Compulsory tax payer funding of political parties - a proposal?

Question

I strictly object to the state stealing my money and spending it without my consent. - however....

If compulsory taxpayer fnding of political parties is unavoidable, then I think I could live with this on one condition;. That condition is that I personally choose which party gets my money.

If compulsory taxpayer funding of poltiical parites does come in, is there any reason this could be objected to?

Answer 1

To be honest, I'm really not bothered where my tax goes as long as I can live a good life. I never worry about things that don't concern me and just look from the 'am I ok?' point of view.

As it happens, I think the Labour party have done some amazing things for the good. OK, so not everything has been perfect.I can walk in to my local NHS hospital and know that I'll recieve good care from a dedicated team of proffesionals and as a g*y guy, I can have a civil partnership with my boyfriend.

Things have never been so good for me since they were elected!

Answer 2

The problem I have with the potential compulsory payment to fund political parties is the assumption that the current parties are the parties we will need in the future.

Compulsory funding could stifle the development of new parties, also I worry that the structure will have difficulties.

I.E. the possible tax payer funding of minority parties we have never heard of, or heard of but don't like.

Or the reverse where the funding structure is based on some artificial or arbitrary way of dividing the funding that keeps new parties out.

I do like the idea of the electorate/tax payer having a say where their money goes but this can also disenfranchise those who don't pay tax (for legitimate reasons such as full time carers)

My preference is to change the way money is spent.

For example any legally formed party that has a candidate in an election (even if independent) should be entitled to the same amount of 'air time' on TV and Radio.

This would stop major parties stealing ideas from smaller parties and pedalling them as if they had thought of them.

True extremists would get air time with the only controls being those of the law where incite etc was concerned.

Also in hustings I would make it compulsory for the TV &Radio to cover all hustings at a local level instead of the BBC current policy which is to choose those where they can see a rartings potential.

Answer 3

Labour wants this SOLELY so that the Unions can't tell them what to do.

Labour power will then have no restraints on it whatsoever!

Answer 4

the way its proposed at the moment, would mean that the main three parties got 80% of the money. the others would get a pitence. i think 'if were going to do it', it should be shared equaly between all parties. that way we here all voices at the same volume. perhaps then! we can get back to some democracy.

Answer 5

Taxes must not be paid to benefit political parties because that would be corruption.

Answer 6

I don't want any of my hard-earned going to any political party.  To take your uestion further, the big parties would get bigger and the minority parties would fold.

Answer 7

That's a rather awkward question, isn't it? And one that will not go down well with the powers that be.

Like yourself I am dead set against taxpayers money being used to fund political parties, but we all know why this issue has been proposed and it is because the Labour party have massively overspent and are now basically sitting on the wrong side of bankruptcy and are now desperate for new revenue streams that will allow them to continue their policies of spin, obfuscation and general incompetence. labour party support has dropped dramatically in recent years, as has membership of all political parties due to a general disenfranchisement of the general public to politics in general thanks to the apathy this Labour Government has created.

This issue doesn't just apply to Labour though. The Conservatives could indeed be in the same situation if it wasn't for the fact they are being bankrolled by Lord Ashcroft, a donor who seems to wield a lot of power within the party and whose tax status in the UK is unclear.

I digress. To answer your initial question, there is more chance of a Labour minister resigning than you having a say in where your money goes if state funding becomes a reality. Think about it. How much say do you have in what they do with your money now? Did you agree to bankroll a privately owned bank to the tune of £56billion? Do you get a questionnaire asking where overseas aid should be spent? Do you have a say on whether you are happy to fund translation services for newly arrived immigrants into the country?

I rest my case. Good question!

Answer 8

I strongly opject to my taxes paying for a political party I don't agree with and don't vote for. Voucher system maybe a good idea, but I think most would end up in the bin.