Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scots MPs funnelling public cash to parties

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 June 2009
SCOTS MPs are channelling hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money to their local parties with payments for rent, utility bills and other "services", expenses claims have revealed.
Scotland on Sunday has uncovered several cases where MPs have set up shop in their local constituency offices and then paid their own parties courtesy of the public purse.

In one case, a Liberal Democrat MP arranged for his local party to become his landlord, after which the rent was increased to sky-high prices. He claimed last night that the £14,000 a year he paid to his party was not subsidising it.

In another case, an SNP MP has paid two branches in his constituency over £50,000 in the past four years in rent, rates, printing costs and even the hire of a caravan.

Meanwhile, a Labour MP who had a constituency office opened another one run by his local party, and has since paid it more than £13,000 in rent.

None of the MPs has broken any rules and all claim they are paying fair market rates.

But critics last night said clearer lines needed to be drawn to ensure taxpayers' money was not being used to fund political parties.

In the most striking case, the Lib Dems in Dunfermline earn £21,000 a year by renting out a property to local MP Willie Rennie and MSP Jim Tolson.

Electoral Commission records show that in 2008 the Lib Dems paid just £7,050 to lease the property. Expense receipts released last week show Rennie pays £14,000 of the total, substantially more than the £6,600 he paid a private landlord before the Lib Dems took it over, although Rennie now has more office space.

He said last night the rent charged by his party included electricity and phone bills.

He continued: "I can assure you that the costs for the office reflect the actual costs for renting the office. We are not subsidising the local Lib Dems."

Asked why the local party had billed him an extra £2,000 for phone bills and electricity in 2008 when such costs were supposed to be included in his rent, he said: "When we did the estimates for what it was going to cost for the office we took a stab at it and we underestimated it. Electricity charges shot up, so we paid extra over and above our fees in order to cover the cost."

In another case, SNP MP Pete Wishart's expenses show he has paid £50,541 to the Perth and Blairgowrie branches of the SNP since 2004. Wishart rented an office from both branches, enabling each to charge the taxpayer for his occupancy.

Expense receipts show that North Tayside branch has earned more than £1,000 for printing Wishart's Westminster Matters newsletter. It also picked up £1,000 for hiring a caravan so he could carry out "mobile surgeries".

The North Tayside office in Blairgowrie also receives rent from the SNP MSP John Swinney. Wishart said that the rent he paid to his party offices had been independently assessed as the correct market rate.

The expense receipts also show that SNP colleague Angus Robertson has channelled a similar amount to his local party in Moray, by renting its office. Along with SNP MSP Richard Lochhead, the pair have paid £47,679 to the branch in rent, photocopying and utility bills since 2004. The sums nearly exceed the £50,000 cost of the building, bought by the SNP Moray branch in 2002.

Meanwhile, MP Michael Connarty has paid £13,121 to Labour's Linlithgow branch by renting out an office it leases in Bathgate. Connarty also has an office in Grangemouth, just eight miles away. He said last night: "I have a huge constituency and people in West Lothian won't take too kindly to being told that they have to go and see someone in Grangemouth."

It is estimated Labour's property company, Labour Party Properties, is being paid £50,000 in rent from MPs in Scotland. Party officials insist the arrangement is non-profit-making.

Members and their offices

WILLIE RENNIE
Liberal Democrat MP for Dunfermline and Fife West

High Street, Dunfermline

Pays: £12,000 a year to his local party, supplemented by an extra £2,000 for utilities.

Background: Lib Dems pay just £7,050 for the property lease from another company. Rennie says the £12,000 he pays to the Lib Dems includes charges for electricity and phone costs. But receipts show he paid an extra £2,000 to the Lib Dems last year to supplement utility costs.

PETE WISHART
SNP MP for Perth and Perthshire North

York Place, Perth, and Perth Street, Blairgowrie

Pays: £3,000 a year to SNP in Tayside and £6,500 a year to SNP in Perth – plus costs

Background: Perth office rent valued at £450 a month in 2005. Wishart now paying £540 a month. In total, the two branches have received more than £50,000 in costs on rent, rates, utilities, printing, lawyers' fees, joinery and use of caravans. Wishart says he needs two offices because his constituency is so big.

MICHAEL CONNARTY
Labour MP for Linlithgow and East Falkirk

Hopetoun Street, Bathgate

Pays: Average of £5,600 a year for a share of Linlithgow constituency Labour party office in Bathgate

Background: Connarty moves into the office in 2005. He already rents an office from the council in Grangemouth, only eight miles away. But Connarty says he needs another office because his constituency is so large. The local party does not make a profit on the deal.

ANGUS ROBERTSON
SNP MP for Moray

Wards Road, Elgin

Pays: £5,000 a year to local constituency party. The local MSP, Richard Lochhead, pays a further £4,000.

Background: The local SNP bought the office for £50,000 in 2002. The MP and MSPs' rents have been independently assessed at a fair market rate. But the £47,000 both have paid to the local party for the office since 2005 includes hundreds of pounds of other costs, including a regular quarterly bill of £420 for photocopier hire.

DES BROWNE
Labour MP for Kilmarnock

Pays: £5,000 a year to Labour party properties. Former MSP Margaret Jamieson paid the same sum until she was deposed in 2007.

Background: Labour party properties bought the derelict property for £32,500. It was refurbished for the use of local politicians. Browne's current rent is below the independent valuation of around £8,000 a year.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 June 2009 12:29 AM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Politicians' expenses
 
1

Fred Leeson,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 00:29:48
Ha ha. All babysteps ( thanks Susan )but compared to Eric Joyce and Jim Devine of Labour it's peanuts.
Shame on SoS yet again. But keep trying : )
2

Fifi la Bonbon,

21/06/2009 00:41:43
I think I understand how this works. When a labour MP makes a claim for an allowance that apppears to be exploiting the system, its a scandal, but when a nationalist MP or a liberal democrat does it, it's peanuts, it's a non-story.

My take on it is that all party-afiliated MPs are expected to put some money the way of the party. Very few constituency parties have the income to spend on rental of premises, which is why the MPs ansd MSPs offices are also generally the party offices. Now that we have assisted-places MSPs, through the list system, the four big parties all take advantage of this.

My own view is that this is entirely realistic and acceptable. I suppose we could expect all MSPs in a region to club together for MSPs offices, or to rent offices in some business centre controlled by the parliamentary authorities which included MSPs of all parties, but that would just be silly.
3

Barney Thomson,

Reading 21/06/2009 00:43:10
What's this all about? Rent is paid to a landlord at a commercial rate and it is claimed as a legitimate expense. Shock, Horror!
4

Fred Leeson,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 00:55:37
#3Fifi
Err no .When a Labour MP does something wrong it's ignored. The Scottish press is totally biased . But bless you as you are too sweet to know. Get yourself off to bed now. Otherwise we will think that you're just stupid.
5

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 00:58:12
As far as I can see this is a legitimate expense and money paid to a landlord which has been fairly assessed and would be paid to somebody anyway!The fact that its their own party premises/equipment says its a legitmate use of the money!

The difference between this and Tranent Labour Party premises was that the rent charged/paid by the labour Mp and MSP was way over the market value of the property.

NOW THAT IS WORTH REPORTING !

This is the lowest form of journalism possible.
This is only a scoop in the sense that some publication further up the league table such as the Dandy or the Beano wouldn't soil themselves with this crud!
6

Brianwci,

21/06/2009 00:59:41
These MPs, of all parties paid money from their own expenses into a cause they believe in. Not into their own pockets but towards a cause.

If we don't like it, let's change the rules which allow them to do this. But for goodness sake let's not attempt to lump them in with the real villains who have been lining their own pockets for years with tax payers money.
7

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 01:03:55
4
Barney Thomson

"What's this all about? Rent is paid to a landlord at a commercial rate and it is claimed as a legitimate expense. Shock, Horror!"

Indeed. If there was a bit more to this story it might be verging on trivia.

They should change the name of this rag to the Sowhatsman.

8

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 01:35:39
In rural constiuencies I would think that duplication of premsies and services was neccessary, let alone possible,and where the premises or services are within house they probably represent better value and therefore possibly even a lesser drain on the public purse!
In some areas of Scotland a mobile office would be needed and to my certain knowledge Winnie Ewing was often seen to visit every village in her seat regulary with a land rover towing a caravan. It simply was not feasible to cover the entire seat any other way! Either you want accessibility to your MP/MSP/ MEP or you dont !
9

,

21/06/2009 01:39:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 01:42:04
9
morris

"Either you want accessibility to your MP/MSP/ MEP or you dont !"

And if you do, it has to be paid for. And if it is the political parties that benefit, surely that's a good thing. Our system of democracy requires political parties.

