Cream Horn Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Am I alone in being a little bit sick to the back teeth of hearing about funding for Britain's Political Parties?? I'm really cross that they have the brass neck to even give consideration to publicly funded political parties. After all when it came to publicly funding utilities and services they were all sold off, even Labour has privatised Air Traffic Control (or the National Air Traffic Service as it is now), and the NHS seems to be under constant threat. Why are political parties any different from the rest of the economy? Everyone else has to spend within their means, but when the parties overspend the Tax payer is allowed to bail them out?!?!? Now don't get me wrong, I think there would be a lot less corruption (or perceived corruption anyway) if political parties were funded by the tax payer, but I equally think that the utilities were morally better also when they were being bailed out by the tax payer too. My problem is that there's now going to be one rule for one, and another rule for another, you can't run with the hare, and hunt with the hounds, it seems that when it comes to bailing out politicians overspending the "golden rules" of the market go out of the window! what do you folks think? ....I'm all cliched up the eyeballs today...sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsTrellisfromNorthWales Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 At the moment, parties supported by millionaires or trade unions get more cash to campaign. So parties will change their policies to attract millionaires or trade unions. Now both big parties are trying to attract millionaires, as Mr Blair doesn't really get on with the unions. So millionaires' interests become more important than non-millionaires'. Which cannot be right. Having said all that, I am glad the taxpayer didn't have to foot the £7,000 bill for Cherie Blair's hairdos in the four-week general election campaign (about one-third of the pre-tax income of an average Briton's annual salary) and that if fell to Lord Levy's pals instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckett Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Bring it on I say - much fairer and transparent. If they used it in the US I doubt very much that Bush would be in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Why worry about the contents when it comes in a shiney wrapper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.