Labour Party

[elmarko]

God I hope not, human rights would go out the door, public debt would grow 10fold every year. It would be a disaster. It would be like daily mail in charge.

Doing what's best for the public as a whole isn't doing what the public wants .

Given the power I'd completely ignore the public & do what works at solving social issues, but giving up the choice to make sub-optimal decisions seems to be something the public may not take to that well.

I do like some of the old Labour politicians (like Tony Benn), at least they seemed to genuinely care about the poor/average working class person in the UK (while the economic policies may not be the most optimal, that was never the key focus) at least they had a moral high-ground.

Now?, the difference between the main political groups isn't worth the trip to the voting booth.

 

[Castiel]

The Unions will simply start progressing their own candidates, either independently or through the creation of another Political Party. Labour will get hamstrung by the removal of Trade Union money so I expect all this talk will turn out to be exactly that...talk.

There shouldn't be an automatic opt-in system anyway, not for anything. The individual should choose whether they wish to opt in to something, no-one else.

 

[Emjay86]

The problem with Labour is they have nothing in common with the Tories...

Now I understand that the Tories are not the most loved party going but frankly they are doing what needs to be done. True they are also taking hte **** here and there but at least some of the rulings are beneficial to the country rather than 'Were out of money... lets borrow some more! Free university for Scottish people yay!'.

 

[GAC]

something i found rather worrying about all of this was fatty prescott on tv the other day saying "we need publicly funded partys" if that ever happens god help us.

 

[elmarko]

something i found rather worrying about all of this was fatty prescott on tv the other day saying "we need publicly funded partys" if that ever happens god help us.

Do you think having Labour in the pockets of the unions & Conservatives in the pockets of big corporations is preferable?. (which is the result of our current system).

Publicly funded to a base level, then gain additional funding from votes seems to be more reasonable than what we have now.

It would also make it easier for new political groups to start up, assuming it had a number of checks & balances to ensure it can't be scammed for easy cash I think it couldn't be any worse than what we have now.

We need to remove the negative incentives.

 

[Castiel]

Do you think having Labour in the pockets of the unions & Conservatives in the pockets of big corporations is preferable?. (which is the result of our current system).

Publicly funded to a base level, then gain additional funding from votes seems to be more reasonable than what we have now.

It would also make it easier for new political groups to start up, assuming it had a number of checks & balances to ensure it can't be scammed for easy cash I think it couldn't be any worse than what we have now.

We need to remove the negative incentives.

Additional funding from votes?

What do you mean by that?

 

[GAC]

Do you think having Labour in the pockets of the unions & Conservatives in the pockets of big corporations is preferable?. (which is the result of our current system).

Publicly funded to a base level, then gain additional funding from votes seems to be more reasonable than what we have now.

It would also make it easier for new political groups to start up, assuming it had a number of checks & balances to ensure it can't be scammed for easy cash I think it couldn't be any worse than what we have now.

We need to remove the negative incentives.

and do you trust the yahoo's in parliament and the lords to make sure it is fair and not lob sided to the current main party's.

true i don't trust the people funding the party's as the majority of them are in it for personal gain. IF we do go publicly funded it needs some major checks installed as lets be blunt mp's no matter how honest seem to get dirty eventually.

 

[elmarko]

Additional funding from votes?

What do you mean by that?

I mean, if we want people to be able to continue to "donate to a party" for a democracy to work it can't be unbalanced by a vast differences in personal wealth.

If the donation is done from the public purse & distributed based on the amount of votes they receive (assuming that element is considered critical for the public) party funding will not be unbalanced by certain wealthy individuals or organisations upsetting the balance & having more valuable votes.

If you can buy policies by donating more (as unions/businesses/wealthy individuals can do) - then what's the point voting?, really - why have this sham mockery of a democracy when it's undermined by wealth - we either need to fix this element or stop pretending we live in a "fair democracy".

and do you trust the yahoo's in parliament and the lords to make sure it is fair and not lob sided to the current main party's.

true i don't trust the people funding the party's as the majority of them are in it for personal gain. IF we do go publicly funded it needs some major checks installed as lets be blunt mp's no matter how honest seem to get dirty eventually.

You are totally correct - which is why we should never trust people to behave.

We should structure the system in such a way it's impossible to misbehave (this is the only way to remove corruption), via some pretty solid checks & balances.

 

[Freddie1980]

The sooner the unions abandon Labour to thier Thatcherist fantasies the better imo.

And split the left vote 3 ways? That won't happen.

 

[Castiel]

I mean, if we want people to be able to continue to "donate to a party" for a democracy to work it can't be unbalanced by a vast differences in personal wealth.

If the donation is done from the public purse & distributed based on the amount of votes they receive (assuming that element is considered critical for the public) party funding will not be unbalanced by certain wealthy individuals or organisations upsetting the balance & having more valuable votes.

That's what I was afraid of. Funding should never be assessed on how many votes a party received in the last election...that would create a potential single party dynamic whereas funding dictates votes, not to mention the buying of votes and all the corruption that entails.

What would be better is if funding was based on the amount of candidates standing rather than the amount of votes they receive, with upper limits for each candidate assessed on the size and population dynamic of the constituency being contested, this would negate the potential of the most successful party in one election being the best funded and potentially the most successful in subsequent elections due to their greater funding per Candidate.

 

[elmarko]

That's what I was afraid of. Funding should never be assessed on how many votes a party received in the last election...that would create a potential single party dynamic whereas funding dictates votes, not to mention the buying of votes and all the corruption that entails.

True, but we have all of those problems now - in that the only parties which get any funding have already agreed to a single "vision" of the UK which conforms to standard business interests.

We have a single party with many different faces.

What would be better is if funding was based on the amount of candidates standing rather than the amount of votes they receive, this would negate the potential of the most successful party in one election being the best funded and potentially the most successful in subsequent elections due to their greater funding per Candidate.

This could work assuming you could stand as a candidate for free (as otherwise we are back to square one).

 

[Castiel]

True, but we have all of those problems now - in that the only parties which get any funding have already agreed to a single "vision" of the UK which conforms to standard business interests.

We have a single party with many different faces.

I don't accept that is actually true...there are fundamental differences between the political parties in the UK, particularly socially...they may follow a similar economic model, but how they manifest and apply that is different.

This could work assuming you could stand as a candidate for free (as otherwise we are back to square one).

There is no reason why a minimum vote system cannot be incorporated into the funding system to stop people standing "just for a laugh".

 

[elmarko]

I don't accept that is actually true...there are fundamental differences between the political parties in the UK, particularly socially...they may follow a similar economic model, but how they manifest and apply that is different.

On a few token issues I agree, regarding historic conservatism vs progressivism.

But the economic system is significantly more important - sometimes I seems as though the social issues are being slowly changed to give the image of progress (Which the main system which causes the real social problems gets ignored).

Maybe I'm just a pessimist.

There is no reason why a minimum vote system cannot be incorporated into the funding system to stop people standing "just for a laugh".

Yeah, that could work.

A step away from our current system would a good one, as far too many negative incentives exist for our current system to really function.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

And split the left vote 3 ways? That won't happen.

There are barely any "true" left wing voters anymore so it's not like anyone would notice.

There are only 15 unions that still affiliate to the Labour party anyway and they are deluding themselves if they think the Labour party represents them in any way - this should have been blindingly obvious when Labour failed to repeal any of Thatchers anti-trade union policies. None of the teaching unions affiliate and neither does the biggest civil service union (PCS) - they've smelt the coffee and abandoned Labour to their death throes.

It's time for all the other unions and their members to form a new working class party. It'll have no chance of forming a government but at least it'd be an effective opposition for a change.

 

[StriderX]

How is it that after all these years of the lamest leader ever, suddenly becomes shining beacon of hope.


Hmm...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...think about it people.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I'm wondering what the wealthy Miliband brothers, not to mention Ed's wife on 200k, have remotely in common with socialism and social justice or share empathy with genuinely struggling people ? These type of champagne socialists are nauseating.

As for union trouble, this is Ed'd chance to grow a pair although I doubt he will.