An argument for state funding, perhaps?

11

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 01:46:21
And another thing! What the hell have they got Pete Wishart's picture up there for? He's one of the good guys!

12

,

21/06/2009 01:46:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 01:53:35
11 I would concur yes.Ive long maintained that the state should fund all legitimate activities of all political parties since a level playing field is in the democratic interests of everybody .

The current system where the Unions and the Businesses fund two parties and the rest are disadvantaged by having to raise their own finance is clearly a Tweedledum or Tweedledee recipe. Maybe if we paid the parties the money they need to best represent us,maybe they would do just that and use the money to our benefit ! A choice of parties policies is hardly a step backwards I would have thought.Okay we maybe need to retain some kind of lost deposit arrangement where you must secure (e.g) 5% of the total votes cast to qualify for state funding to your constituency party or independent campaign.

The day we fear democracy is a sad day indeed.
14

,

21/06/2009 01:56:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 01:56:44
14
morris

With you all the way on that. There is also the advantage that we would no longer get silly non-stories like this in the Sowhatsman.

16

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 02:00:21
16 Yes ! A pertinent point if ever there was one !
17

,

21/06/2009 02:20:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

Fifi Ia Bonbon,

21/06/2009 02:24:12
#14 and #16

So you would fund the racist BNP would you, what a surprise.

BNP = SNP = FACT!
19

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 02:26:50

The innuendos and connotation's of corruption, scandal's and frauds!
'Bad_Boy_UK'!, YES!, Dig more 'worms_out_the_closet', but at the end-of-day, where is it leading to?
All our Political Party's, are in the same boat!
Soo a few_heads_will_role, and it all becomes a neutral situation, and Labour Win Again!

This is the be_all_and_end_all, of this case!

In the meantime, we have all had our say and part to play in the History Books, News aiding our interest.



20

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 02:31:02
20
Charles Linskaill

Are you using an imported keyboard?

21

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 02:33:13

~21 Electric Hermit,

NO! :)

22

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 02:52:32
18 You are an idiot!

You are actually lower than that because you dont even realise that you are one.

The BNP I detest in every possible way, but I recognise the danger of censorship and lack of representation of views,or that I fear the democratic rights of others to hold whatever views they wish to hold, but what I detest even more is when total bird brains like you embarrass a perfectly respectable English electorate.
23

Fifi la Bonbon,

21/06/2009 03:27:02
#23 - 18 is an impersonator. "la" spelled with upper case "i".
24

,

21/06/2009 04:00:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

Jo Flo,

wishing for less jackdaws 21/06/2009 04:21:23
calling someone an idiot is not clever

jo flo says goodnight
26

Kenny A,

21/06/2009 05:03:24
It sickining what politicans in all nations are up to. Thought they ment to represent the public.
27

langtonian,

uphall 21/06/2009 05:14:20
CONCORDIAT,an SNP mantra that seems to have been put on a political back burner.
SNP leadership cosied up to a loose cannon COSLA leader,causing much wailing and grinding of teeth within all local council budgetry departments.

Hailed by SNP leader and his Finance minister as a great success.

Sunk without trace!
28

dunedin bully wee 1877,

21/06/2009 05:31:23
28 langtonian,


“Concordat” is the usual spelling.

Check out your Council Tax bill and compare it to last year’s.

Notice anything unusual?

Yes, that’s correct, it has not increased!

That’s the concordat for you!
29

tommy,

belfast uk 21/06/2009 05:38:17
All this is just the result of devolution from Judeo/Christian values after all honesty is sort of old fashioned in the world of politics
You gets what you votes for-- dont blame them
30

Statsman,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 05:48:03
18 Fifi Ia Bonbon

My country is called Scotland not 'Snotland'. Move if you hate this country you treacherous bore.
31

Statsman,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 05:58:31
24 Fifi la Bonbon

Are you #19?

You socialist SNP and socialist Labourites really grind my gears. Always petty squabbles about your activist friends. You're all the same: Tax. Ban. Tax. Ban.

You are really just arguing about whether everything should be taxed and banned from Edinburgh instead of London.

It's pathetic. I'd rather all you Commies went to North Korea where you can enjoy a totalitarian communist state already up and running.

That's my nightmare. That's your SNP/Labour dream.
32

Statsman,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 06:09:11
30 tommy

No such thing as 'Judeo/Christian' values.

