14:49  |  18 September 11
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Chamber of Debate

PARTY FUNDING - for just one party for all taxpaying citizens?

1P4A will not even attempt to unravel the complexities of party-funding that the David Abrahams affair has been highlighting. According to David Abrahams, he is a “serial philanthropist” being treated like a “serial murderer”. Another view suggested by Newsnight on 27 November 2007 is that these generous and frequent donations by a property developer to the Labour Party who are influential in the North East of England (where decisions on planning permission are made by individual Labour politicians), may have a more self-interested motive.

1P4A proposes a more transparent form of party funding, ie NO FUNDING AT ALL AND THE ABOLITION OF THE PARTY SYSTEM. Instead, the Political Classes should just act according to the view of those who vote under the proposed new system of Government by Referenda (which must logically be a one-party state), find individual causes to direct their principled support, rather than pledge loyalty to whoever is their current leader.

Instead of MPs representing individual parties, we would have Directors of Democracy (who would be elected by secret ballot) assisting their constituents in voting and the wording of referenda.

1P4A is a Libertarian website with the agenda of bringing about Minimum Government, and argues that Direct Democracy is its best vehicle. Because it makes more demands on the voter than the current system, it would ultimately result in less oppressive, unnecessary and expensive legislation because people would eventually get bored with voting and want to get on with their lives.

People will not vote until and unless it concerns and affects them. Those who vote will want to elect politician-administrators who will NOT keep asking them to pay more tax, embark on wasteful and dishonourable wars, or bribe the welfare claimant with the money of the welfare contributor that is the increasingly over-burdened taxpayer.

If we accept that there ought to be no representation without taxation (as was the pre-1918 view), then it is certainly arguable that greater taxation entitles the taxpayer to proportionately greater representation, just as if one were voting at a shareholders’ meeting.

There is also the view that those who don’t know and aren’t bothered should avoid giving answers to questions they do not understand. (This is what shareholders do when they receive tediously long company reports that they would rather not read.)

The political equivalent of these and the voting form will be issued to members entitled to vote. There is no need to spend money persuading and cajoling people to vote for politicians and their parties. Those who care about policy will be able to vote on policies and those who don't know and don't care and do not pay direct taxes, eg council and income tax, can be safely and justifiably disenfranchised.
Vote: Should citizens who pay more tax be allowed to have more votes?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)
Yes 26% No 74%
Yes No    
OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)
Yes 100% No 0%
Yes No         AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

Andromeda 30-Nov-2007 9:44
Referenda can be conducted on the principle of the thing.

The detail will be dealt with by the legislatory draftsmen subject to the scrutiny of its proposers and opposers.

That is the structure I propose.

I do not see why a limited franchise is necessarily more corrupt. Only people who pay taxes can vote. There is nothing stopping people who cannot vote because they pay no taxes because they do not work to get on their bikes.

If they are unable to work through no fault of their own, then they will have to trust in the goodwill of their fellow citizens.

The franchise system I propose would be similar to the structure of 1P4A. If you think the vote is being manipulated, then check in regularly to see whether your vote has been changed from NO to YES or vice versa.

It is the least you can do as an active citizen!
jeffreymarshall 29-Nov-2007 22:4
Surely, referenda can only ask very broad and simple questions, such as: 'Do you want to be in the EU or not?' Once the population has given its answer, measures can be taken next to either remove us from the EU or not. These are the broadest possible strokes of policy.
Drafting legislation, though, is surely a more complicated business, requiring that people actually sit and do it. Most of us don't have time. We leave it to others. If these others were to consult us by referenda about every small detail, no legislation would be ever be drafted at all. As, by and large, we don't have the time to concern ourselves with this day-to-day legislative business, we allow others to do the job for us. We inform them, approximately every 4-5 years, what we think of the job they've been doing. Some of them are charlatans, some aren’t. Universal suffrage actually works quite well because those who feel most alienated (presumably not large tax-payers) often don’t bother to vote at all. So their opinions don’t count anyway. And if the system appears to be corrupt when everyone is entitled to vote, it will surely be more so under a more limited franchise. Eighteenth-century elections were notoriously corrupt, as Hogarth, Rowlandson and other painters and cartoonists still testify.
Andromeda 28-Nov-2007 23:53
2 points: people did NOT die for the right to vote. Countless generations have died for their country, WITHOUT expecting the right to vote.

In case you hadn't noticed, we ARE living under an oligarchy where the Big 2 more or less have the same policies and won't give us anything the majority want, eg a referendum on the EU, lower taxes, controlled immigration, the death penalty, not to fight pointless wars in the Middle East that get us hated and targeted by Al Qaeda etc.

Giving real power to the people necessarily means you have to limit the franchise, or it will just be mob rule. The fairest way to do it is to let only the contributors have votes, rather than the current system of indiscriminate universal suffrage.

The only real democracy is direct democracy. At the moment we are only limited to choosing which set of charlatans we can trust to look after our interests.

It seems we are so oppressed that we most of us do not even recognise the source of our oppression, ie the corrupt and corrupting system that we have been indoctrinated into thinking is the best in the world, or is the best available.

Why are some of us reduced to supporting minority parties with no MPs and no immediate hope of power if our wonderful system is working so well?
redandwhitestripes 28-Nov-2007 22:46
It's simply a step backwards down the line of democracy. A throwback to the days of the oligarchs and upper classes having more power (and believe it or not we ARE past the stage now compared to one hundred or two hundred years ago)
RichardCostello 28-Nov-2007 21:13
People have died so we can have the right to vote, what you are suggesting devalues these people, freedom comes at the ultimate price, rich or poor.
All comments are subject to approval.

Tool Box

My Profile
 - My Profile
 - Edit My Profile
 - Reset My Password
My Mailbox
 - Inbox
 - Sent
 - Draft
 - Trash
Search Options
 - List of Correspondents
 - Blocked Members
 - Refer a Friend
 - Chamber of Debate
 - Classified Advertisements
 - Events
 - AAA Award