Do you think Political parties should be publically funded?

Question

So that this would not stop the influence that is being bought by big business through lobby groups that are totally destroying our democracy?

Answer 1

The problem with this suggestion is that they'd be likely to be funded at the current levels of expenditure - around £30 million each for a general election - and that's just indulging their whims, allowing them to put up smug billboards and make PPBs directed by Ridley Scott or whoever.

Why do they NEED funding? They get free access to the broadcast media, and all the newspapers carry their opinions - do they actually need to advertise? Do they have to fly from one end of the country to the other every day of a campaign to tell us about their environmental policies? Do their wives need a £3000 haircut before they can go out and tell us about the plight of the homeless?

We already spend around £4 million per year of taxpayers' money, for instance, policing the conferences of each of the two main parties. I'd be quite happy for the taxpayer to fund a reasonable team of researchers and admin staff - maybe a million pound's worth - but overall party spending should be limited to the same amount (per constituency fought) as is allowed to an independent: about £7,000 per constituency plus 5p per voter, or a bit under £6 million for a major national party. Then they wouldn't have to court big donors and compromise their principles.

Answer 2

Yes, I think they should.

Only by ending all funding through corporate backing (which has bribery and a returning of favours enshrined in the system) can we achieve a democracy not run by the big corporations (at the cost of the consumers, the employees, the environment and at the cost of sensible regulation and competition policies).

I believe we want to be free from this enslavement, and so the only fair way of allocating campaign funding must be a combination of public funding and rules requiring the news papers on two given days in the run up to the election to provide equal space to the top five parties and a 6th page to split among the rest. Public funding should go in proportion to the number of votes cast in previous elections, possibly with alterations giving the top three parties equal funding and all non top-10 parties equal funding, but these details are debatable.

Answer 3

No, because you would end up with dozens of crackpot parties demanding a right to exist and to be publically funded no matter how small they were. Under the current system, new party sponsers lose their deposit if they don't attract enough votes. This acts as a check to prevent the creation of a multitude of small parties with little backing. Also, I think that the system would be open to abuse, particularly by a sitting government.

Answer 4

Only if there were at least three parties equally funded so we can get back to which party is the most trustworthy and has the best ideas as opposed to voting for the lesser of two known evils.
We, in my state, have a choice between one of two US senator candidates and neither is a good choice so we have to vote for the candidate of the party we like best. Not a great way to elect senators.

Answer 5

I agree, just like Scotland receives it's funding from the Barnet Formulae.
Every person would then be contributing to the Democracy of the country. Then we could elect the members of the House of Commons/Lords by a compulsory voting system.
This would stop the influence of big business.

Answer 6

Charity starts off at domicile? this is the way it is going to be. Edit: somebody replied that it would by no skill ensue because of the fact the two different substantial events are too massive and valuable. this is actual, meaning a 0.33 substantial political social gathering might likely deliver a pair of political circulation if it have been supported by skill of the final public. Surpression of a valuable political circulation supported by skill of the final public might fall down the government. No surpression of a valuable political circulation might consequence in the two substantial events dropping potential, which might by no skill be allowed without combat.

Answer 7

In theory... yes. However, implementation is not simple. For instance... the funds should be used from tax-payer money? How do you avoid cheating? In Mexico, political parties are Estate funded but they all cheat and get big money from corporations (right-wing parties) and syndicates (left-wing parties)... the only result: no democracy and a gargantuan cash deficit within public finances.

Answer 8

Whoever pays them, gets the influence and since big business is screwing us and supporting their favourites, we already are paying and still don't get the influence. Public funding could if we were interested in controlling it allow us to dictate to the politicians. Tha's why it probably won't happen. They know how to get us squabbling.

Answer 9

Most definatly not! They get enough of our money as it is, and despite their pleas to the contrary, they all enter politics to serve their own ends, good example is how the British Parliamentarians increased their own pensions and benefits before telling the rest of us that we should save for our own pensions.

Answer 10

DO I F*CK! The bastards are already set up for life and now they want more money? We are shutting hospitals, our soldiers don't have the right equipment and the c*nts who are responsible want more. ARE WE GOING TO TO SIT HERE AND TAKE IT UP THE 4RSE?

BTW, if you think this will stop politicians being controlled by outside influences, you are obviously very naive or think they are already incorruptible. They are human, and will take all that's coming to them to feather their gilded nests.