Political parties need funding. If some egotistic, wealthy person is vain enough to pay millions just so they can have a title in front of their name, why not let them. If they did`nt donate it, it would probably have to come out of the public purse. Is`nt it a big waste of police time, when there are much more important things they could be doing.
2006-11-16 19:52:39 · 9 answers · asked by David H 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
It debases the honours system for those who really earn them, and it's not just a title - it's a seat in parliament where they can vote on laws. This is a very important privilege and not one to be sold. As someone who respected the institution of the peerage I don't like seeing undeserving non-entities buy their way into it.
Parties do need funding, and under the law have to disclose the amount people give them. These men offered to make donations and the party instead asked for long-term loans at low interest rates to keep it secret. Why does Labour want to avoid public scrutiny when they were the ones who brought in the new law?
It is not a waste of police time. Cynicism about politics is a problem, affecting the health of democracy, and if those who have introduced this level of venality into politics are exposed and punished it will show people that the system works, testify to the independence of the police, and scare politicians away from doing something similar.
2006-11-16 20:18:44 · answer #1 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Party funding should come from the public purse i.e taxes.This way we have more chance of knowing what the Hogs in Parliament are up to.Also the time of awarding titles to people should be at an end, as it is difficult to find out how the Doner made his OR her monies and whether they are fit to receive such a so called privilege.Most of our political leaders show a complete lack of morality where money is concerned and should be kept on a tight leash,no matter how high their office.
2006-11-16 21:44:16 · answer #2 · answered by dejavu 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Of course it matters. Not only are these people trying to buy influence by paying for a seat in the upper chamber of parliament, but the people selling them AND the people buying them are breaking the law. Enforcing the law should matter, shouldn't it? And this is in a better cause than putting pensioners in jail for not paying council tax.
2006-11-16 19:58:42 · answer #3 · answered by rosbif 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. It makes a mockery of the House of Lords. And British parliament for that too. Good things have come out of the House of Lords. Which is more than can be said of the House of Commons.
2006-11-16 21:56:19 · answer #4 · answered by Part Time Cynic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes but these egotistical, vain people then have a right not only to use their title - but to sit in the House of Lords and pontificate and legislate on our behalf - so it is important.
Personally I'd get rid of the House of Lords entirely - along with Mr and Mrs Windsor - have a Republic and a fully elected 2nd chamber.
2006-11-16 19:58:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It matters because they are purchasing more than just a silly title. It can be purchasing influence and an ability to influence important decisions. This is completely unacceptable.
2006-11-16 20:32:09 · answer #6 · answered by Vanguard 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should matter, but it doesn't. Most people are so cynical about politics (or politicians), that this is hardly news.
A sad reflection of the times.
2006-11-16 20:04:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the selling of honours is a debasement and rape of our democracy. Our democracy is in enough peril as it is!
2006-11-16 22:32:15 · answer #8 · answered by kenhallonthenet 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but nothing will be done because the results will all be covered up.
2006-11-16 20:01:13 · answer #9 · answered by paul b 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