Labour Party Finances In Dire Straits?

[The Knimbies who say No]

It's based on votes received in most countries.

My guess is that a national referendum before every election for all proposed policies of all main political parties would be a little expensive....

All I mean is that Parties ought to solicit donations from people who agree with their proposed policies. Organisations whose policies are not popular with the electorate should not get funds, and a system based on votes received last time out does nothing to help get rid of organisations whose popularity has waned considerably, eg the Lib Dems funding arrangements under a state funding system might raise an eyebrow or two given it seems anihilation awaits next time out. Taking parties onto the public payroll is neither progress or democratic, and would hamper the ability of new movements/parties to gain a foothold.

Besides, it's hardly a good argument- Labour Party cannot manage own finances, therefore the solution is to give them a cheque from the taxpayer. Other parties manage ok, I'm not saying it is not tough etc but at the same time they have to cut thier cloth according to their popularity. I suspect part of Labour's problem is that they think their policies are a lot more popular than they actually are, but are incapable of admitting as much, the mythical 'progressive majority'.

If they cannot find anyone to fund them, then they are either spending too much or do not have enough supporters who are sufficiently enthused. So either change policies to others which appeal to people or go home.

Edited January 18, 2012 by cheeznbreed

[fluffy666]

specifically, that Labour victory was about electoral boundaries more than it was about FPTP

??

That's just bizzare.

There was a referendum on FPTP vs. AV. The tories campaigned quite ardently to keep FPTP. Labour vaguely waffled about supporting AV-sort-of, because they wanted to oppose the tories but also wanted to keep FPTP.

[Si1]

??

That's just bizzare.

no, you're just wrong I am afriad

(deliberately being a bit annoying, I do disagree with you but not that bothered about arguing)

[fluffy666]

All I mean is that Parties ought to solicit donations from people who agree with their proposed policies.

You don't think that there way be a problem here? I.e. it is much easier in practical terms to get donations from a small number of rich people/organisations, than a huge number of poor people. Indeed, neither major party seems to get much grassroots cash.

Taking parties onto the public payroll is neither progress or democratic, and would hamper the ability of new movements/parties to gain a foothold.

I don't like the idea much either, it's just hard to think of a good alternative. At the moment, we have a lot of policy apparently dictated by the very wealthy. At least a public funding system would by statute have no say in party policy. But could easily lead to entrenchment.

Besides, it's hardly a good argument- Labour Party cannot manage own finances, therefore the solution is to give them a cheque from the taxpayer. Other parties manage ok, I'm not saying it is not tough etc but at the same time they have to cut thier cloth according to their popularity. I suspect part of Labour's problem is that they think their policies are a lot more popular than they actually are, but are incapable of admitting as much, the mythical 'progressive majority'.

They could try having some progressive policies first. That would help.

But having the Tories funded by a billionaire from Belize is hardly a wonderful illustration of functioning democracy.

If they cannot find anyone to fund them, then they are either spending too much or do not have enough supporters who are sufficiently rich. So either change policies to others which appeal to people or go home.

Fixed..

[tinker]

All public funding of political parties will do is set a minimum price on entry to politics and increase the cost, just as govt does everywhere else.

They should focus on reducing the cost, getting rid of 'deposits', not increasing it.

A very good point. We see this a lot - bars to entry to markets. If any area needs a revolution/change, it's the world of politics. Wouldn't it be great to see some fresh blood, or maybe some representative independents able to function outside of a political machine.

Labour's finances have been bad for a long time.

So long as funding for parties is transparent there should be a problem. Though we all know favours are given , and favours returned.

[swissy_fit]

All I mean is that Parties ought to solicit donations from people who agree with their proposed policies. Organisations whose policies are not popular with the electorate should not get funds, and a system based on votes received last time out does nothing to help get rid of organisations whose popularity has waned considerably, eg the Lib Dems funding arrangements under a state funding system might raise an eyebrow or two given it seems anihilation awaits next time out. Taking parties onto the public payroll is neither progress or democratic, and would hamper the ability of new movements/parties to gain a foothold.

