BNP entitled to some British funds

Permabanned
Joined
27 Sep 2006
Posts
326
To be fair, they're merely getting what they're legally entitled to by legal means. Just seems like an excuse to diss the BNP really, not that I care. :p
 
Man of Honour
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
25,821
Location
Glasgow
crystaline said:
They should get private corporate funds instead?

I'd prefer it in some ways if they had to raise the funds themselves but then in many ways it comes down to who is the best at 'glad-handing' rather than who actually has the best policies which is presumably what this form of funding is designed to achieve. Maybe the best solution would be to have everyone raise their own funds but with a cap on the amount that could be spent on campaigning, any surplus must be reinvested in the community?

This article is a bit of a non-story as it is within the rules, bit sneaky as it may seem. However if people were to vote for a BNP minister on the basis that they 'might' move into their constituency and 'might' have it's best interests at heart then they probably deserve everything they get.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Jul 2006
Posts
3,322
Location
London
How else would they fund it?

Not a completely bad thing to be honest, some of their views need to be brought to light, for example tightening immigration. Other policies aren't quite so good, like leaving the EU.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2004
Posts
2,836
Location
Auckland
This is pretty standard. Don't blame the press or the system. We as a public voted for them and allowed ourselves to be taken in by their policies. Now they have the same right as everyone to stand up and give their message out. I just hope the scottish people take their opportunity to laugh and vote for someone else, unanimously.
 
Suspended
Joined
12 Aug 2006
Posts
1,373
Location
CandyMountain
robmiller said:
Corporate and individual donations, yeah. Why on earth should the average taxpayer be forced to pay to support a party they almost certainly don't agree with?

Do you not see what influence corporate sums can do to a government ?

Take a look at the US for a start..
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2004
Posts
2,836
Location
Auckland
robmiller said:
Corporate and individual donations, yeah. Why on earth should the average taxpayer be forced to pay to support a party they almost certainly don't agree with?

Because that is true of most of the political parties for most people. If you only give the power of speech to those with the money and influence to buy it then you are in dangerous territory.

Our system gaurantees that a genuine poltical party has the opportunity to put its views accross. It's called democracy... ideally I think that all parties should recieve their funding from the state and from no other source. Possibly based on their membership. That way you remove the chance of large industry/certain wealthy individuals from swaying the balance of policy.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
16,522
Location
London
crystaline said:
Do you not see what influence corporate sums can do to a government ?

Take a look at the US for a start..

There will always be corporate influences and donations, though: I'd rather have corporate donations and no taxpayer donations than both.

So long as donations are completely transparent, I'm fine with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom