Public funding of political parties

[cromwell]

There is a sneaky movement going on to fund political parties with public money.

The justification being that this will free them from dependency on "donations", and make them truly independent and simon pure, untainted by suspicions that the people bunging the party a wad of cash are doing it to gain political influence.

Here's a radical alternative - political parties exist on the subscriptions from their members only.
I mean, if political parties can't attract enough members to support them, what does this say about our political parties?

That they are seen as being unrepresentative of the people? That they are irrelevant?

Politicians do not deserve to get their hands into the public till, because once they do they will never want to take it out again.

[TheOstrich]

Couldn't agree more. Public funding of political parties is the surest way to stifle the smaller protest parties like UKIP.

[Workingman]

It is not an easy one......

If political parties only existed on party members' subs then many of the smaller ones UKIP, Greens etc. would cease to be effective or might never have come into being.

On the other hand it is not for the public purse to support them to give them a voice.

I would like to see the donations system tightened up and made more transparent. All donations resulting in a total of more tha £500 in any one year to be published in the accounts - whether they be cash or in-kind. There should be a maximum amount allowed from any one person or enterprise and individuals should not be allowed to top-up by then using a business. Nobody donating to a party should ever be nominated by that party for any honour of whatever rank.

[KateLMead]

more money from the tax payer they will bleed us dry. Every time they talk of money, including increases for MP's that I think is outrageous.. I get furious when I see the likes of Balls and his misses! Harman and her now commie MP husband
Who get double their salaries now another 20,000 a year to add plus expenses allowances etc, they are laughing all the way to the bank and their tax havens and off shore accounts. I do not know one politician who I can say is 100 percent honest they all milk the system to the hilt.

[Suff]

I had to think about this for a while.

I can only see a hybrid system working and I think it can only work if we have both subscriptions and government top up for the large parties and direct funding for the "start up's".

For instance.

The main parties (determined by a threshold), would have to survive on the member fees of their members, topped up to maximum sum by the Government. The more party members, the more funds and the more government top up. Up to a maximum.

Any party funds beyond the maximum and they get no more top up. But can benefit from the contribution of their members. Who have a vote.

For the smaller parties, let us say the threshold is 5 seats in Westminster, they can get direct funds form "benefactors" who will support the party until it reaches the desired number of seats. Once they get there, they need to move to the government backed system.

In this way, interested parties can still start a party, fund it and have single issue MP's.

Also, if this is the case, we would have to remove the deposit for all government backed parties. Giving money to take it back again is a favourite government trick, but in this case the parties would always demand more than they have to pay. So get rid of it. Keep it for those who are being directly funded, it keeps the barrier high enough.

That is what I'd like to see. It would force parties to include more members if they want to be effective. Members with a vote who can sway party politics and drive agenda's.