Miliband wants cap on party donations
Discussion
Quotes from Ed Miliband - I've truncated most of the waffle.
Ed Miliband said:
We cannot solve our problems as a country unless we change what is wrong with our politics. And we cannot change what is wrong with our politics unless we change the way it is funded.
Allegations about party funding have hit the Conservative Party in recent weeks. But they affect not just David Cameron and his party but faith in politics in general. Peter Cruddas was forced to resign as the Tory treasurer for selling access to rich individuals. This was a Conservative scandal. But many people reading about it will just conclude it is another reason not to trust politicians of any party.
First, if there is to be a cap on donations we must start by getting serious about the level at which it is set.
The Tories say they want to limit donations to £50,000 a year. That is twice the average annual wage. The Tories would allow an individual to donate £250,000, or a married couple to give £500,000, over the course of a parliament. David Cameron has said he does not regard any donation of less than £50,000 as “significant”. But how many people could even consider giving such a sum in one year to a political party? A cap set at £50,000 would be unacceptable because it would still keep big money in politics and still leave parties open to questions about buying access.
To tackle this problem we need a strong, low cap. Sir Christopher Kelly’s report on this issue suggested a cap of £10,000. But even that is still out of the reach of most individuals and high by international standards.
Instead, we should cap donations at £5,000. A low cap is essential if we are to achieve our objective to take big money out of politics. Anything other than a strong and low cap would be unacceptable.
People will ask what a cap of this sort means for trade union funding for the Labour Party.
I believe it is only fair that a cap we want to impose on companies and individuals should also cover donations from trade unions.
This will cost Labour millions of pounds but I also believe it is these kind of difficult decisions which are necessary to make change happen.
So what do we think? When he says 'high by international standards' what does that mean? Does anybody have any information about any sort of donation caps imposed in other countries?Allegations about party funding have hit the Conservative Party in recent weeks. But they affect not just David Cameron and his party but faith in politics in general. Peter Cruddas was forced to resign as the Tory treasurer for selling access to rich individuals. This was a Conservative scandal. But many people reading about it will just conclude it is another reason not to trust politicians of any party.
First, if there is to be a cap on donations we must start by getting serious about the level at which it is set.
The Tories say they want to limit donations to £50,000 a year. That is twice the average annual wage. The Tories would allow an individual to donate £250,000, or a married couple to give £500,000, over the course of a parliament. David Cameron has said he does not regard any donation of less than £50,000 as “significant”. But how many people could even consider giving such a sum in one year to a political party? A cap set at £50,000 would be unacceptable because it would still keep big money in politics and still leave parties open to questions about buying access.
To tackle this problem we need a strong, low cap. Sir Christopher Kelly’s report on this issue suggested a cap of £10,000. But even that is still out of the reach of most individuals and high by international standards.
Instead, we should cap donations at £5,000. A low cap is essential if we are to achieve our objective to take big money out of politics. Anything other than a strong and low cap would be unacceptable.
People will ask what a cap of this sort means for trade union funding for the Labour Party.
I believe it is only fair that a cap we want to impose on companies and individuals should also cover donations from trade unions.
This will cost Labour millions of pounds but I also believe it is these kind of difficult decisions which are necessary to make change happen.
muffinmenace said:
"I believe it is only fair that a cap we want to impose on companies and individuals should also cover donations from trade unions."
So he's changed his tune. Or is that a per donation from each trade union member?
Sorry I left this out of the post, Miliband does go on to saySo he's changed his tune. Or is that a per donation from each trade union member?
Ed Miliband also said:
The 3 million levy payers - nurses, teaching assistants, engineers, shopworkers - would continue to be linked to the Labour Party through the £3 or so they pay each year through their unions.
Ok fair enough, but isnt there a chance this plan could merely make the Trade Unions richer but stop the Labour party benefitting from that?So Minigland wants to cap donations then?
I hope he means that unions will no longer be allowed to exercise their might with their money and "political" funding then.
AND that bent "donations" to the unions (see £14m "training" money that Gormless Brown gave to the unions from government kitties) and any other support of unions will also be limited (hopefully to nil!).
Sure put a cap on donations eg of £50K, but that must apply across the board and not exclude unions and their minions....
I hope he means that unions will no longer be allowed to exercise their might with their money and "political" funding then.
AND that bent "donations" to the unions (see £14m "training" money that Gormless Brown gave to the unions from government kitties) and any other support of unions will also be limited (hopefully to nil!).
Sure put a cap on donations eg of £50K, but that must apply across the board and not exclude unions and their minions....
Well the way I read what he said it looks like he's saying each Union can only give £5,000 irrespective of how much the Union members give the Union itself, but the Union members will still have their 'affilition' with the Labour Party via the small fee they pay. If that was the case this would indeed cost the Labour Party millions of pounds, so much so I'm surprised Miliband is floating this and I'd be interested to hear what the Unions make of it as he's clearly saying less money = less power.
I can't see how it would be done without public funding of political parties and until the politicians start listening to their electorate and really representing them then I can't see many people in favour of that.
Personally I couldn't care less if someone wants to spend their money donating to their favourite political party although I think there needs to be a degree of openness. Why not allow donations to be made into a trust of some kind for each party in such a way that the party would not be aware of who had donated (or perhaps how much they had donated). This might stop, or at least, reduce any undue influence by individuals or unions. Just a thought.
I think it's a bit rich for Milliband to bring this subject up bearing in mind that he owes his position to the unions. Would any changes to Labour Party funding effect the union influence I wonder.
Personally I couldn't care less if someone wants to spend their money donating to their favourite political party although I think there needs to be a degree of openness. Why not allow donations to be made into a trust of some kind for each party in such a way that the party would not be aware of who had donated (or perhaps how much they had donated). This might stop, or at least, reduce any undue influence by individuals or unions. Just a thought.
I think it's a bit rich for Milliband to bring this subject up bearing in mind that he owes his position to the unions. Would any changes to Labour Party funding effect the union influence I wonder.
martin84 said:
Ok fair enough, but isnt there a chance this plan could merely make the Trade Unions richer but stop the Labour party benefitting from that?
Is this a speech from April or has he said the same thing again?Milliband mentions Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendation of a £10,000 limit. What he fails to mention is that Sir Christopher also recommended "that it would only be reasonable to to regard trade unions affiliation fees as the bundling together of a series of individual payments to which the cap would be applied individually if:
• the unions were to change to an arrangement in which their members were required to opt in to the payment of an affiliation fee on their behalf to the Labour Party, instead of opting out;
• their members were able not to opt in to the affiliation fee without opting out of the other activities financed out of their union’s political fund; and
• certain other conditions were met to prevent affiliation fees being manipulated so as to exert improper influence."
Three points which Milliband opposes.
He's just another scumbag political nakedly out to cripple the other side while feathering his own nest.
It's a key question for any advanced democracy and (putting the Union issue to one side for a moment) individual donations in the tens of thousands should be a major cause for concern, especially when considered within the context of the degree of dishonesty (expenses) and corruption that is present in modern politics.
Well neither party agrees with everything in the report do they? The Conservative's are probably quite happy to leave the current status quo as it is. They'd both lose millions if Milibands £5k cap ever came in and they would be forced to adapt. I would still think the Conservative's could raise the most even with this cap so I think Miliband would put his own party at a disadvantage.
The cynic in me suspects we'll see lots of 'devolved' Trade Unions pop up if this cap ever came in.
The cynic in me suspects we'll see lots of 'devolved' Trade Unions pop up if this cap ever came in.
ninja-lewis said:
He's just another scumbag political nakedly out to cripple the other side while feathering his own nest.
Anyone who thinks otherwise, must be seriously deluded or believes everything the Guardian prints. Shame he isn't so vocal on rigged postal votes, inconsistent constitional boundaries, and HofL reform.I was trying to keep this thread on party funding. We've known for years the Tories are reliant on a select band of wealthy individuals and Labour are in trade union pockets. Both of them take influence from their backers whether they admit it or not so the question is how do we stop it?
martin84 said:
I was trying to keep this thread on party funding. We've known for years the Tories are reliant on a select band of wealthy individuals and Labour are in trade union pockets. Both of them take influence from their backers whether they admit it or not so the question is how do we stop it?
martin84 said:
I was trying to keep this thread on party funding. We've known for years the Tories are reliant on a select band of wealthy individuals and Labour are in trade union pockets. Both of them take influence from their backers whether they admit it or not so the question is how do we stop it?
The question is SHOULD we stop it? I am of the view that there is much wrong with the current system because it's foibles and limitations are clear to see. If individuals want to spend their money, be it a fiver, 5 grand or 500,000k, why should they not be allowed to do so? Likewise if people want to organise and combine their efforts to support a party to the tune of millions then why shouldn't they? That's democracy, that's freedom. The system works because the influence (or in most cases the lack of it) is plain to see. I would tweak the system in a few ways though:
1. All individual donations greater than £100 in any year should be published, giving donars name. (other details should be held privately by an inspectorate)
2. All trade union donations by members should be on an "opt in" basis.
3, All corporate and union (or any other type of body) donations should be fully published.
Why not link the article instead of your self edited version?
Taking big money out of politics
So this wouldn't have much impact on Labour, but a massive impact on the other parties. He's a slimy tosser.
Personally I think that people should be able to do what they want with their money. If I want to see a kidney to fund the Tooting People's Front, I should be able to.
Taking big money out of politics
So this wouldn't have much impact on Labour, but a massive impact on the other parties. He's a slimy tosser.
Personally I think that people should be able to do what they want with their money. If I want to see a kidney to fund the Tooting People's Front, I should be able to.
MX7 said:
Why not link the article instead of your self edited version?
I didn't edit it, I merely removed most of his waffle to focus on the meat of the article which is the £5k cap idea. I didnt think people would be bored enough to read all of it - I only made it 3/4 of the way through.andymadmak said:
The question is SHOULD we stop it? I am of the view that there is much wrong with the current system because it's foibles and limitations are clear to see. If individuals want to spend their money, be it a fiver, 5 grand or 500,000k, why should they not be allowed to do so?
Well on the face of it thats fine but the fact is money talks. Should a small group of individuals be able to influence public policy purely because they fund the party? This is like that argument last year about lobbyists, usually the people on the other side of whatever is being lobbied dont have lots of money for their own lobbyists so should we let policy be shaped according to whose got the most money? I'd say thats the polar opposite of democracy.The other issue is a change in party funding would take some of the self-interested mudslinging out of politics. Its easy for the Tories to slam Labour as acting in Unions interests because of where their money comes from and its easy for Labour to slate the Tories for pandering to rich backers. The parties currently serve a small group of people behind them with lots of money, they're supposed to act in the interests of the wider public but both main parties act out of self interest.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff