This House would ban private funding of political parties

The Central London Debating Society have selected an annoyingly provocative motion for their next debate. Stunningly counter-intuitive and quite clearly wrong, the motion deserves to be defeated. In fact, it deserves to be labelled a dissident, dragged out into the street and shot dead with a badly made bullet for crimes against the state:

Labour argues that the Conservatives are overwhelmingly dependent on big business donations for their sources of funding, and that this will inevitably encourage lobbying and patronage. On the other hand, the Conservatives highlight Labour’s dependance on trade union donations, and reject Labour’s drawing of a distinction between big business and trade union members’ personal contributions.

Beyond Westminster, the alternative, taxpayer funding of political parties, is equally distasteful in some quarters, with many asking why the often uninterested taxpayer should be required to cough up for political mudslinging, especially in this age of financial austerity.

The key question is: where should our political parties get their money from, and does it even matter? Do we want a politics where vested interests not surprisingly choose to donate money to the political party most likely to help them, or one where funding from the taypayer is equally distributed between all parties, perhaps encouraging the concept of victory on the merit of argument and policy?

Location: Ye Olde Cock Tavern, 22 Fleet Street, EC4Y 1AA
Date: Thursday 12th of April at 7:30pm

Tags:

Party Funding

Date:

April 10, 2012

Up next:

Before:

4 responses to “This House would ban private funding of political parties”

James Rigby

April 10, 2012 at 11:05 pm

Take away power from politicians and the problem goes away. No power, nothing to influence, no one will part with large wodges of cash.

LikeLike

1. Simon Gibbs
  
  April 11, 2012 at 5:21 am
  
  No need to tell me that. Get thee down to Fleet Street.
  
  LikeLike
  
2. Rob Waller
  
  April 11, 2012 at 6:48 am
  
  Seconded!!
  
  LikeLike
  
Paul Marks

April 11, 2012 at 2:42 pm

The motion is an irritating lie – as tax money would not be given “equally to all parties”.

For example, how much would the BNP be given?

None – and nor should it be. But then neither should any of the political parties.

Of course a decent political party (if there can be such a thing) would turn down STOLEN taxpayer money on principle – and (by this motion) would be banned from accepting voluntary donations. So a decent political party would simply not be allowed to function.

As for the existing political parties…..

They (at least in the Conservative case) used to be funded by a mass membership and voluntary events.

The voluntary events (coffee mornings and so on) have been basically crushed by endless regulations (put in by the last Labour govenrment)- holding an event is one thing, but having to fill in forms (with threats of criminal punishment) is all too much for people.

However, this does not explain the decline of a mass membership.

It is not “evil big business” that stops people joining political parties – it is their own sense that joining is a pointless waste of time.

If political parties wanted to change that – and put the membership (not a magic circle in Westminister) in charge, they could. But the leadership of the political parties do not wish to do that.

So they run short of members and short of money (money from the small donations of hundreds of thousands of people – which is how things used to work).

An obvious example is Act of Parliament passed the year I was born – 1965 (yes I am that old). The Race Relations Act.

Most British people (contrary to the propaganda of the education system and the BBC) were not bigots – but they were deeply opposed to a Act of Parliament that outlawed freedom of speech and freedom of contract.

Freedom of speech and freedom of contract (freedom of association must include the freedom not to associate) are not just for nice people – they are also for nasty people.

The idea that Parliament (really the Executive – as Parliament, as nearly always, acted like a flock of sheep) could step in and declare “you must not state your opinions” and “you must trade with and employ the people will tell you to trade with and employ” was an outrage.

The Labour party introduced the measure – but the leadership of the Liberal and Conservative parties, de facto, supported it.

Just as with capital punishement, or the European Union (or anything else), the magic circle in Westminister (produced by the universities) and the elite media, decided everything – and the people had no say (the opinions of the people being treated with total contempt).

So what was the point of being a member of a political party? At least, over time, that is how more and more people viewed the matter.

It is not just a lack of influence – it is a feeling (a conviction) that the people of the “Westminister village” (including the media) are on a different planet from ordinary people.

Perhaps a Parliament chosen by lot (like a jury) would deal with the matter.

600 or so (actually one hundred people would be enough) ordinary people chosen (at random) every few years.

No elections – so no need for election funding.

“But that would mean an end to democracy”.

A system where the people have no say (even on matters they care passionatly about) can not, correctly, be called a “democracy”.

And Parliament has handed over a lot of its powers to the vile European Union anyway.

So they obviously do not really care about their sacred “Parliamentary authority”.

As a libertarian I do not really like the idea of being “ruled” at all of course – but if I have to be ruled, like the late William F. Buckley I would “rather be ruled by the first 50 names in the Boston telephone directory, that by the people they elect”.

Elections are image contests. Which party leader can look and sound good (remember “Clegg mania”). Experience has sadly proved that “representative democracy” is naught to do with democracy – still less with liberty.

LikeLike