Besides, it's hardly a good argument- Labour Party cannot manage own finances, therefore the solution is to give them a cheque from the taxpayer. Other parties manage ok, I'm not saying it is not tough etc but at the same time they have to cut thier cloth according to their popularity. I suspect part of Labour's problem is that they think their policies are a lot more popular than they actually are, but are incapable of admitting as much, the mythical 'progressive majority'.

If they cannot find anyone to fund them, then they are either spending too much or do not have enough supporters who are sufficiently enthused. So either change policies to others which appeal to people or go home.

This is a recipe for domination by a plutocracy(something like what the UK has now but worse) - are you American?

[The Knimbies who say No]

I'm not suggesting there is no problem with huge corporate or private donations etc, clearly it creates unhealthy conflicts of interest. The Ashcroft situation is a case in point, as is the number of peerages dished out by Blair to donors when the money was flowing in the nineties. By all means impose some sort of caps on corporate and private donations in terms of total amounts, or amounts over specific timeframes.

People have to get more enthused about politics and appreciate that they can wield power should they wish to. Democracy is a populist scrabble for votes, parties ought to embrace it rather than bleating about it. Obama's Presidential campaign pulled in plenty of smaller donations, as is Ron Paul's attempt to gain the Republican nomination to run for President. I view those situations as an aspiration for the UK.

You don't think that there way be a problem here? I.e. it is much easier in practical terms to get donations from a small number of rich people/organisations, than a huge number of poor people. Indeed, neither major party seems to get much grassroots cash.

I don't like the idea much either, it's just hard to think of a good alternative. At the moment, we have a lot of policy apparently dictated by the very wealthy. At least a public funding system would by statute have no say in party policy. But could easily lead to entrenchment.

They could try having some progressive policies first. That would help.

But having the Tories funded by a billionaire from Belize is hardly a wonderful illustration of functioning democracy.

Fixed..

[swissy_fit]

People have to get more enthused about politics and appreciate that they can wield power should they wish to. Democracy is a populist scrabble for votes, parties ought to embrace it rather than bleating about it. Obama's Presidential campaign pulled in plenty of smaller donations, as is Ron Paul's attempt to gain the Republican nomination to run for President. I view those situations as an aspiration for the UK.

If you can't see that the American model is :

1. Completely corrupt.

2. Completely dysfunctional, i.e. no-one can achieve anything, it's a polarised stalemate.

then I don't think we have anything further to discuss, we will have to agree to differ.

The UK should aspire to nothing American IMO except the strength, energy and positive nature of the population.

[The Knimbies who say No]

This is a recipe for domination by a plutocracy(something like what the UK has now but worse) - are you American?

No, but their system has attributes that we ought to embrace. Of course, the big thing that has been omitted so far is that we already fund political parties via Short/Cranborne money, which is based on seats won.

I suppose the question is either "why extending/increasing that funding would be necessary/beneficial", or, "Why cutting that funding would be detrimental". It could be argued that the presence of such funds is in part responsible for the situation you describe. Lib Dems got £1.7 million/annum in opposition, Labour now receive £5 million/annum in opposition.

I'd abolish it at a stroke.

Edited January 18, 2012 by cheeznbreed

[The Knimbies who say No]

If you can't see that the American model is :

1. Completely corrupt.

2. Completely dysfunctional, i.e. no-one can achieve anything, it's a polarised stalemate.

then I don't think we have anything further to discuss, we will have to agree to differ.

The UK should aspire to nothing American IMO except the strength, energy and positive nature of the population.

I didn't say there are not significant problems in the US's system, I simply stated that the ability of candidates to draw in large numbers of donations from people who support them is no bad thing, and ought to be viewed with envy by parties here. Please don't suggest I said things I patently did not.

[swissy_fit]

I didn't say there are not significant problems in the US's system, I simply stated that the ability of candidates to draw in large numbers of donations from people who support them is no bad thing, and ought to be viewed with envy by parties here. Please don't suggest I said things I patently did not.

OK sorry, you're right, you didn't say that.

I have difficulty with the US political funding system being viewed as a model, I suppose you're only praising one small part of it, but I don't agree even with that because IMO you can't have that without the door being opened for wealthy donors to donate in a concealed way.

The sums you mention in the other post with regard to the Labour Party/Lib Dem party funding are so puny as to be laughable - if the City and Wall Street hadn't been able to subvert their respective political systems via party funding, how much would that have saved the taxpayers?

Hundreds of billions in the UK, trillions in the US.

Edited January 18, 2012 by swissy_fit

[The Knimbies who say No]

OK sorry, you're right, you didn't say that.

I have difficulty with the US political funding system being viewed as a model, I suppose you're only praising one small part of it, but I don't agree even with that because IMO you can't have that without the door being opened for wealthy donors to donate in a concealed way.

The sums you mention in the other post with regard to the Labour Party/Lib Dem party funding are so puny as to be laughable - if the City and Wall Street hadn't been able to subvert their respective political systems via party funding, how much would that have saved the taxpayers?

Hundreds of bllions in the UK, trillions in the US.

S'awright. Hmm, well there is a problem with transparency, but that could be covered with an register and/or donations cap. Some form of this already exists for larger donations, maybe it could be tweaked. Jail terms for miscreants (donors and individuals/parties) might help jog memories if the current system doesn't function as intended.

Part of the problem these days is that essentially unskilled muppets with no experience of the real world can pitch up in a safe seat after a few years bagcarrying for the right individuals within a party. I like to think that if they had to get out there and convince people in a constituency to part with their hard earned dosh to support them, many of them would find they don't cut the mustard.

It ain't a straightforward problem, that's for sure.

[brainclamp]

Money matters. It forms opinions.

Which political party before 'New Labour' limited immigration the most - which implemented the most laws and most protection for British workers? Conservatives under Thatcher?

No not at all. It was Labour in the 1960's which established a fair labour pool for the benefit of UK workers believe it or not.

Pre 1980 Labour implemented the strongest immigration laws to stop the increasdingly frightening spectre of mass immigration from the commonwealth this country ever had. It was forced to do this because although their was a body within the Labour party callin for mass immigration and no bounardries, private sector unions and the electorate would never stand thier members real wages falling through oversupply of labour, and they funded the Labour party together with the public sector.

In the 1980s the private sector unions died.

Post 1997 New Labour depended on only the public sector unions for 86% of funds.

And its been the public sector unions have been the main propenents of mass immigration, as it would drop private sector wages for Labour, raise profits and result in more taxes and higher public sector wages, and would fund an great expansion of the public sector and the size of government.

There are virtually no private sector unions now. The Labour party is the public sector lobbying arm for all intents and purposes.

Thats how much party funding matters.

[swissy_fit]

S'awright. Hmm, well there is a problem with transparency, but that could be covered with an register and/or donations cap. Some form of this already exists for larger donations, maybe it could be tweaked. Jail terms for miscreants (donors and individuals/parties) might help jog memories if the current system doesn't function as intended.

Part of the problem these days is that essentially unskilled muppets with no experience of the real world can pitch up in a safe seat after a few years bagcarrying for the right individuals within a party. I like to think that if they had to get out there and convince people in a constituency to part with their hard earned dosh to support them, many of them would find they don't cut the mustard.

It ain't a straightforward problem, that's for sure.

All those registers/donations caps etc get subverted, it's too easy to do so. While they remain in place, they will continue to be subverted and the penalties will never be adequate, it's not in the politicians interest to implement that. It's unpalatable to pay for political parties from the public purse, but it's cheaper in the long run.

The quality of representatives is an issue, I agree - that could potentially be improved by selecting people from the upper percentiles of IQ (but not genii) at random I would have thought!

Edited January 18, 2012 by swissy_fit

[okaycuckoo]

This tells you everything you ever need to know about the statist left. Maybe a few members will wake up, but I doubt it.

I heard Cameron on the radio today: "The government is responsible for everything that happens in the economy."

Wot! The statist right?

A plague on both their houses.

[The Knimbies who say No]

Money matters. It forms opinions.

Which political party before 'New Labour' limited immigration the most - which implemented the most laws and most protection for British workers? Conservatives under Thatcher?

No not at all. It was Labour in the 1960's which established a fair labour pool for the benefit of UK workers believe it or not.

Pre 1980 Labour implemented the strongest immigration laws to stop the increasdingly frightening spectre of mass immigration from the commonwealth this country ever had. It was forced to do this because although their was a body within the Labour party callin for mass immigration and no bounardries, private sector unions and the electorate would never stand thier members real wages falling through oversupply of labour, and they funded the Labour party together with the public sector.

In the 1980s the private sector unions died.

Post 1997 New Labour depended on only the public sector unions for 86% of funds.

And its been the public sector unions have been the main propenents of mass immigration, as it would drop private sector wages for Labour, raise profits and result in more taxes and higher public sector wages, and would fund an great expansion of the public sector and the size of government.

There are virtually no private sector unions now. The Labour party is the public sector lobbying arm for all intents and purposes.

Thats how much party funding matters.

An excellent post.

[sbn]

And lo, the poisons of Labour's sick eugenics program begin to hatch. They encourage the breeding of the flawed and needy in an attempt to gain votes...... And suddenly realise that the flawed and needy are of burgrr all assistance in a fight. They will desert the underclass they have created.

They are evil.

[MarkG]

If you can't see that the American model is :

1. Completely corrupt.

2. Completely dysfunctional, i.e. no-one can achieve anything, it's a polarised stalemate.

1. Politics is inherently corrupt; it is organised theft and violence, after all.

2. The US government works best when it's a stalemate, because the politicians have a hard time ******ing things up. This is why Clinton is regarded so well; with a Republican Congress and Democrat President neither side could pass any really disastrous new laws.

And British politics is irrelevant so long as most of the laws come from Brussels.

[fluffy666]

1. Politics is inherently corrupt; it is organised theft and violence, after all.

Which is preferable to the alternative, disorganised theft and violence.

I sometimes think that some element of random selection - subject to basic logic, scientific, literacy, psycological and numeracy tests - would work as a better way to get representatives than the party system. Indeed, you could end up with a spread of perhaps 10 candidates (all local) for a constituency with a deliberately diverse range of beliefs, of whom perhaps 3 or 4 would be voted in. You'd probably have a minimum age of at least 30 to ensure that the resultant MPS had experience outside of parliament.

The resulting MPs would then have a career of up to 20 years before enforced retirement, a retirement that really would be no-paid-work allowed.

Still a big danger here, that the lack of experience of the resultant MPs means that they are exploited by permanent vested interests at Westminster. Indeed, the scope for the system to be subtly gamed is dangerous, although probably not as bad as the current system.

Just trying out ideas here.

2. The US government works best when it's a stalemate, because the politicians have a hard time ******ing things up. This is why Clinton is regarded so well; with a Republican Congress and Democrat President neither side could pass any really disastrous new laws.

And British politics is irrelevant so long as most of the laws come from Brussels.

The US system worked pretty well when both sides would generally put the national interest first.

I'd argue that since the 1990s, the Republicans have increasingly put dogma ahead of reality. And in a two party system in which either party can almost entirely frustrate the other, if one party goes insane then there are problems.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Party funding needs to go on the taxpayers bill, nasty as that may sound.

All other donations banned with severe prison sentences for all who flout the rules.

It's the only way to re-establish democracy to at least a small extent.

How would you decide how much each party gets? Oh yes, the plan is to base it on what share of the vote they got at the last election.

I can see how that will end well.

[swissy_fit]

How would you decide how much each party gets? Oh yes, the plan is to base it on what share of the vote they got at the last election.

I can see how that will end well.

The present system is ending extremely well, isn't it?

For publicly funded politics, there would have to be some accompanying law changes regarding the media as well.

[awaytogo]

From what I can read on a graphic of the front page, Labour have a deficit of 7.5 million pounds.

Would not surprise me, they cant run the countrys finances either.

[rw42]

After an election, the losing party always has financial problems, as doners are unwilling to donate to a party that doesn't have the power to pass laws reflecting their interests.

Put simply, you only pay bribes to people in power.

But surely you'd save some money when the going is good to tide you through the bad years?

Oh.

[oracle]

But surely you'd save some money when the going is good to tide you through the bad years?

Oh.

don't know about dire straits,but I couldn't resist this one!!!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=money%27s%20too%20tight%20to%20mention%20simply%20red&source=video&cd=6&ved=0CFsQtwIwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DnBdbLgnQuTA&ei=1FCYT5HSIsen0QXzxYjlBQ&usg=AFQjCNFy_8xpEJDSxj6xV7wivYPekCT4BA&cad=rja

Edited April 25, 2012 by oracle