This thread is for debate on options I and J:
I.
- State funding to parties/candidates to be determined by the votes cast in the subsequent election.
- Parties/candidates may receive donations and/or membership/affiliation fees from either corporate and/or individual sources.
- Political activities not to be limited in scope, but only to current financial restraints in election campaigns.
J.
- State funding to constituency parties/candidates to be determined by the votes cast, with those who vote receiving a tax credit.
- Parties/candidates may also receive donations/membership fees but from individuals only.
-
Political activities in the constituency subject to current expenditure
limits; nation-wide party activities to be under tighter fiscal
controls during election campaigns.
1. As I have commented elsewhere - how do you know how much you can spend on a political campaign if your funding depends on how many seats you gain in the election? Is this yet one more decice for keeping politics in hock to the bankers?
2. And a tax credit for voting? So where does the money for this come from? Tax Credit = 3 more beers = more rotten livers = bigger burden on NHS - but wait a minute there is less money for the NHS because its now going on tax credits. Is this modern maths?
3. How about tax deduction to pay for politics from all of us who can vote. Maths? Tax deduction = 3 fewer beers = fewer rotten livers = smaller burden on NHS which hey prseto can now afford to treat things otherr than self-inflicted injury!
4. The tax pot is finite - tax credits = more tax on business etc - not good for UK Ltd
5. Tax credits for voting is morally bankrupt. We have duty to vote; our forbears sometimes gave their lives that we may. . There are no grounds for using bribery.
6. Thus 'I' in admitting corporate funds is a receipe for corruption and has the conundrum of being unable to determine how much state funding will be available until after the die has been cast- when for sure bankrupt parties will seek corporate bail outs. So thumb down for this one
7. J - a real googly - has both the conundrum and the moral bankuptcy. Another thumb down I think.
I prefer I.
I think that these plans present a problem for small parties hoping to establish themselves. If funding is based (even partially) on share of votes, how is a new, small party meant to get its message out to the public and make the transition from peripheral to mainstream? Entirely by individual and corporate funding?
This approach seems to entrench the advantages of the largest parties.
That's partly why such a system was introduced in some post-communist countries: in the early years of their new democracies, they felt they had too many parties, with fleeting existences and tiny memberships, and looked to Britain, perhaps above all countries, as an example of how democracy works best when the party system is 'consolidated' (same 2/3 dominant parties for a century). So in considering these options we have to ask ourselves whether the consolidated system really is the most efficient means of representing social interests, or whether we want to try and articificially stimulate the emergence of new parties. The latter seems attractive, especially given the present level of disillusionment with the established parties. But it may have its downside too.
the 2nd two clauses of j are good, but i agree with john swainson that bribing people to vote doesn't make sense, and that you can't run election campaigns on the basis of uncertain future funding.
I agree with John Swainson that the retrospective funding in (I) is unworkable and suspect.
Re tax credits (J), I dont see any need to persuade people to vote, provided there is a smooth procedure for registering voters and notifying them of elections. (Unlike the current system in Northern Ireland, where 17yearolds are given little more than a week to present ID at a government office during school hours).
The rest seems conducive to entrenchment of the largest, as Anthony Hope Marland says. Option (I) would enable a powerful corporation to fund a new party in pursuit of its own interests.
Not really happy even with these. J is somewhat better.
Can't see any of the options really giving small parties a real chance.
Tax credits is very beaurocratic.
There should be a cap of £1,000 on donations from corporate or other donors.
Many of the suggestions for funding based upon votes seems to very non-PR.I think PR is very important!Brian.
I am also in favour of options I & J. J seems a better choice because it introduces "tighter fiscal controls during election campaigns".
I support these options because they are not linked to electoral success in terms of actually winning seats. The incumbent FPTP system acts to the detriment of emerging parties in this respect, thus entrenching the dominance of the political establishment. I believe that this feature of the UK's democratic system is a big factor in the high (and increasing) levels of disengagement existing between the electorate and political elites.
We all know that funding has a direct influence in facilitating the dissemination of a political message. Therefore it is not a case of "artificially stimulating" the emergence of any political ideology. If a particular brand of politics has appeal it will survive with or without state funding at a basic grass roots level but it will struggle to achieve wider recognition amongst the public without the necessary financial resources.
I don’t see tax credits as bribery – although I think I
understand the point of view. To me, the
State is taking money from us for all sorts of reasons. If it takes a little less because we vote,
then I see that as a reward for participation.
Whether this is sophistry or just a different point of view, I don’t
have a problem with the ‘tax credits for voting’ argument.
Would people with large incomes get the tax credit? Presumably not. In which case, the ‘tax credits for voting’ argument
should help to empower the dispossessed, the poorest, whatever you want to call us – which is surely what
the aim of contributing to the health of
our democracy includes?
I definitely think two votes is a necessity: one (Single Transferable or whatever similar)
for who is to be elected; the other for funding a candidate.
Two votes gives voters the opportunity to break the positive
feedback loop of more funding producing more votes producing more funding
producing more votes… It increases the
amount of information that voters provide by voting (better value for money). To me, it looks like a positive contribution
to the democratic process.
Everything we do, we do without knowing how it’s going to
turn out. With two votes the candidates don’t know how much
money they’re going to receive after the election, because they don’t know how
many (pecuniary) votes they’re going to get:
does this make such a system unworkable?
I don’t think so (if it did, it would make almost everything we do
unworkable).
i am totally opposed to both state funding and individual funding. all income should be derived from membership fees only which should be capped to prevent a few individuals trying to get around the rules.according to wikipedia the tories have 290,000 members, labour 200,000 (tho' another site suggested this had fallen to 150,000) and the libdems 70,000.multiplying this by their membership fees they have incomes of:tories: £7,250,000labour: at least £1,800,000 (150k x min.fee of £12)libdems: at least £700,000 (70k x min.fee of £10)this would mean no-one could spend more than £700k/yr though i would have no objection to lowering this even further, the libdems were simply a convenient example. i can see the 2 bigger parties objecting to even lower limits however as it reduces their chances of "spinning" us into submission.the question is, why do they need to spend money "getting their message across" at all? all they need is enough to set up a website with their policies clearly displayed which would cost them just a few hundred pounds a year.as for the excess income they receive, they could either spend it on research (but it would have to be monitored to ensure they weren't using that to influence voters' opinions) or reduced by reducing membership fees or even given to charity :)
perhaps if we all join forces we can convince jon bright to put in an option N to limit funding to membership fees only?
There are some common threads developing - casting a vote to fund the party of your choice, yes, but after the election leaving small parties vulnerable? - no. Unless the funding arising from this election was held/released annually to fund political activity, with an increased proportion for an election year.
Tax breaks for voting does go too far. Surely, the chance to direct funding towards the party of your choice would be an added incentive to vote anyway, or we could go the Australian route and make it compulsory!
I agree that linking funding to seats held will stifle minor parties. Particularly when voters have the option to vote funding for parties that were too small to put up a candidate in their constituency. This last issue makes the split between funding going to the national party or the constituency party quite crucial - would a localised funding boost local democracy by supporting small parties, or still be too little to support a local candidate in the next election?