MPs must do the party funding

The past week has seen more calls from the Labour Party for them to receive state funding.

They should grow up and learn to manage themselves like any other institution in this country. Spend within your means. If you can't, then go out of business.

It's frankly stupid enough of them to have racked up millions of pounds of debt, but then to turn round to the taxpayer and ask us to foot the bill takes a consummately brass neck. As Davide says, next they'll be asking us to serve their jail terms on the back of the cash-for-peerages scandal.

The first thing these MPs must to do is get their own chequebooks out. The Scottish Socialist Party requires its Parliamentarians to donate half their salary to the party. If the 356 Labour MPs at Westminster were to donate even a sixth of their £59,000 salary (they get allowances and expenses on top of this), they would raise £3.5million this year. This is the amount they were getting from loans/donations out of General Election time anyway.

Then the rest should be made up from members fees. True, Labour membership has been in freefall for some time. But here's an idea - adopt policies that don't alienate your membership.

It seems Labour may have to go back to base principles now that big 'loans' have come to an end following the cash-for-peerages scandal. Remember, these loans were brought in to get round party funding rules that Labour themselves brought forward. Any donation over £5000 had to be declared. Loans didn't however, and thus Labour spun their way round their own law.

Jack's straw's insistence that these funds were given by "honourable" wealthy "men seeking to do their civic duty" takes a lot of believing. Money comes with strings attached, and when it comes to the Prime Minister's chief fundraiser, it's difficult to believe that the "leading international Zionist" that Lord Levy is, on whom the Labour Party depended so much on for funds, was not a little bit of a consideration when it came to policy.

The ending of this kind of influence can only be a good thing for democracy. We'll get less in the way of billboards - brilliant. Smaller political parties in terms of staff will mean less spin doctors. Then hopefully we can also get some proper accountability.

Comments

[Sadat]

What have the Muslim MPs done so far to protect the community from attacks by yobs and being unfairly stereotyped by institutionalised racism.

Why should I pay tax to see those munafiq MPs warming the benches in Q&A sessions of the parliament?

[Bilal Patel]

I am totally against state funding because it is undemocratic - the public are forced to prop up the status quo, by loading the system in favour of the mainstream parties (who might as well have identical policies as far as I am concerned) through their taxes. There is no funding for smaller parties or independents which are penalised. We effectively end up with a dictatorship that is maintained through our taxes. How can this be right?

[Mustafa Arif]

Requiring MPs to 'donate' their salary back to their party would just be state funding by the back door. If most MPs started having to do that they would just vote themselves a larger pay increase.

If there is going to be any state funding then it should be by an open and transparent mechanism.

[Osama]

Good points by Bilal and Mustafa.

Mustafa truly thinks like a Labour politician! In light of that, we need a cap on salary increases too. However, I think if MPs had to give from their own pockets, even with a hefty rise in salary, they would still find it difficult. War would break out on the benches. It would be fun.

The principle is that they would find it easier to vote for our tax money to be used for party funding than money from their own salaries. This is wrong.

If they still don't like it, then they should donate some of their office expenses - £90,000 on staff, £20,000 on office costs.