Clare vs. John

[chickenfeet]

Clare Short speaking to the BBC earlier:

"What we're getting is a bubble of these clever people who've captured the state, don't need a party, don't need any members, don't have turbulent people having opinions, who then get money from rich people and run our state without consulting anyone else."

She's absolutely right of course. The key issues in creating a healthy democracy are reducing the power of the centre and finding ways to involve more people in the political process in a way that actually influences outcomes. There's a word for it. It's called democracy.

John Prescott a little later:

"To my mind it'll lead to the conclusion of state financing. I think there is an argument for capping but I think all the political parties certainly need to sit down...and come to a decision so we can have healthy financing for a healthy democracy."

Poor John, he really doesn't get it. The last thing any of us need is more of our money being handed over to the gangsters so that they can persuade us to keep them in office How will state financing of parties reduce the overweaning power of party leaders and their unelected cliques? Don't bother to answer that.

Comments

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Why should the state finance the parties? Can't they drum the money up from their voters?

I have been out of touch for more than a week now...is someone really trying to do that?

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

State aid to political parties is nothing new. We have it here in Canada. Generally speaking it's favoured by parties that lack rich individual or corporate backers. No machine politician wants to have to rely on party members for funds. Heaven's they might want a say in policy.

[gillo]

More to the point, how can new parties ever emerge if the status quo is permanently enshrined in financing arrangements.

The possibly laudable ideal is that no party could be beholden to any financial interest or powerful backer. But we just know that will never happen.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

More to the point, how can new parties ever emerge if the status quo is permanently enshrined in financing arrangements.

Good point! It would never do to allow ordinary people to trespass on the sacred turf of career politicians!

[gillo]

Exactly. They'd be thinking for themselves before we knew it, and that would never do!

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

It sounds to me that Clare Short is describing a coup d'etat.

It occurred to me on Friday, as I was walking home from work listening to the Labour treasurer's protestations that he knew nothing about the loans (so where did he think all that money came from - or was he not shown the bank statements, either?) that perhaps political parties should be denied large loans and donations. If they had to raise the money only from their supporters' membership fees, they might actually work harder to do what they promise.

And the rest of us would have a quiter time.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

If they had to raise the money only from their supporters' membership fees, they might actually work harder to do what they promise.

Better still, they'd have a hard time keeping members out of the decision making process.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

Heartily agree with this.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

If you forbid any financing other than State, except for rigorously capped individual contributions, no corporate financing at all, it should change things.

[(Anonymous)]

Join the discussion here:

http://blogs.bbc.co.uk/nickrobinson/

For what it's worth I agree with gillo re state funding - ultimately anti-democratic in the extreme. Limiting the size of gifts - however difficult - seems sensible. Subscriptions only? Never!! Who wants the country to be run by activists - of any colour!

[violetsaunders.livejournal.com]

oh - that anonymous was me