« Trident and the limits of CBA | Main | Thogging »

March 15, 2007


Mark Wadsworth

Agreed. Change "despite" to "despise" in the third to last sentence.


Done. Ta!


I agree with every point that you make here, but I think there is still an argument for state funding of some kind. I think that an US / French type of 'in-and-outer' as a replacement for the 'permanent' civil service would reduce the power of the PM and increase that of the cabinet, and I can't - at the moment - think of any way of moving from where we are now to such a system without hypothecated state funding of political parties.

Marcin Tustin

I agree, but if we must have it, then there is a least bad way to do it: give the money to the people directly (http://murthercity.blogspot.com/2006/04/state-funding-of-political-parties.html)

Andrew Zalotocky

I've no doubt that there is "an emerging agreement" among the party leaders in favour of state funding!

But it is a demonstration of how distant the political class has become from the public. Their problem is a lack of public support, so they choose a solution that is guaranteed to alienate the public even further.


By a process of logic, if there's no state funding, there must be private and many of these will be loathe to declare themselves. I don't think they should have to.

alex rossiter

Have to say I broadly agree.

One thought though. If state funding were in place, could the public not legitimately demand that political campaign material be subject to some sort of quality watchdog, with fines for those who fail to comply?


You are entirely right, S & M.


Alex: we should go further: if a politician is found lying on the campaign trail or in office, then (s)he should be prosecuted for fraud, and not only fined but sent to prison.


Yep, spot on.

Phillips is clearly a loaf short of a picnic.

People DO despise the main parties, and will boycott elections rather than vote knowing that they will also be conniving in this corrupt tax-theft. All his recommendations will achieve is even greater disengagement from politics, an unhealthier democracy and an ever-closer alliance between centralist party politicians and civil service bosses.

This has got to be halted.


I think political parties who are in such huge debt ought to be put into adminstration and wound up. And their leaders made bankrupt. That's what would happen to yer average small business in the same position.

The political parties are pretty much useless when it comes to helping real people deal with real live issues, and are merely a soap opera, to give the impression that someone cares, whilst the real power brokers shaft the rest of us.

THis countries people NEVER voted for THE OLYMPICS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THE WAR IN IRAQ etc., (they were never asked!) yet the parties on all sides carry on with these insane policies.

The fact is that most people are perfectly able to understand, and more than just discuss the issues that affect them, would dearly love to exercise that power that the venal politicians use, as a communal responsibilty - that was the finding of THE POWER INQUIRY, in 2006.


The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad