But why should I?
Sir Hayden Phillips has announced that the only party opposed to a cap on political donations was the UK Independence Party. The proposal is causing a big row amongst the other political parties, especially the Labour party who get loads of cash from the Unions. And flats for Fatty Prescott too.
But the case for a limit on individual donations was boosted by an influential committee of MPs which called on the parties to back a binding cap in return for extra public cash.
Why, but why should the public have to give any more money to our defunct policial elites? They pass very little of our legislation, they don't stop damaging legislation from the EU being passed into UK law, and public opinion of politics is pretty damn low at the moment.
But can you blame people for not being inspired by our current shower of politicians? We have a Deputy PM who doesn't actually do anything but get paid and a Prime Minister who has been investigated by the police. The leader of the Opposition hasn't quite yet managed to come up with any policies apart from mimicking Tony Blair and the Lib Dems appear to have disappeared into the ether. Which is a shame because they are always worth a laugh.
So why, then, should people have to give more money for politicians who don't inspire them, who they don't feel represent them and who they may not agree with. Their money will go towards funding political parties and MPs who do not represent them and who may actually be in favour of policies which those same tax payers are fundamentally opposed to, such as ID cards, membership of the European Union and higher taxes.
Why should politics be allowed subsidies? If political parties want more cash, perhaps they should try address the problems of why people aren't joining up with their parties or making donations. If a company was losing money say, by not selling it's product, would it be allowed to ask tax payers for funding to carry on? No. It would either sink or adapt so people did want to by their products.
And I think politics should be much the same, which is why I am glad that at least the UK Independence Party do not want yet more money from the public purse. People should spend their money they earn how they see fit.
Posts
5 comments:
Its the Mafia solution.
They won't pay voluntarily, so we force them.
I'm not particularly opposed to a cap on political donations, actually: but no way should there be more money extorted from our pockets to pay for their/your nefarious activities.
If a chip shop runs out of money, they can either sell more chips or shut down. I see no reason why this principle shouldn't apply to political parties, too.
People should spend their money they earn how they see fit.
So logically there should be no cap on funding...
I agree that in principle you're right, WW. However, what tends to happen in practice is what we've seen from NuLab: as parties spend more and more on marketing, advertising, staff, fancy databases to keep track of voters in marginals and so on, they need more and more dosh to keep themselves afloat.
They can't get it from ordinary members, because they're deserting them in droves. So they have to sweet-talk rich businessmen. They're not going to explicitly offer, by and large, to help circumvent planning restrictions, or bend the law for their donors - even they're not that stupid - but they will make it known that they're useful people to know. Oh, and they'll also dangle peerages in front of them.
Either that, or they make us all pay through our taxes.
They've tried the first one and got caught. So now, the second option.
Let's say no to more state funding. Really, it will be the end. You think manifesto's are meaningless now, wait until they don't have to care what you think to even keep their job.
Post a Comment