretary as the MP for Hemel Hempstead as he now is? Good lord it is his wife!'
Hmm. According to The Register of Interests of Members' Secretaries and Research Assistants, he has two people working for him in the House of Commons, Linda Lawrence and Ronald Moss. Meanwhile, according to The Conservative Party Website, 'He has been married to Angela for 17 years'.
I believe our leaders should be treated as the Kalahari Bushmen's Chief is - and we should run UK over the internet, everyone voting on everything - especially politicians' pensions.
Loosely, the Bushmen have two Parliaments, the 'Talk', which decides ordinary, every day matters, and the 'Shout' which decides disputes. Both meetings involve the whole tribe sitting around their bush fire.
This is where the internet would come in as the modern day version of the camp fire. The Bushmen's Chief has the casting vote - and, if you ignore the huge respect he commands, he's rewarded less than everyone else in Bushman society.
The Kalahari being a dreadfully harsh environment, the young male hunters who are responsible for the meat element of the tribal diet catch very little - the odd scrawny squirrel. The Chief divides this equally between all the tribe - at a 'Sharing' ceremony, around the bush fire again. Everyone must have a fair share of the catch, even if they each get only .005 gms. The Chief divides the portions and gives himself smallest one. His reward is the love and respect of his people. Figuratively speaking, that's the way it should be here.
I believe our leaders should be treated as the Kalahari Bushmen's Chief is - and we should run UK over the internet, everyone voting on everything - especially politicians' pensions.
Loosely, the Bushmen have two Parliaments, the 'Talk', which decides ordinary, every day matters, and the 'Shout' which decides disputes. Both meetings involve the whole tribe sitting around their bush fire.
This is where the internet would come in as the modern day version of the camp fire. The Bushmen's Chief has the casting vote - and, if you ignore the huge respect he commands, he's rewarded less than everyone else in Bushman society.
The Kalahari being a dreadfully harsh environment, the young male hunters who are responsible for the meat element of the tribal diet catch very little - the odd scrawny squirrel. The Chief divides this equally between all the tribe - at a 'Sharing' ceremony, around the bush fire again. Everyone must have a fair share of the catch, even if they each get only .005 gms. The Chief divides the portions and gives himself smallest one. His reward is the love and respect of his people. Figuratively speaking, that's the way it should be here.
you must have enjoyed V for vendetta guido!
But nony, the Kalahari Bushmen's system apparently results in an irritating echo effect...
I find it hard to believe that anyone not sucking on the public tit is in favour of state funding of political parties - we're told that elections are now too expensive for party machines to fund from party memberships: fine. Make elections cheaper then. Scrap all those damned posters and battle buses. Get back to local campaigning, local meetings, local representative democracy - take the party name OFF the ballot sheet, make your election victory depend on the quality and engagement of your local candidates - if it were possible I'd ban parties altogether, as it is we need to break the tribalism, break the identification between local issues and national issues, break the stranglehold that conservatism (small c) has on political life. State funding is a terrible terrible idea, disasterous. Anyone who supports it is a stalinist.
Nony 11:08,
Yes the Kalahari is a forbiding and desolate place especially when the last of the ice in the cooler box has melted and the beer's getting warm.
For this reason the Khoi-san (the pc name for the Bushies) tend to live in small family groups rarely numbering more than ten or fifteen. Thus most matters are arranged in a way familiar to most of us - the family feud.
I've seen how families resolve problems and quite frankly if this is the model you have in mind for the country I'd even choose Stalinism as an alternative.
On the matter of food sharing; microscopes are not considered essential survival equipment in the Kalahari.That being so I think it would be rather difficult for even exceptional hunters like the Khoi-san to find prey weighing in at less than 0.1 g let alone divvy it up into 0.005g portions. Sensible chaps that they are, they wouldn't even bother wasting the energy to pick up your 0.1g game.
Might I suggest you look to some more realistic philosophers than Rousseau for ideas on governance. His concept of the "noble savage" is, after all, complete hogwash.
RM