Off Topic Political Debate

meanwhile:

please log in to view this image

Austerity?

 

Isn't photoshop wonderful eh? My holiday photos now always have blue skies whatever the real weather ?

 

http://www.apimages.com/metadata/In...ed-King-/f8b2dadee6e0da11af9f0014c2589dfb/9/0


This is a press photo though Leo

 

So now we know where the champagne socialist label comes from. That picture goes back to 2004 when Gordon Brown was the resident.

 

Yes - shows how you have to be very careful looking at pictures and stories - I bet like here the first thought of anyone looking at that was Tories celebrating rather than Champagne Socialists. Not photoshop then but as misleading

 

The champagne socialist was Nai, who would begrudge him the odd bottle or two though? Should we associate "socialist" with frugal or not enjoying luxury? If and a big if there was a party/system that believed in and could deliver strong economics, social justice, strong borders, strong identity, sustainable and increasing wellbeing it's what I want. A combination of Bevan and Thatcher working together taking the best of each, never happen so doomed to a life of frustration.........

 

I am beginning to like the sound of your party and Party Aberdeen

 

Do people on here think that it is time to scale down British elections a little, and to control the relationship between election success and election expenditure a bit more.
The Conservatives spent 16.7 million on the election (not bad for the main austerity party), Labour spent 8 million and the Lib Dems 4.8 million. Actually the Tories spent well over a quid per vote. Where did this money come from ? Not from party membership fees. Since Cameron has been in charge of the party they have dwindled from 253,000 to 134,000 members (in fact they are not disclosing figures any more) - from this their income is about 750,000 pounds. Balance this against their sponsors - in 2014 donations to the Conservative party amounted to 28.9 million, Labour (18.7 million), Lib Dems (8.22 million). And the Green Party ? 661,410 pounds. The three main parties ramble on about debt but themselves have loans of around 13 million pounds outstanding. Is it not time to either ban sponsorship of parties altogether (or limit it more effectively) in order to both create a more level playing field and to control the corporate stranglehold on our politics ?

 

I know ... fooled me!!!

 

To your two questions

No
No

Nothing will change except the electoral boundaries.

 

Not sure where the money came from but guarantee it wasn't from taxes. They asked every member for a £25 donation not sure how many they got though.

 

Would have been nice to have a little reasoning that went behind your answers superhorns, assuming there was any.

For my part I am nervous about state funding of political parties - down there lies the route to yet more state expenditure and unless it is based on real votes cast previously (which will tend to keep the status quo) you could have some bizarre claims for emerging fringe parties - money for a new Monster Raving Loony Party anyone?
So a party then has to rely on its own members or sympathisers - which is kind of dangerous as they will expect "rewards" for their funding. However - as that money does not come out of my purse then I suppose I cannot really object. You could never have a system where a party was not allowed to gain funds from its own supporters.
I am not worried about party debt any more than I am particularly about any private debt. If the big parties go bust - ho ho ho.

Electoral boundary change is inevitable - and fair. However talking about "fair" in the context where nearly 4 million people voted UKIP and got 1 MP while less that 1.5 million in Scotland got 56 MPs is rather laughable.

 

Agreed... Cant see why we cant move towards a workable PR system... I think it is really needed.. . for fair representation more than ever.... and in Scotland.

 

Cologne asked two questions, which were really one, in which my answer was 'no'. It was a perfectly reasonable answer.

Selfishly, the reason I would not like to change the present system, which has been around an awful long time, is because it would clearly assist the other parties to detriment of the Conservatives.

I'm not sure this discussion regarding funding or the fairness of the electoral system would be topical if Labour had seized power. The BBC is heartbroken and keeps funding 'what went wrong programmes', the bias is appalling.

 

I remember the Liberals always complaining of the same thing in the 1970s.

 

It certainly won't happen for 5 years, maybe 10. It won't happen because the big two don't want.

 

That is nonsense, their homepage has been that big grinning tw@t Cameron's face for the last few days.

Typical Tory behaviour, let's keep things as they are because I'm happy and not care about fairness.

 

Bit harsh there - in any highlighting of the fairnes of the system people have pointed to UKIP and the Greens rather than Labour.

 

What I find curious is the debate as to where the sympathies of the national braodcaster lie. Time and again there are studies made as to which political party gets more air time and time and again it is always the Conservatives, wether because they are the sitting government and as such what they are doing should be reported or when in opposition they try to tear themselves apart and that is interesting. What is never commented on is the subject of the reports or the tone of the reporter.

Following on from that if we did have a government of the political left that was as draconian as some of those in eastern Europe were, would the BBC move into the roll of unofficial opposition, as some claim they are now, or would they willingly tow the party line. It goes without saying they would try to oppose a totalitarian right leaning government, until the censors arrived.

I remember Polly Toynbee as thoroughly biased in favour of anything the Labour party did or said and I heard that one of the BBC reporters was criticed for giving a favourable report to the Conservative government for some reason or other. The job of the BBC should be to report what is going on without political bias, however difficult that may be. They also need to stop tip-toing around PC terminology, if something is obvious don't give it a convoluted name so as not to offend, the Charlie Hebdo killers were just that, not jihadists, Islamists, freedom fighters, they were killers.

The BBC must find being impartial difficult when (Dame) Jenni Murray is God mother to some of Tony Tony Blair's kids, Stephanie Falnders (former economics sorrespondent) was the squeeze of Ed Milliband's and Ed Balls, not at the same time.