Dooyoo want to pay for it? (Political party funding)

Member Name: MichaelR

Product:	Political party funding
Date:	31/01/01 (14 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Saves people having to pay to back those they oppose

Disadvantages: Ever present problem of sleaze

I think the first question that you have got to ask yourself is this, if private contributions from large organisations and rich individuals are banned, who's going to make up the shortfall?

The answer, inevitably, is the taxpayer.

Now, as a student, I don't currently pay any form of taxation on income etc (what income?) but obviously I am prone to the same indirect taxation as everyone else, and one day soon, I will be paying every other form of tax too.

The British taxpayer is already meeting the cost of John Prescott's Jag, which he seems unable to live without, we're already paying to hear Williams Hague's inane rants and "bandwagon politics" in the form of Party Political Broadcasts. We're already paying to hear (well, where I am living at the moment we are) the SNP blabber on about how everything is the fault of the English and how the solution to everything lies in the sale of North Sea Oil.

Do you really want to pay to fund the campaign of someone you would never vote for in a million years?

I would rather party members and rich backers be allowed to continue funding the party they support, rather than everyone being made to financially back those they oppose as well as those they support.

There is of course the problem of sleaze. "Cash for Questions", "Cash for Passports" the list goes on and on and on, but surely there is some way that we can control this?

Perhaps a limitation should be placed on the maximum donation that can be made? I also think that a list of all major contributors to political parties and significant public projects should be published each month.

Of course the government is working towards making the subject of large donations a more open one than it is currently, and I have to say that it is not before time.

There also has to be stricter punishment where sleaze is proven, I believe. There should be a
law drafted against taking money to influence political processes - so that anyone who does so risks more than just their job, and is investigated by the courts rather than their own party and the House of Commons.

I don't like the idea of large corporations or rich individuals dictating policy - but then I don't like a lot of things about the political process in Britain. (the House of Lords being one, the unfair discrimination based on what part of the country you live in created by devolution being another, but those are separate issues)

I would still rather people had the choice over who to back financially though...

Summary: