Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B700 - Political Parties Funding Bill 2014 Watch

    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    B700 - Political Parties Funding Bill 2014, TSR UKIP



    Political Parties Funding Bill 2014

    An Act to redefine the relationship between political parties and individuals.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1 | Donations

    (1) The maximum donation to a political party from an individual will be £7,500 per annum.

    (2) Unions and organisations will have their donation amount capped at £7,500 per annum.
    (3) Members of unions and organisations must opt into political party donations.
    (4) Donations to political parties must not exceed 3% of revenue for the organisation or union.
    (5) Unions or organisations donating to political parties will require individual members to state in writing they wish to be affiliated to the political party before their donation can be counted.
    (6) Unions or organisations must not include any references to political parties on membership papers. Unions and organisations will be required to wait at least 3 months after a member has joined before asking member if they would like to donate towards - or be affiliated with - a political party

    2 | Funding

    (1) Political parties with at least 7 Members of the European Parliament, will receive £1.25 per vote at the start of a new term in the European Parliament.
    (2) Political parties with at least 7 Members of Parliament will receive £1.25 per vote at the start of a new Parliamentary term.

    2 | Campaigning

    (1) The total campaign budget for a political party during an election must not exceed the equivalent of £25,000 per seat available at the election.

    (1) This bill shall be cited as the Political Party Funding Act 2014.
    (2) The date of commencement shall be the 1st July 2015 coming into effect for application with the European Elections in 2019 and any subsequent national election
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is a version of the recommendations made in a report by report by the Committee for Standards in Public Life, also known as the Kelly Report. Big money is being taken out of politics. The bill makes it harder for massive unions, corporations or extremely wealthy individuals manipulate politics.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.

    I have no intention of helping minor parties even if the union points are good.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I do not agree with my taxes funding political parties. This Bill also seems to give no money to parties in Northern Ireland or indeed the SNP or Plaid Cymru by the threshold it sets.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I imagine individuals can circumvent these rules when donating via businesses.

    The simplicity of unions means that this rule will hit them (and us) more than any one else it seems.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, because of Rakas's and TBM's reasons.

    I also disagree with taxes funding political parties as they could be put to better use i.e. improving the economy/NHS.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Aye


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No. I think political parties need money to get their voice heard.
    • Offline

      15
      Oh lord no, I firmly believe that I should be able to donate as much as I wish, if I wish to donate £100k I should be allowed to do so
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by arminb)
      No. I think political parties need money to get their voice heard.
      (Original post by tehFrance)
      Oh lord no, I firmly believe that I should be able to donate as much as I wish, if I wish to donate £100k I should be allowed to do so
      But do you guya think there should be no limit at all? Would you agree with something like this but way more loose?

      Just trying to get to know some points of view, no conflict intended.
      Offline

      22
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tehFrance)
      Oh lord no, I firmly believe that I should be able to donate as much as I wish, if I wish to donate £100k I should be allowed to do so
      Would you donate £100k, even if you knew none of your desirable policies would be implemented?
      • Wiki Support Team
      • Welcome Squad
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      I'd support curtailing the amounts that businesses, trade unions, etc. can donate to parties because I don't think powerful organisations should be allowed to influence the political scene in any way at all, but I think it needs to be uncapped for individuals. Being able to donate to a cause you are passionate about is a part of our own individual political freedom in many ways. It may come with the risk that our parties become controlled by rich millionaires but I consider that much less undesirable than big business and hyper unions because put simply, the impact of having such powerful entities influencing our politics is going to be more damaging than a few wealthy old men.

      I'm not a supporter of state funding either. I'd rather see political funding driven by the people passionate about the causes, I don't want that money coming from the state, the state should focus its spending on the things that actually matter like public services and etc.
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Jarred)
      I'd support curtailing the amounts that businesses, trade unions, etc. can donate to parties because I don't think powerful organisations should be allowed to influence the political scene in any way at all, but I think it needs to be uncapped for individuals. Being able to donate to a cause you are passionate about is a part of our own individual political freedom in many ways. It may come with the risk that our parties become controlled by rich millionaires but I consider that much less undesirable than big business and hyper unions because put simply, the impact of having such powerful entities influencing our politics is going to be more damaging than a few wealthy old men.
      Disagree about the Unions. Saying that rich individuals can donate but Unions can't (and whats all this about a Trade Union that acts on behalf of many and an individual that acts on behalf of himself being somehow worse?) is ridiculous.
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      Nay.

      State funding for political parties is unjustifiable. Sure, this policy will help UKIP garner more support but that doesn't strike me as a reason to support it.
      • Offline

        15
        (Original post by That Bearded Man)
        Would you donate £100k, even if you knew none of your desirable policies would be implemented?
        No I'm not an idiot, donating is pretty much lobbying, have you not seen the Russian donations to the Tory party (they only party Russians donate to within the UK), it's done to protect Russian interests although this time I doubt it'll pay off.
        • Wiki Support Team
        • Welcome Squad
        Offline

        18
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by RayApparently)
        Disagree about the Unions. Saying that rich individuals can donate but Unions can't (and whats all this about a Trade Union that acts on behalf of many and an individual that acts on behalf of himself being somehow worse?) is ridiculous.
        Unions are powerful special interests organisations, rich blokes are just blokes with a bit of money. That rich bloke can say "Do this or I walk", the party loses a bit of money but one man can only do so much, whereas the union can say "Do this or several million people walk out of their jobs next week". There's a reason why unions exist: because "collective bargaining" is more powerful than "every man for himself". That party loses money (more money than the rich bloke can offer in all likelihood) and suffers a severe economic hit, a logistics disaster and a potential PR cockup if the public is on the union's side. Rich and powerful unions are more rich and powerful than generic rich blokes. I'm not saying either is good, but I have to make a compromise somewhere and that's where I cut it off. I would say no to union funding, no to business funding, no to any sort of collective funding. But a big yes to the individual.
        • Wiki Support Team
        Offline

        20
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Jarred)
        Unions are powerful special interests organisations, rich blokes are just blokes with a bit of money. That rich bloke can say "Do this or I walk", the party loses a bit of money but one man can only do so much, whereas the union can say "Do this or several million people walk out of their jobs next week". There's a reason why unions exist: because "collective bargaining" is more powerful than "every man for himself". That party loses money (more money than the rich bloke can offer in all likelihood) and suffers a severe economic hit, a logistics disaster and a potential PR cockup if the public is on the union's side. Rich and powerful unions are more rich and powerful than generic rich blokes. I'm not saying either is good, but I have to make a compromise somewhere and that's where I cut it off. I would say no to union funding, no to business funding, no to any sort of collective funding. But a big yes to the individual.
        The Union has more influence because the Union represents the interest of a great deal many more people. This is a reasonable and justifiable thing.

        Also, this year the Unite Union donated £1.8mil to the Labour Party. One man (Sir Hintz) donated £1.5mil to the Conservative Party. Overall the Conservative party garnered £2.2mil more in donations. Unite represents millions of UK workers and is the largest Union in the country, Sir Micheal Hintz represents himself. I fail to see how that is a proportional amount of influence. If you're going to 'say no to union funding' then you should also be saying no to that kind of funding by individuals or you're just kicking the Labour Party in the *******s (which may of course be your intention ).
       
       
       
      TSR Support Team

      We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

      Updated: August 6, 2014
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.