I like what you're idea attempts but there are far more costs in politics than getting you're written message out in a single
newspaper, in a world where not everyone reads papers anyway.
Conference-meeting room higher (often very expensive), event advertising, speaker costs (travel ones, but even direct payment), security (sometimes)
door to door literature, sometimes the major parties even use comedians. All the parties have secretaries so that things can be arranged, and the
many, many letters organised or prioritised.
But all you people who are against state political funding
on cost grounds need to be aware of just how small the cost of running a party is. It
can be done for about £3-4 million a year for each major party. The only reason why it’s now a lot more than that is because there is no
restriction of how much money a political party may receive in year. Therefore they currently try to out do each other by spending it on whatever
money can buy.
Since we have 3 major political parties we’re talking £12 million a year for the political system of 60 million people. That’s 20p each, or 0.38
pence a week.
Personally I wouldn’t willing pick 20p out of a urinal, but I’d rather pick 20p out of a urinal than live in a year in a Britain that’s
I'm a patriot!!
Also compare whatever money may be spent under a state funded system with the expenditure of the state.
As you can see our government spends a massive £552 billion year and receives 516 billion.
I have a theory that money is being lauded through people like Abrahams to support the interests of another nation. However even if it’s only to
make millions through doggy planning permission, changes in how we tax businesses ect, I still think both this damage, and the way it is committed is
worth more than 12 million, a figure so small in state expenditure you would need the Hubble Telescope (or perhaps just many bureaucrats) to locate
I believe those who worry about state political funding on cost grounds can either be the most tight-fisted, unpatriotic (even). Or they can be the
suckers of a privately owned biased British media which knows it has various interests in a political system that can be shaped by other wealthy
business (or dare I say it; allied nations).
Does for example: a pro Iraq war, pro Israel, (presently) pro Labour Party man like Rupert Murdoch instruct his employees in the Sun, Times, Star,
News of the World, Sky news or Fox News (ect) to go ape over the idea of state political funding to: save nations like Britain 12 million quid? Or:
For deeper motives his media fails to mention in its constructed arguments?
If we are really to be tight-fisted enough to save 60 million 12 million then I would go with the Tories idea of a £50 thousand pound gap on
donations. However to make it fair on Labour I believe there should be an absolute limit on how much the 3 major political parties can receive a year,
and this may indeed total about 4 million pounds.
However I oppose financial restrictions on new political parties unless it’s the same as the major. This is because a consequence of our voting
system is to give them a very uphill struggle, it’s also because I believe competition between minor and major parties should not be encouraged, but