If the UK is a democracy, why are the rich allowed to fund the parties?

like what is up with that? Why are the rich given a disproportionate influence in how the nation is run? I hate that.

(Not to mention the media which is also owned by the rich, heck even the BBC is subservient to the state)

Reply 1

Doctor_Einstein

19

Original post by Barack Obama

like what is up with that? Why are the rich given a disproportionate influence in how the nation is run? I hate that.

(Not to mention the media which is also owned by the rich, heck even the BBC is subservient to the state)

The media can't force you to vote for anyone.

Reply 2

albertrobson1

5

Well said Barack, it's a shame this is your final term. I think you could achieve a lot more given the time.

Reply 3

Sammydemon

18

Original post by Barack Obama

like what is up with that? Why are the rich given a disproportionate influence in how the nation is run? I hate that.

(Not to mention the media which is also owned by the rich, heck even the BBC is subservient to the state)

It may be a democracy but we still live in a capitalist system. You may choose who you vote for and you may choose who you fund. If you have more money you can give more funds but you still only personally represent one vote.

Reply 4

T.L

5

Original post by Barack Obama

like what is up with that? Why are the rich given a disproportionate influence in how the nation is run? I hate that.

(Not to mention the media which is also owned by the rich, heck even the BBC is subservient to the state)

Because the poor are allowed to, and rich people are also allowed to vote. Alternatively, all political activists could work for free and pay their own expenses.

How would you fund political parties? If the state funded them then heck they'd be subservient to the state too. If they have no funding at all, then the only politicians would be people who could afford to do it for free which some suggest might give the rich a disproportionate influence.

As a further point, it'd be disastrous to have a political system which ignored the economy and the means of sustaining the life of the population. There must be a strong private sector in order to have a healthy economy. There must be a very very healthy economy to pay for the social spending socialists want. You can't have a nation, or a society - either fair or unfair - without having money and the means to generate it.

Reply 5

gladders

16

Yeah, not sure what your issue is, OP. We are a democracy as nobody forces you to vote any particular way, and we have legislation on the books that regulates the influence of wealthy donations. It may not be perfect, but there is no perfect way.

Reply 6

United1892

12

The only question is whether there should be a cap.

Reply 7

RF_PineMarten

18

Original post by T.L

Because the poor are allowed to, and rich people are also allowed to vote. Alternatively, all political activists could work for free and pay their own expenses.

How would you fund political parties? If the state funded them then heck they'd be subservient to the state too. If they have no funding at all, then the only politicians would be people who could afford to do it for free which some suggest might give the rich a disproportionate influence.

I don't get your point. Party donations don't fund mp salaries or expenses. They fund things like conferences and election campaigns.

Reply 8

ChaoticButterfly

20

Bourgeoisie democracy. :banana:

Reply 9

T.L

5

Original post by RFowler

I don't get your point. Party donations don't fund mp salaries or expenses. They fund things like conferences and election campaigns.

They fund the activities of political parties. In the absence of donations, there would be no political parties.

Reply 10

username1148663

21

Original post by Barack Obama

like what is up with that? Why are the rich given a disproportionate influence in how the nation is run? I hate that.

(Not to mention the media which is also owned by the rich, heck even the BBC is subservient to the state)

In answer to your question in the title.

Because the public is stupid and moans when the idea of state funding comes up

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 11

MindTheGaps

17

Original post by paul514

In answer to your question in the title.

Because the public is stupid and moans when the idea of state funding comes up

Posted from TSR Mobile

I do enjoy it when 'pro-democracy' arguments hinge on the public being idiots.

Each person gets one vote, thus democracy. The funding of parties is only an issue if you think the public are fundamentally so stupid that they'll just vote for whoever has the shinier advert, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Reply 12

username1148663

21

Original post by Rinsed

I do enjoy it when 'pro-democracy' arguments hinge on the public being idiots.

Each person gets one vote, thus democracy. The funding of parties is only an issue if you think the public are fundamentally so stupid that they'll just vote for whoever has the shinier advert, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

They vote on false narratives because party machinery paid for by donors pumps it out all over the place

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 13

MindTheGaps

17

Original post by paul514

They vote on false narratives because party machinery paid for by donors pumps it out all over the place

Posted from TSR Mobile

Who says which narratives are false?

The system actually works reasonably well. We have a pretty rigorous political debate in this country, and people are far from merely exposed to one side of each argument. That's more democratic than a system where some sides of the debate are constrained.

Reply 14

scrotgrot

16

The problem is there can't be state funding as the parties have no constitutional status. I think it would be a big mistake to formalise the parties in this way unless we had PR. Of course parties do receive Short money depending on their performance at general elections.

A party like Labour can raise funds in novel ways from normal people, it just requires a bit of vision.

Original post by Rinsed

I do enjoy it when 'pro-democracy' arguments hinge on the public being idiots.

Each person gets one vote, thus democracy. The funding of parties is only an issue if you think the public are fundamentally so stupid that they'll just vote for whoever has the shinier advert, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

The public are that stupid. We need economics especially to be routinely taught in schools.

Reply 15

Barack Obama

OP

7

Original post by Rinsed

The funding of parties is only an issue if you think the public are fundamentally so stupid that they'll just vote for whoever has the shinier advert, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Yeah that sounds about right

IMO We should abolish all donations and allow parties to only receive money from membership fees. More democratic.

Reply 16

welshieee

2

Original post by gladders

Yeah, not sure what your issue is, OP. We are a democracy as nobody forces you to vote any particular way, and we have legislation on the books that regulates the influence of wealthy donations. It may not be perfect, but there is no perfect way.

It is true that nobody is forced to vote in a certain way but people are continuously pressured through the use of propaganda by the media and parties to do so. Some of the tropes used by the media to try and manipulative the line of thinking in the country are enough to make a Soviet Union politician proud.

Sadly, democracy kind of goes out of the window when this level of manipulation takes hold. I think we'd see a much fairer system if parties were able to libel one another because at the moment the constant smears have led to so many believing complete garbage that they then vote on the basis of complete falsehoods.

Reply 17

gladders

16

Original post by welshieee

It is true that nobody is forced to vote in a certain way but people are continuously pressured through the use of propaganda by the media and parties to do so. Some of the tropes used by the media to try and manipulative the line of thinking in the country are enough to make a Soviet Union politician proud.

Sadly, democracy kind of goes out of the window when this level of manipulation takes hold. I think we'd see a much fairer system if parties were able to libel one another because at the moment the constant smears have led to so many believing complete garbage that they then vote on the basis of complete falsehoods.

As someone earlier said, it's funny when arguments about democracy rely on assuming majority of the public are complete morons. Attempts to manipulate the public are not new, and not the exclusive preserve of the right. The public are a cynical bunch and those attempts are considerably less effective than you assume.

All of this seems to me to be a symptom of the assumption of 'my views aren't unpopular, their lack of success isn't my fault!'

If the UK is a democracy, why are the rich allowed to fund the parties?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you