Timmy elsewhereOctober 7, 2013 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere4 CommentsAt the ASI. State funding of political parties is really about creating a cartel previousOne you might likenextThis does explain some of their programs then 4 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” Ian B October 7, 2013 at 11:16 am Entirely true. But politics should not be compared to (free market) business. It is not a free market enterprise. The political parties are creatures of the State. There is certainly an argument against making them taxpayer funded, but there is also an argument about the donations problem; marketing is money, so it gives an enormous political advantage to the parties that can attract the most money, as we see in the horrific American political machines. So there may be an argument for going the other way; anyone standing for election will be allowed to publish one manifesto in a prescribed format, in print and on the web, and not allowed any other interface with the public, while campaigning “on behalf of” a party as “friends” could be some kind of capital offence. One could also strike all references to the parties from the manifestos, so nobody would know which party published which one, and voters would be forced to vote purely on the policy menus on offer. Another suggestion is that a prime minister should only be allowed to serve two terms, and then will be taken out the back and shot by a firing squad. Which would certainly solve the Blair problem. ukliberty October 7, 2013 at 11:46 am The incumbent parties want state subsidy because they cannot support their spending because they cannot attract enough donations because they do not appeal to sufficient numbers of donors. This is linked to disengagement from ‘mainstream politics’ and political processes, which is a product of the perception of the man in the street that he has no influence or say even if he becomes a paying member of the two largest parties. Influence is bought by large donations or political capital that the man in the street does not have. The largest parties have betrayed our ‘democracy’ by turning away from the people toward rich donors and now demanding more money from the public purse. PaulB October 7, 2013 at 10:56 pm Entirely untrue Tim. Don Boudreaux is writing about the US, but in the UK the Kelly Report recommends that parties without at least two MPs (or members of the devolved assemblies) should not be covered by the cap on donations. So there would be no barrier to entry. Ralph Musgrave October 8, 2013 at 11:02 am They’re state funded ANYWAY. For example the main parties flog public property (peerages) and pocket the proceeds. And before the last general election, Labour generously gave £18m to sundry trade unions for – er – “training”. But, entirely by coincidence of course, those same unions then donated £10m to Labour. And if they cannot get enough from robbing taxpayers, they fund themselves from the proceeds of crime. The Lib Dems got £2.5million from the convicted fraudster, Michael Brown. And the Tories are funded by those crimineogenic banksters. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.