Not in a million years


by Richard North
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/10/not-in-million-years.html

A huge increase in state funding of political parties, worth up to £100m over a five-year parliament, is being proposed by a government-commissioned inquiry.

Says The Guardian, the funding, which would be shared out according to the number of votes each party receives in a general election, would be presented as a way of compensating them for a huge loss of income as a result of introducing new caps on individual donations to parties.

And the answer is a most emphatic No! These parasites no not represent me, they do not get my votes and I owe them nothing. I do not agree with them, their values, their aims or even their claims to exist. If they cannot survive unaided (and that includes the money they already get), they should perish.

The bubble-dwellers have no mandate to take our money for their political parties. They may have the power to do it, but it would still be theft … and another nail in their collective coffins.

About these ads

4 responses to “Not in a million years

  1. Yes, I oppose this too. I would also drop the “Short money”, a scheme whereby the opposition parties get state funding. I don’t see why MPs get more than about £50K a year (whether ministers or not), and don’t see the need to provide them with pensions or any expenses. I don’t see why they need to run constituency offices either – they are there not to be social workers, but to stand up in Parliament for the political views they indicated they would support during elections. My local MP told me I was the first constituent ever to raise political matters with him in the surgery, as most constituents want to try to rope the MP into minor disputes of various types.

    As for “severance pay” for ministers dropped in a reshuffle – er… this assumes they’re entitled to their jobs. What next? Unfair dismissal claims by sacked ministers? In order to eliminate the distorting payroll vote in the Commons, I would pay every single MP £50K a year (set at twice the national average salary), regardless of whether he was in government or not, and the PM would get the same amount, and so would the Speaker. And that would be it: no expenses or anything else. No gravy train. The vast sums given to former prime ministers to run offices should be stopped immediately, as it has been shown they can earn astronomical sums from their memoirs and speeches. Tony Blair doesn’t need any more subventions now he is out of office.

    Come to think of it, why does Parliament sit for so long? I would like to see Parliamentary sessions limited by statute to 13 weeks of the year, regardless of the circumstances, in order to limit the quantity of legislation. MPs should not be living mainly in the Westminster village, but actually mainly in their constituencies, with occasional trips to London for the occasional convening of Parliament…

  2. I’ve copied this comment to the front page.

  3. I would not even give them salaries.

    Anyone conpetent enough to “enter Parliament” must by his very nature have been successful at something people wanted to pay for – otherwise how can he say he has the ability to understand how to “represent” people who he does not know and who do not know him?

    The strategic objective of re-defining, correctly, this time, the criteria needed by someone who wants to “enter parliament” must be such as to entirely eliminate the possibility that socialists or other kinds of nazis can or ever could be considered competent so to do. A minimum age-limit of, say, 50 (we could discuss things between say 40 and 60) would also be needed, so that we can at one stroke eliminate any young starry-eyed idealists who are by nature un-conservative.

  4. I am totally against this idea. A party should stand or fall by its own support group. If it can’t get enough money from people who agree with its policies why should any one else fund them. This is simply nationalising political parties. If this goes ahead there will follow ‘debates as to what constitutes a party.’Narrower rules will be drawn for those applying for funds. Only those committed to an establishment version of democratic principles will be included. I can see it all;does said party have a diversity policy, does it promote ‘best practice’ blah blah blah. No one allowed to fail, even in promoting something no one wants. It’s enough to make me weep