Reform, and the death of the Tory Party

[CXRAndy]

How would we feel if a party had culture replacement agenda?

I think the natives would happily vote for regime change

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Culture replacement says a local on a brief break from painting his body with woad.

 

[Pinno718]

True, but the criteria would be a good starting point.

'Limiting'? I would say zero external donations.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Funny how old Nige is more than happy for someone who doesn't live here (regardless of whether they are a UK citizen) to donate millions to his party when he constantly bangs on about borders/sovereignty etc. Almost as if he doesn't care when it is in his interests.

 

[Pblakeney]

'Limiting'? I would say zero external donations.

I think that if you are eligible to vote then you should be able to donate. I'd actually prefer no donations but one step at a time.
Not eligible to vote? Not eligible to donate. Fairly simple, to my eyes.

 

[AuroraSaab]

That wipes out all union donations then, and those from companies or foundations.

I do think there is a wider discussion to be had about funding of lobbying groups/charities as well as political parties because, again, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[TailWindHome]

That wipes out all union donations then, and those from companies or foundations.

I do think there is a wider discussion to be had about funding of lobbying groups/charities as well as political parties because, again, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

No reason for it to wipe out union donations
They just need to demonstrate the original contributions come from those eligible to vote.

 

[BoldonLad]

Perhaps restrict donations to a percentage of tax paid in the UK

Neat idea

 

[Rusty Nails]

As above, its legal then it's OK. If you don't like that, write to your MP.

That would be like writing to turkey farmers asking them to get rid of Christmas.

MPs depend on donors.

 

[AuroraSaab]

No reason for it to wipe out union donations
They just need to demonstrate the original contributions come from those eligible to vote.

The union donations come from members sub don't they? Seems pretty difficult to check that all 1.2 million members of Unite are eligible to vote.

I think I'd prefer a system where no donations were allowed but then we'd have to fund the electioneering via taxes. I suppose it all went on behind closed doors anyway previously but we do seem to be drifting towards the US system of paying for influence more and more.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The union donations come from members sub don't they? Seems pretty difficult to check that all 1.2 million members of Unite are eligible to vote.

I think I'd prefer a system where no donations were allowed but then we'd have to fund the electioneering via taxes. I suppose it all went on behind closed doors anyway previously but we do seem to be drifting towards the US system of paying for influence more and more.

Is the political levy still a thing?

 

[Psamathe]

I think I'd prefer a system where no donations were allowed but then we'd have to fund the electioneering via taxes.

I can appreciate the argument but I'm very against tax payers paying for politicians to lie to and deceive us.

In effect they are applying for a job (limited term contract but longer than many temposray posts people apply for). With so many crucial demands from society (care, law, safety net, etc.) to start seeing some of those needs being cut so politicians can throw mor lies in our direction I've not seen any reasonable justification.

ie to "clean-up our politics we need to cut dementia and elderly care, cut court and prison funding and increase waits, reduce help to those in desperate need. Politicians have made it the dirty game it has become so they can jolly well clean it up and not expect us to pay for their mess.

And what do they actually need all these vast sums for? ("need" being the relevant word). Party political broadcast on TV and radio, web site (all very cheap) and local party supporters doing campaigning at local level for local candidates to represent their locality. It's only become expensive because senior party figures expect to be treated like superstars appearing before vast crowds just to spew more lies to the already converted.

 

[Pblakeney]

I can appreciate the argument but I'm very against tax payers paying for politicians to lie to and deceive us.

In effect they are applying for a job (limited term contract but longer than many temposray posts people apply for). With so many crucial demands from society (care, law, safety net, etc.) to start seeing some of those needs being cut so politicians can throw mor lies in our direction I've not seen any reasonable justification.

ie to "clean-up our politics we need to cut dementia and elderly care, cut court and prison funding and increase waits, reduce help to those in desperate need. Politicians have made it the dirty game it has become so they can jolly well clean it up and not expect us to pay for their mess.

And what do they actually need all these vast sums for? ("need" being the relevant word). Party political broadcast on TV and radio, web site (all very cheap) and local party supporters doing campaigning at local level for local candidates to represent their locality. It's only become expensive because senior party figures expect to be treated like superstars appearing before vast crowds just to spew more lies to the already converted.

Just look at how the system works in the US.
We usually end up copying them sooner or later. I hope this trend has ended.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I can appreciate the argument but I'm very against tax payers paying for politicians to lie to and deceive us.

I'd find it galling too.

 

[TailWindHome]

The union donations come from members sub don't they? Seems pretty difficult to check that all 1.2 million members of Unite are eligible to vote.

Each individual donation is so (relatively) small that a self declaration would suffice