• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Funding of Political Parties should come from the Public Purse

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What do people think about this? How can we ever expect to have politicians who have any integrity and who go by their conscience if they are dependent on their very existence on the charity of others. I think the only way to solve the problem would be for all funding to be from the public purse. In addition as it would be our money we would want severe limits put on this, for instance in election campaigns and so on.

What do other people thing. Bring politics back to the Politicians or leave our country at the beck and call of the highest bidder?
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,097
Reaction score
12,352
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
What do people think about this? How can we ever expect to have politicians who have any integrity and who go by their conscience if they are dependent on their very existence on the charity of others. I think the only way to solve the problem would be for all funding to be from the public purse. In addition as it would be our money we would want severe limits put on this, for instance in election campaigns and so on.

What do other people thing. Bring politics back to the Politicians or leave our country at the beck and call of the highest bidder?
I am against the idea of money coming from the public purse. Why should my taxes contribute to political parties who I neither support, nor trust? I am, however, in favour of strictly policed caps on electoral spending. It should be a flat cap, across the board overseen by the Electoral Commission. I'd also maintain the ban on political TV and radio advertising and tighten up the legal, decent, honest and truthful requirements in billboard advertising (no more demon eyes).
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am against the idea of money coming from the public purse. Why should my taxes contribute to political parties who I neither support, nor trust?
Because that seems to be the only way that you as a citizen, can have a hope that your politicians are working for your interests rather than some outside benefactor.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What do people think about this? How can we ever expect to have politicians who have any integrity and who go by their conscience if they are dependent on their very existence on the charity of others. I think the only way to solve the problem would be for all funding to be from the public purse. In addition as it would be our money we would want severe limits put on this, for instance in election campaigns and so on.

What do other people thing. Bring politics back to the Politicians or leave our country at the beck and call of the highest bidder?
What about new political parties?
Who gets to decide if they get funding?

Wouldn't be good because entrenched groups, would make it difficult for new groups, to enter the race.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Maybe they could ban corporations from donating to politicians. Ban the lobbyists and the like.

No limit on what individuals can give. No limit on commercials, ads, etc etc.

No need for public funds to be involved.
 

Republic_Of_Public

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Maybe they could ban corporations from donating to politicians. Ban the lobbyists and the like.
Make it harder for vested interests? A good-un. But it will never happen. Those monkeys at the top of the tree enjoying the fruits will never change their ways.



I am against the idea of money coming from the public purse. Why should my taxes contribute to political parties who I neither support, nor trust?
I don't often a agree with Andalablue, but I do here. Even Sun King Obama can't really deliver any true reforms of the financial sector because his big business donors know they have him over a barrel. It's a bit like why Switzerland was never invaded during the wars, if you move against your money men you're brought to a halt.

But the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for parties to blindside us. They can use their own money earned honestly.







And another question - a lot of people arguing for public funding of parties, even as high as the ex-Labour Cabinet, wobble on their idea once you mention the BNP. Would they be entitled to funding, or would some minimum requirement of electoral achievement, set just above what the BNP can earn, be implemented? That thought has been floated.

And what about the Communist Party, Revolutionary Communist Party and others on the far-Left? Would they be entitled to public propaganda money without the handicaps and complaints planned for the BNP? Or would they be left to pay for themselves, as any other party should?
 
Last edited:

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What about new political parties?
Who gets to decide if they get funding?

Wouldn't be good because entrenched groups, would make it difficult for new groups, to enter the race.
I accept that that could pose a problem. However at the moment they also have problems. I am sure something could be worked out. At the moment however it is down to donations and we seem to have a similar Israeli Lobby to the US.

One of the advantages of getting old is that you can see when there appear to be strange shifts for no reason. The attitude of our Government to Israel is one of them - and I am not talking about Cameron's remark, I am talking about a lot more serious stuff.

It should certainly be against the law for any funding of this kind. Clearly it puts our foreign policy under blackmail. It deceives the British public who like myself fail to know this is going on and is basically a userping of our politics.

I find this totally unacceptable and believe if the UK public knew about it fury over politicians expenses would seem a minor inconvenience.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Maybe they could ban corporations from donating to politicians. Ban the lobbyists and the like.
I agree completely. We cannot have politics which has any kind of integrity without this.

No limit on what individuals can give.
I have heard of suggestions of a max limit of £100 but myself I believe they would just give an awful lot of £100's which is why I can to the conclusion of nothing.



No need for public funds to be involved.
In the Uk public funds is already included to a fair extent and parties get free air time to give their party political propaganda dependent on how large they are.

Free speech seems to be the biggest loser in this situation of funding by lobbyists and to me it wreaks of corruption like nothing I have come across.
 
Last edited:

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I accept that that could pose a problem. However at the moment they also have problems. I am sure something could be worked out. At the moment however it is down to donations and we seem to have a similar Israeli Lobby to the US.

One of the advantages of getting old is that you can see when there appear to be strange shifts for no reason. The attitude of our Government to Israel is one of them - and I am not talking about Cameron's remark, I am talking about a lot more serious stuff.

It should certainly be against the law for any funding of this kind. Clearly it puts our foreign policy under blackmail. It deceives the British public who like myself fail to know this is going on and is basically a userping of our politics.

I find this totally unacceptable and believe if the UK public knew about it fury over politicians expenses would seem a minor inconvenience.
You think that's bad, HA!

You should see some of our voting districts.
Many of them, solely created for a party to retain power.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You think that's bad, HA!

You should see some of our voting districts.
Many of them, solely created for a party to retain power.
Nah, Nah, both of our main political parties seem to owe their being to the Israeli Lobby. The Labour Party under Tony Blair managed to get funds from them which allowed him to not be dependent on the Unions, though in Tony Blair's case according to Baroness Tonga, he is more a Christian Zionist - solution in the ME, I do not think so.

Meanwhile the Conservatives were apparently saved by them several years ago and 80%, I kid you not, 80% of the Conservative Party are friends of Israel. This is not acceptable. Israel is not some neutral country.

The worst effect is on freedom of speech. When a Channel 4 program tried to get people to talk about the effect the Israel Lobby had on British Politics, people were jumping over each other to tell, but for coming forward, they were terrified, to say the truth would lose them their job they said. Only those just about at retirement were willing to talk.

Even being a Friend of Israel is not enough to keep someone safe. They must not criticise it at all. That is what this country is coming to. Look at this man, a Liberal Friend of Israel since it's beginning. Here is his letter of resignation

As you all know, I have been an avid supporter of Liberal Friends of Israel, emotionally, physically, mentally and financially. I have rallied to the cause as often as time and money allowed. As a person that has always considered myself "pro-Israel", I have very rarely called into question the actions of Israel. Least of all have I never called into question Israel's right to defend itself.

Over the past weeks I have expressed, at great length, my opinions that I do not support the current military mission that Israel has undertaken in Gaza. Since the expression of said thoughts, I've been called an anti-Semite, a Jew hater, a bigot, a neo-nazi, a liar and a terrorist supporter.


As a life long Liberal, I have always been of the impression that we, as Liberals, belong to a party that encouraged debate and did not try to censor, stifle or end said debate. Yet, over the past week alone, I have heard rumours of our own MPs being told not to speak about Gaza, I have witnessed firsthand our new War Room adviser stifle debate on his blog as often as possible (even referring to me as a "former liberal activist'), I have witnessed the Chair of Communications for Liberal Friends for Israel stifle debate on his Liblog aggregator and his one-sided participation in comment sections across the internet.
Also included in his points about his situation on Israel
4. I do not recognize the duly elected Hamas government and do not support the ideology of said Hamas
resignation letter from James Curran


A Blog By James Curran: My Resignation from Liberal Friends of Israel

This is not democracy.
 
Last edited:

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,902
Reaction score
11,916
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
What do people think about this? How can we ever expect to have politicians who have any integrity and who go by their conscience if they are dependent on their very existence on the charity of others. I think the only way to solve the problem would be for all funding to be from the public purse. In addition as it would be our money we would want severe limits put on this, for instance in election campaigns and so on.

