English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It looks like the politicians want it both ways, expensive, extravagant US style campaigning for elections but with a European state funding system in place to pay for it all.

2007-03-15 22:55:40 · 15 answers · asked by A True Gentleman 5 in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

I'm NOT delighted at all! Isn't it biased in favour of the three main political parties, at the expense of smaller political parties and Independents and therefore to the detriment of democracy.???Will it not inhibit the growth of other parties and political positions.???? Is that democracy??? No.
With overspending during General Elections, which each party does voluntarily, they want the taxpayer to finance their unprincipled behaviour.!!!!!!!!!!!! The use of taxpayers money will be an open cheque to these profligate spenders,as each time the cost will just keep rising!!!!!
With overwhelming lack of support from the public for State Funding, as this is a democracy THAT counts. It is also their money.!!!!!
Where is there any justification for the State Funding of political parties in the UK? NONE, so far as I can see!!

2007-03-15 23:40:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

This has been going on in Australia for many years and it looks as if the Brits are copying us. Again. I have never liked the idea but with two main parties here as in the UK whichever party you elect (or kick out of office) is going to be in favour of it.

However the opinions of the governed are of no importance, in non-election years. If the Coalition had respected the wishes of Australians there would be no Australian troops in Iraq.

2007-03-15 23:44:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Yer forget about the homless, the middle class, the average worker, the NHS this sick, the hungery and waste the money they should be getting on Mmmm fancy election campaigns where the electorate are told a load of lies, and basically conned into voteing for a bunch of no good idiots that couldnt organise a p*ss up in a brewery! That just about sums up the UK...! What a joke!

2007-03-15 23:05:29 · answer #3 · answered by djp6314 4 · 0 1

Why could any party be tax funded. i do no longer help any party. in no way have and in no way will. At elections I vote for the guy who i think of will perfect characterize me. i do no longer probable care what party he/she belongs to or despite if he's an autonomous. regrettably, I quite have discovered that what i'm advised at pre-election conferences does not arise whilst they circulate to Westminster because of the fact of direction they might desire to toe the party line. This nonsense approximately tax payers investment political events is for my area criminal. It has no longer something directly to do with working the rustic and is in basic terms being seen because of the fact such countless party individuals do no longer prefer to pay their dues or they don't have adequate individuals in the 1st place.. party individuals who prefer to positioned up applicants could be those to pay no longer the time-honored taxpayer. a minimum of as a member of a commerce union (which I strongly have self assurance in) I a minimum of had the choice to choose of paying a political levy. Will I be allowed to choose of paying the political tax levy? You guess I won't. And all you republicans. in basic terms think of what which will fee you, me and another tax payer whilst it involves the razzmatazz of electing a president and his maintenance. and additionally you're people who whinge with regard to the what the Queen gets.

2016-10-02 05:22:23 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

How about as thrilled as I was to find out that Homeland Security (TSA Big-Shots) took a number of other World Embassy members and employees on an Hawaiian Holiday that costs the tax payers a half a million or more. Stating that it was a World Leaders Convention - when the reality was all of these "world leaders" they were talking about lived in the USA for many. many years at each of their own respective consulates.

How about as much as I was thrilled when the pentagon sent billions of dollars on pallets over to Iraq and can't account for 12 billion of it or more as of today's date.

Or how about the importance of voting on an earlier day-light savings time and the 2004-2006 Senate and Congress paying themselves to attend that discussion and vote.

If they want my vote to put them into office - instead of spending millions and millions on advertisement and mud slinging - I'd rather them (first come - the first to get my vote) pay me direct 10 million tax free for said vote. Then they can do whatever they want with this country while I'm on my way out of it. How's that??

2007-03-15 23:29:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Where do you think that they got the idea from. You don't think that Tony and Gordon would put their hands into their over full pockets to fund anything except themselves. Personally I think that public money should not be used, of course the smaller partied will not get an equal amount of the public money although they should so the Labour and Tory party's will have the lions share as usual.

2007-03-16 06:26:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Wonderfull, so idiots in suits that think that if they spin nice words in various ways that we actually believe them, are now going to be funded to do it on a stage too ... I suppose it was natural progression that eventually they as the worst actors ever to trend the boards, would get paid for everyone to point and laugh at the spectacle.

Can see Prescots rider now. All the pie's he can eat and a punchbag to train for the occassional punching of people that dissagree with him. Of course, Blair will only need a large mirror and a huge picture of Bush (non-burning variety) to keep him going.

Only a shame we cant arrange a Fame Academy type judging panel to rip into them after completion of every act. Maybe a group could get together with Ice-Dancing score cards to raise, or a telephone vote of yey or neigh's (majority of neigh's meaning we get to put them in stocks and quote conservative or other daft political rubbish in his ears as we pelt them with rotten eggs) could be cobbled together to pay for the 100's of thousands of pounds they will claim in expenses.

2007-03-15 23:23:36 · answer #7 · answered by brianthesnailuk2002 6 · 2 1

Ecstatic --Why Not ? We , the Taxpayer , pay to keep the "Criminal Fraternity" In Luxury and Hundreds of Thousands of "Others" ?????? Who are Happily Screwing and Wrecking our Country and Busy "Preparing" us for the "Take Over"

2007-03-15 23:27:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

British subjects should not have to listen to such political...

...speech...

God Save the Queen!

2007-03-15 23:07:23 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 1 1

You should do like the rest of us and not pay taxes. If they ask why you are not paying, you just say no habla usted English, Senor.

2007-03-15 23:10:00 · answer #10 · answered by Redryeder 2 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers