Comments on: The begining of the end of the party? http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/the-begining-of-the-end-of-the-party/ Politics, brains, social action and the day to day life of the RSA’s chief executive Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:15:48 +0000 hourly 1 By: matthewtaylor http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/the-begining-of-the-end-of-the-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2344 matthewtaylor Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:18:42 +0000 http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/?p=1984#comment-2344 Thanks for the comment John. I take your point about MPs' resources although many people have told me the Conservatives are outspending their opponents. I have given some of my thoughts on party funding (which I have always supported whatever Labour's fortunes; I wrote a pamphlet about it back in 2003) to Denis below. There are some suggestions out there to try to ensure that Party funding rewards activism. One is that voters should have a box to tick at election time stating that they are willing for a small amount of their tax to go to a designated party. Some voters might vote for Party (a) but allocate their funding to Party (b), which they may think as being more active in the community. Another idea is that party funding should be related to the number of people paying membership dues. Thanks for the comment John. I take your point about MPs’ resources although many people have told me the Conservatives are outspending their opponents. I have given some of my thoughts on party funding (which I have always supported whatever Labour’s fortunes; I wrote a pamphlet about it back in 2003) to Denis below. There are some suggestions out there to try to ensure that Party funding rewards activism. One is that voters should have a box to tick at election time stating that they are willing for a small amount of their tax to go to a designated party. Some voters might vote for Party (a) but allocate their funding to Party (b), which they may think as being more active in the community. Another idea is that party funding should be related to the number of people paying membership dues.

]]> By: matthewtaylor http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/the-begining-of-the-end-of-the-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2343 matthewtaylor Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:10:24 +0000 http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/?p=1984#comment-2343 OK Denis. But if we have a national democracy we need parties. If we need parties they have to be funded. If one party can spend a lot more than another it is better able to communicate with the voters so parties will try to maximise their incomes. If parties don't get money from the state they will turn to other sources such as trade unions, rich people or companies but - as we have seen - this then arouses public suspicion about the motives of the donors. I think parties should have a strict speeding cap and that we should ban activities that do nothing to inform us (principally bill board advertising) but in the end I would rather parties compete on a level playing field using a small amount of taxpayers money than the richest party has a major advantage and that our politics is funded by those who have dubous or self interested motives. OK Denis. But if we have a national democracy we need parties. If we need parties they have to be funded. If one party can spend a lot more than another it is better able to communicate with the voters so parties will try to maximise their incomes. If parties don’t get money from the state they will turn to other sources such as trade unions, rich people or companies but – as we have seen – this then arouses public suspicion about the motives of the donors. I think parties should have a strict speeding cap and that we should ban activities that do nothing to inform us (principally bill board advertising) but in the end I would rather parties compete on a level playing field using a small amount of taxpayers money than the richest party has a major advantage and that our politics is funded by those who have dubous or self interested motives.

]]> By: matthewtaylor http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/the-begining-of-the-end-of-the-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2342 matthewtaylor Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:02:38 +0000 http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/?p=1984#comment-2342 Hi. It's important to distinguish between politics and Parties. Politics exists wherever groups of people have to make decisions; it's an essential human activity. As for Parties I think we need them in one form or another but they urgently need to reform as institutions. Hi. It’s important to distinguish between politics and Parties. Politics exists wherever groups of people have to make decisions; it’s an essential human activity. As for Parties I think we need them in one form or another but they urgently need to reform as institutions.

]]> By: John Moss http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/the-begining-of-the-end-of-the-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2335 John Moss Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:22:25 +0000 http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/?p=1984#comment-2335 You say that Labour MPs suffer a tremendous disadvantage because they haven't as much money to spend as Tory candidates funded by money raised by Ashcroft's team and as a consequence, there should be more state funding. There are two things wrong with this. First, sitting MPs have £10,000 a year to spend on "Communications". Checkout the expenses and you will see those workhorses of political campaigning being bought with this cash by many MPs - Risographs, Paper, Ink, Folding Machines, Letter Inserters. As Any Fule No, these are running 70-80% of the time on local political campaigning, not Parliamentary business. So candidates, as opposed to incumbents, are already at a £10,000 a year disadvantage. Secondly, what happenned to democracy? If a party cannot raise funds, then it clearly has not got popular support. When Blair was rolling in Sainsbury's cash, there seemed to be less of an issue about Millionaire funding. Now the boot is on the other foot the wailing starts about fairness. The Tories are raising more money from more people. It is not all coming from Ashcroft - easy though that particular demonisation is right now - in fact he personally funds a very small proportion of the Paries' costs. That there are many people out there willing to support the party withcash as well as their vote is another form of democracy. If a party cannot raise the cash and goes bust, so be it. There is no automatic right for a party to survive and it is not the role of the State to cushion parties from their failures. We did that with businesses in the latter half of the twentieth centruy and as a consequence have no ship-building, steel or coal industries left because they became political footballs beholden to Government, not driven by their customers needs. If you cushion political parties that way, they will remain remote and aloof from people and people will vote for extreme and protest parties like the BNP and UKIP. You say that Labour MPs suffer a tremendous disadvantage because they haven’t as much money to spend as Tory candidates funded by money raised by Ashcroft’s team and as a consequence, there should be more state funding. There are two things wrong with this.

First, sitting MPs have £10,000 a year to spend on “Communications”. Checkout the expenses and you will see those workhorses of political campaigning being bought with this cash by many MPs – Risographs, Paper, Ink, Folding Machines, Letter Inserters.

As Any Fule No, these are running 70-80% of the time on local political campaigning, not Parliamentary business. So candidates, as opposed to incumbents, are already at a £10,000 a year disadvantage.

Secondly, what happenned to democracy? If a party cannot raise funds, then it clearly has not got popular support. When Blair was rolling in Sainsbury’s cash, there seemed to be less of an issue about Millionaire funding. Now the boot is on the other foot the wailing starts about fairness.

The Tories are raising more money from more people. It is not all coming from Ashcroft – easy though that particular demonisation is right now – in fact he personally funds a very small proportion of the Paries’ costs. That there are many people out there willing to support the party withcash as well as their vote is another form of democracy.

If a party cannot raise the cash and goes bust, so be it. There is no automatic right for a party to survive and it is not the role of the State to cushion parties from their failures.

We did that with businesses in the latter half of the twentieth centruy and as a consequence have no ship-building, steel or coal industries left because they became political footballs beholden to Government, not driven by their customers needs. If you cushion political parties that way, they will remain remote and aloof from people and people will vote for extreme and protest parties like the BNP and UKIP.

]]> By: Denis Cooper http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/the-begining-of-the-end-of-the-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2332 Denis Cooper Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:54:07 +0000 http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/?p=1984#comment-2332 I'm thinking, apropos of all political parties - it's your party, so you pay for it; if your party is so unattractive that it can't survive on voluntary donations from its supporters, let it wither and die; don't expect the taxpayer to subsidise your party; and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6539450.ece STOP STEALING FROM THE TAXPAYER. I’m thinking, apropos of all political parties – it’s your party, so you pay for it; if your party is so unattractive that it can’t survive on voluntary donations from its supporters, let it wither and die; don’t expect the taxpayer to subsidise your party; and

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6539450.ece

STOP STEALING FROM THE TAXPAYER.

]]>