What do other people thing. Bring politics back to the Politicians or leave our country at the beck and call of the highest bidder?
In Denmark we have both private and public funding. Public funding is distributed depending on the last election result and can only be used on specific things. On top of that we have no corporate funding what so ever, and no TV commercials. I think it works well.

It is pretty much the same type of system in many European countries I believe. One thing that is universal pretty much is a ban on TV commercials and corporate funding. I even think in France it is a criminal offence.

For me banning TV commercials and corporate funding keeps quite a bit of integrity in the election system and the cost of the election system. And that is important, as the more money involved in elections the more getting election is a "job" and not an honour to serve the people.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,501
Reaction score
50,051
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What do people think about this? How can we ever expect to have politicians who have any integrity and who go by their conscience if they are dependent on their very existence on the charity of others. I think the only way to solve the problem would be for all funding to be from the public purse. In addition as it would be our money we would want severe limits put on this, for instance in election campaigns and so on.

What do other people thing. Bring politics back to the Politicians or leave our country at the beck and call of the highest bidder?




I've thought about this from time to time, but remain unsure whether it would work out as intended. I know this is the Euro forum but being American my intrest is in whether it could work in my own country...

If each politician got the exact same amount of money, and owed nothing to big contributors or lobbyists, that might help keep them a bit more honest.... or would the money just go underground?

Are we going to forbid intrest groups representing concerned citizens from publically talking about politics and politicians? Such as the ACLU, the NRA and the NAACP? Would that not be a direct violation of the first Amendment and chill freedom of speech?

Who decides who gets funding? Will the Libertarians and Constitutionalists get the same money as the Republicans and Democrats? What about the Socialist party, Green party, and Neo-Nazi's?

There are too many unanswered questions and problems for me to support such a measure at this time.
 

Psychoclown

Clown Prince of Politics
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
1,460
Location
Hiding from the voices in my head.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I've thought about this from time to time, but remain unsure whether it would work out as intended. I know this is the Euro forum but being American my intrest is in whether it could work in my own country...

If each politician got the exact same amount of money, and owed nothing to big contributors or lobbyists, that might help keep them a bit more honest.... or would the money just go underground?

Are we going to forbid intrest groups representing concerned citizens from publically talking about politics and politicians? Such as the ACLU, the NRA and the NAACP? Would that not be a direct violation of the first Amendment and chill freedom of speech?

Who decides who gets funding? Will the Libertarians and Constitutionalists get the same money as the Republicans and Democrats? What about the Socialist party, Green party, and Neo-Nazi's?

There are too many unanswered questions and problems for me to support such a measure at this time.
Another American here thinking about this as it could apply to America.

But I think in general it would be a good thing. But yeah, some questions would need to be answered.

For funding, that's pretty simple. Create some sort of threshold(s) to qualify for funding. X number of registered members, petition signatures, whatever. I'd probably say it should be petition signatures for each individual candidate (the number needed would depend on the office in question. A Presidential candidate would need more signatures than a candidate for the House of Rep). If you meet the standard, you get the same amount of money as everyone else. I'd favor a rather low threshold, because just like we benefit from competition in business, we'd benefit from competition of different ideas in politics.

I think you have to allow special interest groups to be able to publicly advocate their positions. Which could lead to special interests still having disproportionate influence by promising to produce their own advertisements promoting candidate X. I dunno. Maybe it wouldn't be as effective as I'd hope, but I don't know if it could get much worse.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,902
Reaction score
11,916
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I've thought about this from time to time, but remain unsure whether it would work out as intended. I know this is the Euro forum but being American my intrest is in whether it could work in my own country...

If each politician got the exact same amount of money, and owed nothing to big contributors or lobbyists, that might help keep them a bit more honest.... or would the money just go underground?
It is already underground in many ways and it is often legal. We are talking about the US now btw. In Europe each political party has to document every single penny they get and it is a criminal offence to receive money from non accepted places. Everything from prison time to being denied the right to stand for office for a period can be used.

Are we going to forbid intrest groups representing concerned citizens from publically talking about politics and politicians? Such as the ACLU, the NRA and the NAACP? Would that not be a direct violation of the first Amendment and chill freedom of speech?
No one is preventing these organisation for voicing their opinion. The only thing that would be illegal was for the organisations to directly give money to candidates or political parties or do said candidates business so to say. You could even like in Denmark say the official umbrella organisation for Industry and for Labour are allowed to give limited funds to what political party they wish. Every one knows what parties get funding from the two and members can say they dont want their money to go to political parties. Very transparent system.

Who decides who gets funding? Will the Libertarians and Constitutionalists get the same money as the Republicans and Democrats? What about the Socialist party, Green party, and Neo-Nazi's?
Votes and seats at the last election can be one measure. For parties that are not in Congress, you could put in something that would make the eligible for funding. In Denmark if a party gets X thousand signatures on a petition then they can run for Parliament in all seats and get a minimum state funding for basic campaigning.

There are too many unanswered questions and problems for me to support such a measure at this time.
Not if you look at how different countries do things.
 

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Maybe they could ban corporations from donating to politicians. Ban the lobbyists and the like.

No limit on what individuals can give. No limit on commercials, ads, etc etc.

No need for public funds to be involved.
That isn't enough. Corporate officers and the like need to be banned from donating as well. This is the only way we can ensure that business cannot buy off politicians. In addition to this, we must make the entire process very transparent. Every last penny must be accounted for from beginning to end. The name of the donator must be public and the receiver must be public. Any money that shows up outside this arrangment MUST be confiscated and donated to charity.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,490
Reaction score
8,579
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am against the idea of money coming from the public purse. Why should my taxes contribute to political parties who I neither support, nor trust? I am, however, in favour of strictly policed caps on electoral spending. It should be a flat cap, across the board overseen by the Electoral Commission. I'd also maintain the ban on political TV and radio advertising
I agree so far..

and tighten up the legal, decent, honest and truthful requirements in billboard advertising (no more demon eyes).
I don't disagree because the demon eyes thing turned out pretty prophetic - but it's also part of the fun of the general election.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,196
Reaction score
21,099
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re the expenses furore. Did you know that some of those who were forced to repay, have secretly been given refunds for "overpayments"? From John Butterfill who reclaimed £4000 (He claimed for upgrading his servant's quarters) to the Tory who had the £4.95 she had falsely claimed for dog food refunded.
 

Republic_Of_Public

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Still, the frauds and lavish cash payouts at EU level truly do make our scandals look like dog food in comparison.
 

Republic_Of_Public

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
not really.

Well, take it up with the likes of the BBC if the facts make you uncomfortable:

BBC NEWS | UK | Euro MP expenses 'can reach £1m'
Open Europe - independent think tank calling for radical reform of the EU
BETTER OFF OUT: EU membership costs
MEPs accused of fiddling £100million expenses fund for staff who don't exist | Mail Online , etc.




They work hard to destroy Britain as a sovereign state. THAT'S what makes 'em worth it:

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Anger at Euro-MPs’ ‘double expenses’



And that's not to mention the corruption and grubbing:





Way worse than us, simply because there are fewer effective safeguards and scrutinies by independent bodies - hence the fact that a few years ago the ENTIRE European Commission resigned after hounding the financial watchdog from her post. So at least take comfort and joy from the fact that the Westminster bunch are pygmies by comparison....
 
Last edited:

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I guess representative democracy just is not what we expected it to be. It all seemed to end in the 80's. Laws are brought in on funding and broken by all and sundry. People do not have much interest in political parties any more - one of the reason the BNP managed to wiggle in with a couple of seats at the European Election.

Party Membership is at an all time low and shows no sign of returning and yet within democracy we now have lots of different people trying to work for change rather than doing this through political parties which was the old idea. For instance UK Amnesty is hoping to have 1,000,000 members some time soon, that is more than the membership of all three parties. Perhaps we are seeing democracy diverse and show itself in other ways.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,902
Reaction score
11,916
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I guess representative democracy just is not what we expected it to be. It all seemed to end in the 80's. Laws are brought in on funding and broken by all and sundry. People do not have much interest in political parties any more - one of the reason the BNP managed to wiggle in with a couple of seats at the European Election.

Party Membership is at an all time low and shows no sign of returning and yet within democracy we now have lots of different people trying to work for change rather than doing this through political parties which was the old idea. For instance UK Amnesty is hoping to have 1,000,000 members some time soon, that is more than the membership of all three parties. Perhaps we are seeing democracy diverse and show itself in other ways.
That has not much to do with funding of political parties and elections though. Membership of political parties is in decline for various reasons which vary from country to country, but other than the UK, voting % are pretty stable if not growing across Europe during national elections.. again it varies country to country.

Now if we move to the flip side of political funding, aka the USA, then I doubt you will see higher membership of political parties (considering there are only two in reality), and certainly not higher voting %.

I doubt changing our financing methods in Europe to match the US, will help in anyway on political party memberships or activity.. quite the opposite I would bet.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pete EU
That has not much to do with funding of political parties and elections though.
I accept that I am going off on a tangent. However it is consistent with the topic of the thread. People who are members of political parties pay membership fees. Clearly when sufficient people were interested this brought considerable money in.

Pete EU
Membership of political parties is in decline for various reasons which vary from country to country, but other than the UK, voting % are pretty stable if not growing across Europe during national elections.. again it varies country to country.
That maybe so but I must admit that when I started this thread I was thinking of the UK, not Europe. I should have been more clear.

In the UK since the 1980's and coinciding with the time when we were run by people whose top 'philosophers' were people who did not believe in democracy, we have seen people more and more feeling impotent with politics. Most young people nowadays would not think of joining a political party and with good reason. What point is there? What are they standing for? What have they to offer us? Is there any difference? There simply is nothing to get people interested. All they know is that they are all somewhat dishonest.

This lack of interest in politics has left holes in it for people sneakily to come in and affect our socio/political landscape without us being aware of it.

However I see hope because although the political parties do not present a great degree of interest to British people, except to mock, people are more and more becoming interested in interest groups. This gives me heart because it lets me know that there still is a political life going on in this country.


Pete EU
Now if we move to the flip side of political funding, aka the USA, then I doubt you will see higher membership of political parties (considering there are only two in reality), and certainly not higher voting %.

I doubt changing our financing methods in Europe to match the US, will help in anyway on political party memberships or activity.. quite the opposite I would bet.
No, I am just thinking of the UK where there is far too much emphasis on Lobbying for the interests of Israel. You rarely hear about it but it is having a strong effect. I believe that that is corruption.

We have recently been told we are for instance Israel's ally. First I heard of it. I always understood us to be not on anyone's side, just wanting a just solution and very critical of the US's support for Israel regardless of whether she is right or wrong. Once you start doing a little looking you discover this is certainly in large part due to an enormous amount of funding going to all parties, but most of all the Conservatives I am told, and MP's increasingly must be also a member of their parties 'Friends of Israel' society. This I think has all happened in the past ten years. It would be silly to imagine it is not affecting British Politics but it is doing it in a subtle way which people do not see. They just start hearing that we are Israel's ally, that criticism of Israel is antisemetic and so on. It is affecting our journalism as well.

I am afraid we are going to become the USA, hence my radical views on funding - besides of which the Political parties are not worth it - when they are we will join and fund them and in the meantime some of us will continue to go out on election nights just to make sure parties like the BNP do not sneak in during this hiatus.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,902
Reaction score
11,916
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I accept that I am going off on a tangent. However it is consistent with the topic of the thread. People who are members of political parties pay membership fees. Clearly when sufficient people were interested this brought considerable money in.
Would not pull in enough money imo. It is often barely enough to cover the administrative costs let alone election campaigns and so on.

