Friday, September 22, 2006
Time to cold turkey Tony the tax junkie
The Times reports here that ZaNuLabour, having a gaping hole in its finances, is proposing (as a separate proposal from state funding of political parties) to "wet its beak" from the public purse. The public purse not being a purse the public can access for their wants and needs, but being a purse which receives "contributions" (contributed under duress) from the public.
There are two thrusts to this pincer like proposal. Firstly I quote from the article: "Ms Blears’s proposed rule change would give Labour MPs and ministers access to public funds to support parliamentary activities. The funds were introduced in 1975 to support the work of opposition parties in Parliament but were increased threefold by Labour after it took office in 1997.
Ms Blears is pressing for the funds to be extended to the governing party, even though ministers can already call on civil servants and special advisers for advice and support. "
Notice the lack of reciprocity, no mention of giving the opposition parties a call on "civil servants" or "special advisers". The only reason these funds were introduced was because the governing party had an unfair advantage. No mention of addressing that issue from the governing party then.
Secondly, I quote again: "She also wants all parties to receive funds to support political work to engage with disillusioned voters in the community ..." What a load of rubbish, in a democracy, if voters are disillusioned with the parties, it must mean the parties aren't doing their job properly, we certainly shouldn't be giving them more money, we should cut their money until they improve.
The reason why both main parties lack funds is simple; they're not delivering what the voter (the ordinary person) wants. The voter is voting with their feet, leaving the parties (causing loss of membership revenue) and not donating causing loss of revenue. It would be both inequitable and ethically wrong to publicly fund something that the public have shown a great desire not to fund.
The two main parties are both interested in spin and focus groups and other such nonsense. The facts are the voting public are not. We want to see effective policies not money thrown at so called public services, we want to see strong firm leadership especially when dealing with the EU, we want commitments to our freedom not commitments to apparatchikism and bureaucracy.
No we the public provide far too much money to the government and opposition as it is, and like a junkie all they ever do is crave for more. Sometimes you must be cruel to be kind, let them cold turkey. Once they've broken the habit of getting money from us they will find they can mange with far fewer funds and the money can stay with those who've earned it.
There are two thrusts to this pincer like proposal. Firstly I quote from the article: "Ms Blears’s proposed rule change would give Labour MPs and ministers access to public funds to support parliamentary activities. The funds were introduced in 1975 to support the work of opposition parties in Parliament but were increased threefold by Labour after it took office in 1997.
Ms Blears is pressing for the funds to be extended to the governing party, even though ministers can already call on civil servants and special advisers for advice and support. "
Notice the lack of reciprocity, no mention of giving the opposition parties a call on "civil servants" or "special advisers". The only reason these funds were introduced was because the governing party had an unfair advantage. No mention of addressing that issue from the governing party then.
Secondly, I quote again: "She also wants all parties to receive funds to support political work to engage with disillusioned voters in the community ..." What a load of rubbish, in a democracy, if voters are disillusioned with the parties, it must mean the parties aren't doing their job properly, we certainly shouldn't be giving them more money, we should cut their money until they improve.
The reason why both main parties lack funds is simple; they're not delivering what the voter (the ordinary person) wants. The voter is voting with their feet, leaving the parties (causing loss of membership revenue) and not donating causing loss of revenue. It would be both inequitable and ethically wrong to publicly fund something that the public have shown a great desire not to fund.
The two main parties are both interested in spin and focus groups and other such nonsense. The facts are the voting public are not. We want to see effective policies not money thrown at so called public services, we want to see strong firm leadership especially when dealing with the EU, we want commitments to our freedom not commitments to apparatchikism and bureaucracy.
No we the public provide far too much money to the government and opposition as it is, and like a junkie all they ever do is crave for more. Sometimes you must be cruel to be kind, let them cold turkey. Once they've broken the habit of getting money from us they will find they can mange with far fewer funds and the money can stay with those who've earned it.
