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

This refers to a possible proposal that public funds should be used to finance political parties

2007-12-01 03:36:11 · 15 answers · asked by Scouse 7 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

I was referring to UK I did not realise that the US politicians were trying to do the same thing

2007-12-01 03:47:05 · update #1

15 answers

I THINK WE HAVE TO REALISE ,WE THE TAX PAYER WILL ALWAYS LOOSE, THEY HAVE IT SOWN UP ,AND SEALD THAT WE PAY, AND PAY WE DO , FOR ALL THE WRONG THINGS , YOU ASK FOR A LITTLE HELP AND YOU WILL BE MET BY A BRICK WALL;; ,AND THE REASON BEING IS THIS , WE ARE BRITISH,

2007-12-01 09:21:46 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 2 0

I agree. I am totally against taxpayers funding political parties. The only reason this issue is being proposed is because the current party in power has been found out to be pursuing corrupt practices with regard to receiving donations/loans/bribes from supporters. The idea that my taxes could go to support the Labour party fills me with horror...
Lol Bruce..... would I say that....who me?

2007-12-01 07:14:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

the subject I even have with the capacity obligatory cost to fund political events is the perception that the present events are the events we are able to opt for sooner or later. obligatory investment could desire to stifle the form of latest events, additionally I difficulty that the form could have problems. I.E. the plausible tax payer investment of minority events we've in no way heard of, or heard of yet do in contrast to. Or the opposite the place the investment shape relies on some man made or arbitrary way of dividing the investment that keeps new events out. I do exactly like the assumption of the voters/tax payer having a say the place their funds is going yet this could additionally disenfranchise people who do not pay tax (for valid motives which includes comprehensive time carers) My determination is to alter the way funds is spent. case in point any legally formed party that has a candidate in an election (even if if self sustaining) could be entitled to an analogous quantity of 'air time' on television and Radio. this could provide up important events stealing techniques from smaller events and pedalling them as though that they had concept-approximately them. genuine extremists could get air time with the only controls being those of the regulation the place incite etc became into in touch. additionally in hustings i could make it obligatory for the television &Radio to hide all hustings at a interior sight point somewhat of the BBC contemporary coverage that's to opt for those the place they are able to make certain a rartings capacity.

2016-10-10 00:14:38 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

If the legal citizen majority had rule & control, there would not be any taxation! You would print and distribute money as needed just like congress does now! Except the public would choose ways to directly see those funds go directly to the workers doing the jobs etc! Under a True Direct Consensus Democracy http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/11-11/direct-democracy-plutocracy-article.htm

2007-12-01 03:43:57 · answer #4 · answered by bulabate 6 · 0 1

It's the way our society operates. As a tax payer I do not approve of the way the government spends some of our money. I would like to see our taxes remaining in the UK, none to the European bureaucrats, none to people earning more than me and getting it through scams, the list is endless

2007-12-01 03:51:41 · answer #5 · answered by clovernut 6 · 1 0

this labour gov will hang onto power at all costs,they dont give a fig about the poor except on polling day
at least the conservatives dont pretend to like the poor just to get votes
as for those pc wishy washy lib dems
they would drop their knickers for any share of power
dont vote for any of them you only encourage their greed and hypocrisy

2007-12-02 01:39:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You shouldn't. All parties should depend on the subscriptions from their members, and nothing else. The parties can do fundraising such as raffles etc, but no donations from businessmen who want Knighthoods and favours, and no donations from Unions who want favours and Knighthoods.

2007-12-01 07:56:18 · answer #7 · answered by jack.marlinspike 3 · 1 0

You shouldn't. Tax dollars have no place in political parties.

2007-12-01 03:38:51 · answer #8 · answered by G-gal 6 · 1 0

now now Karen your surely not saying Gordon was telling lies when he said no more sleese and he would be different. don't worry all by the time new labour have finished with you and by the time you have finished paying for their failed policy's and mass immigration you wont have any money left to hand over to them. so the question will be moot.

2007-12-01 07:53:10 · answer #9 · answered by bruce m 5 · 2 0

Why should my taxes pay for political parties I don't even agree with, so I am with you on this Scouse.

2007-12-01 08:06:56 · answer #10 · answered by flint 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers