Labour is now trying to use its corruption as justification for forcing the taxpayer to fund election campaigns.
Surely the scandalous and almost certainly criminal behaviour is proof that no cash should be paid from the taxpayer to these dishonest and self serving individuals.
The more rational response is, I believe to limit election spending to a level that can be met from small private donations and a ban on large scale donations from any source.
This will favour parties which can rally more individuals for voluntary canvassing and use the money available efficiently. This may at least provide a modicum of training in providing value for money once elected so obviously lacking in the major parties currently.

Either the taxpayer funds mainstream parties with enough general support (lib, lab, con in england dont understand scot/wales/ni).

or they are funded by self intersted groups that like the policies of a party that will benefit them.

I don't see any real alternative.

Cliff

Why should it matter who funds political parties?

Surely by now it is generally accepted that politicians will play fast and loose with the rules in order to maintain their cash flow? Ask anybody in the street if they trust politicians and you will more than likely get a negative answer.

So just let them go out and get their cash as and how they like - they will anyway!! It's just a function of how many accountants and lawyers one employs to research how to get round the rules.

We already pay their salaries, pensions, travel, office staff, mortgages and god nows what else. Their party political broadcasts are made on BB1 which we pay for - surely to god they can do something for themselves!!

Because Chulcoop's "self intersted groups" include foreign military powers that aim to sway foreign policy. And that can cost us dearly.

It doesn't as long as no self interest group is allowed to provide enough funds to sway the party's thinking. Placing a severe limit on the total election expenses would ensure that this is the case.
If all parties had a low limit the end result is the same as if all parties have a high one as the amount of mind warping by the sales pitches in each direction cancels out.
That is assuming that both parties make the best use of the funding to produce adverts which hide their failures while trumpeting their few meagre successes.
Hiding any illegal costs used to pay an advertising agency or broadcaster would be very difficult given that the taxman will want his share even of party expenses. Fining any party for fraud, not in cash but in parliamentary seats would be the best way of ensuring honesty.

I dont think there should be a cap on what parties spend on elections.
I feel the cap should be on how much individual candidates can spend, and at a very low level.

The situation now is a disproportionate ammount is thrown at possible marginal seats, in other words you are "buying" that seat. The seat should be won on merit rather than how much you can throw at the area.

If there was a fixed limit the seat would be open to independants and party members alike, much fairer no.

Hi Guys - What is wrong with self interest groups?

Don't they represent a portion of the nation after all? Just like any campaign issue it will have its supporters and detractors so there will be self interest groups and lobbyists for both sides of the argument!

After all there are only three main parties that represent the country. Let the self interest groups support them...
pro-smoking and anti-smoking
pro-bloodsports adn anti bloodsports
pro-life and anti abortion
pro-nuclear and greens
etc. etc. etc. etc.

If all these lobbyist want to chuck their money at the parties then let them - the voters will still get the same garbage as if there was public funding and the lobbyists would still be there just saving their money.

" What is wrong with self interest groups? "

At the moment Labour are in trouble over funding but all parties have had their problems with this. There is no end to how much parties could spend, particularly at election time. The advertising doesn't come cheap and spirals. All parties look for as much help with this as possible they know well that advertising pays off. It sounds reasonable to say that those who support a party should fund the party they choose. This is all very well until pay back time, these companies and indivduals want advantages for their money. This happens big time in the US the trouble we are in in Middle East stems from the self interest of the huge funds given to Bush by the oil companies . We have to find a way of limiting expenditure otherwise we will go down the same road and any moral conviction we have left in politics will be completely lost. It is in the interests of all of us that the parties get together, stop the mud slinging, and find an acceptable solution

Vespasian:



Try looking at the situation in America.

These "interest groups" practically *own* politicians because the polticos need the money these groups supply to fund their campaigns, but as soon as they take that money they're stuck with the hook that "if you don't toe our line, we'll take our funding away"...

Labour wants the taxpayer to fund them since they are broke through being caught selling peerages etc. It's been predictable for 2 years now.

I don't object in principle to taxpayer funding but it won't stop the existing corruption, it's bound to reinforce the existing duopoly and I think the Labour Party deserves to go bankrupt - they are morally bankrupt after all.

I agree that this would be the best option but the problem comes with deciding whether help from another candidate qualifies es exempt or not and similar issues that make it easy to fiddle. Perhaps a party and candidate spending cap are needed.
I think averagevoter has summed up the situation well as to why we need action before the next election and with Labour finances in trouble they would be more willing to accept a cap on spending.

How is this for Funding integrity

It's a waste of time having a go at the Labour party just because they are in trouble at the moment with funding. No party comes out squeaky clean, the funding of the Tory party by Lord Ashcroft et al is dubious. We object to Unions funding the Labour party as not every member of the union is a socialist but the same can be said of large companies who's chairmen support the Tories, not every shareholder is a conservative. I would like to see DC stop point scoring, which is not the sign of a good leader,and sit down and sort out this huge problem in a way that is acceptable to all. They must close all the loopholes, all parties have been guilty of getting round the restrictions and to give the Labour party their due they have made an attempt to solve the problem but without cross party support nothing will be done there is to much self interest