.... and a chance to influence party policy. What gets me is that people think this doesn't go off. Why else would anyone put a quarter of a million into a party for no return. It aint just the tories either ...they're all at it probably or else they wouldn't get funding. All bent i am afraid.............. hth .
Key difference with Labour is that the vast majority of their funding comes from the Trade Unions, democratic and elected bodies who represent their members. Not a bloke with a few quid who wants a trade levy to help him sell electrical resistors.
Agreed but the unions also have a large say in the running of the labour party........ Can't get away from the fact that if you pay enough money into something, you more often than not get your 'moneys worth' so to speak. hth
Financial influence at the top of government is wrong whether its a rich businessman or a trade union. The government is elected to server the county and not the interests of those who can afford it.
I agree entirely, but until you've got a system where political parties are funded by the state/tax payer surely a party being funded by a democratically elected body representing millions is the least worst of all the options? With the Trade Union system you're not representing those that can afford it, you're representing the mass of ordinary fowk.
The only difference here is who's in power. If Unions, bankers, businessmen, druids, whoever want to give a political party money in the hope of influencing policy prior to an election then fine - at election time the voters can decide if they like those policies. Once in power however, the rules should change - Blair did it, Cameron's doing it - money influencing the actions of the elected Govt - we don't get a say in that, and Parliament probably won't either. Wrong.