That maybe so but I must admit that when I started this thread I was thinking of the UK, not Europe. I should have been more clear.
Ahh

In the UK since the 1980's and coinciding with the time when we were run by people whose top 'philosophers' were people who did not believe in democracy, we have seen people more and more feeling impotent with politics. Most young people nowadays would not think of joining a political party and with good reason. What point is there? What are they standing for? What have they to offer us? Is there any difference? There simply is nothing to get people interested. All they know is that they are all somewhat dishonest.
Yes, I know. But that has a bit more to do with your political system than anything else. Like it or not, the British political system is hardly democratic. It basically protects the two big parties no matter what. What the UK could use was more political parties in mainstream politics... and no not the BNP.

This lack of interest in politics has left holes in it for people sneakily to come in and affect our socio/political landscape without us being aware of it.
I would claim UK politics always has been like that. Politics has been for the elite not the masses. Class mattered even among Labour.. if you were not a union person with contacts then it often meant you had no chance. Look at Thatcher, she had a darn hard time even to get a seat let alone get elected. The "old boys" club in the Conservative party hated the idea of women politicians.

However I see hope because although the political parties do not present a great degree of interest to British people, except to mock, people are more and more becoming interested in interest groups. This gives me heart because it lets me know that there still is a political life going on in this country.
While political parties should be more attentive to the people they represent, it is not always a must. Often (sad to say) people dont know what is best for them. It sounds coincided, but it is a sad fact. If it had not been for politicians going against public opinion, then we would still have slavery, probably talk German and so on.

No, I am just thinking of the UK where there is far too much emphasis on Lobbying for the interests of Israel. You rarely hear about it but it is having a strong effect. I believe that that is corruption.
Its been like that since before WW1. It is nothing new. The UK got so fed up with the lobbying after WW2 they gave Israel via the UN, the area we know as Israel today against the wishes of the population that already was there. There is quite a bit of historical records of then zionist groups lobbying the UK during the Versailles peace talks after WW1 for a homeland and so on.

We have recently been told we are for instance Israel's ally. First I heard of it. I always understood us to be not on anyone's side, just wanting a just solution and very critical of the US's support for Israel regardless of whether she is right or wrong. Once you start doing a little looking you discover this is certainly in large part due to an enormous amount of funding going to all parties, but most of all the Conservatives I am told, and MP's increasingly must be also a member of their parties 'Friends of Israel' society. This I think has all happened in the past ten years. It would be silly to imagine it is not affecting British Politics but it is doing it in a subtle way which people do not see. They just start hearing that we are Israel's ally, that criticism of Israel is antisemetic and so on. It is affecting our journalism as well.
Yes I agree some what, but it is not something new.

I am afraid we are going to become the USA, hence my radical views on funding - besides of which the Political parties are not worth it - when they are we will join and fund them and in the meantime some of us will continue to go out on election nights just to make sure parties like the BNP do not sneak in during this hiatus.
Only way to change political parties is from within. Funding of political parties in the UK (and Europe) is just fine if you ask me. Going towards the US version would make the art of elections become a for profit enterprise instead of what it is in theory now.. a job for the people with benefits.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pete, as far as funding is concerned. I am not suggesting we go more towards the US way. I am saying that I believe that we already are, though a great deal of it is behind the scenes. When this is to do with simply a company it is immoral enough but when it is concerned with who we have allegiance to, it is bribary/blackmail and could have an effect of world peace.

I think Psychoclown in post 13 http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...hould-come-public-purse-2.html#post1058921614 did begin to talk about how this could be done.

I really don't mind how other people organise their funding. That is there business, or certainly for this thread. But I do mind how my own country manages it's and although you seem to want to deny it, funding has a massive affect on what people choose to do. Have you not heard the saying 'He how pays the piper, plays the tune'.

I believe a great deal of corruption could be got out of politics by looking at this. You say change political parties from within. I am saying one of the major ways to do that is by reorganising funding.
 
Top Bottom