Someone from Belfast hardly has any right to lecture people on Christian values anyway.
33

Statsman,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 06:18:44
The funny thing is, you lot of activists care about your political parties more than your country. We could have 90% unemployment and you'd still just be trying to score cheap political points over one another while the public looks on in disgust. You still wouldn't get it.

Nothing would get done. It's all some childish game to all of you.
34

Pocket Dictionary,

21/06/2009 07:23:33
We're all stunned as more expenses revelations are made. What we haven't been told yet is what sort of claims were being made for the years we don't have receipts (stuff the gvt 'i' before 'e' here!) for?

Incidentally I bumped into Willie Rennie when he was glad handing around Dunfermline. The Dundee Courier was running a story on Fife Council offering to spend £500,000 to relocate a travelling family to their own purpose built site. Rennie knew nothing about the offer or the story. He should check out the local papers before he goes glad handing.

By the way the family held out and are still ensconced at the entrance to Dulloch retail park in Dunfermline.
35

Denis,

21/06/2009 07:56:14
Now wait for the arguments that "we have to find better ways to pay for politics" and "we must clean up the system", and the only way to do that is by state funding of political parties. Ie, if our party isn't given a wodge of taxpayers' money each year, then we'll just have to carry on stealing it.
36

M78,

TainHope 21/06/2009 08:23:33
Hope Barnes's foot is not too painful after this garbage contribution. Desperation grows by the day.
Roll on an early election.
37

Astonished,

21/06/2009 08:23:44
Surely someone at the Sowhatsman (Thanks electric hermit)can see the correlation between stories of this calibre and the need to give the Sowhatsman away for free.


Everyone knows that numpties buy the sunday liar.



How about a story about labour's Mr marshall and the missing millions ?





Fifi - You should take it as a compliment that I was surprised at you (actually your fakey). You have always seemed reasonable for a numpty ! :)

38

john z,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 08:45:29
Seems like a bit of a non story. I cannot see what is wrong, in an MP renting an office from an organisation, whether it be political or not, provided he gets a good deal.

I think it is only fair that taxpayers have to cover the office costs - that's part of the job they do.
39

brianmca3,

auld reekie 21/06/2009 08:49:31
all political parties have done this ,even english and welsh have done it,so to try and state its only scots mps who have done this is wrong
its about stiring up hatred to polititions and take us away from the real problems
lardy foulkes will be shouting and tabling questions like confetti,costing the scottish tax payers plenty
after all he thinks nothing of claiming over £500 a day for attending the lords
what the hell costs that much,concorde flight to london ?,yes if it was still flying
joyce?,now theres the biggest chancer going,i saw hiom on newsnight and he just twisted eveything rather than give a straight answer,and fudged away,well hope your all proud of where your last electorate vote that helped us get a parasite like him elected
40

,

21/06/2009 08:53:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

Tynietiger,

21/06/2009 09:05:05
If you really want to investigate the scam MPs get up to on property how about an inquiry under Section 32 of the Companies Act 1967 into the affairs of Labour Party Properties Ltd. Almost every MP does this.

Or how about Lib Dem John Barrett who with his wife runs ABC Productions Ltd from his constituency office to publish Lib Dem newsletters throughout Edinburgh and pays his firm to do this at taxpayers expense. (see Sunday Herald this morning).

Or Jim Murphy flipping his house twice at taxpayers expense. (see Sunday Herald)
42

A Crofter,

Western Haven 21/06/2009 09:21:26
I'm looking forward to Hootsmon's revelations about how most newspaper proprietors live in offshore tax havens, paying not a penny in tax!

43

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

21/06/2009 09:28:59
#41 Nikostratos,,

Unless there are rules stating who an MP can and can not rent premises from or gross overcharging is going on...There can be no fiddle.

That aside If Labour the party, were fiddling money from their beloved Westminster's kitty it would be an outrageous act of sabotage, bordering on a treasonable conspiracy.

Where as if the SNP were to do likewise, it would be a heroic act of defiance, more akin to raiding the Army of Occupations supply depot.

44

Pilrig,

Livingston 21/06/2009 09:54:09
31 - Fifi sez she's lived in Scotland a her life and yet she disnae use the word tattie ! : )
45

mr broon,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 09:54:11
Numerous hawk-eyed readers of the MPs parliamentary expenses website have already contacted the Daily Telegraph about this form of political "money laundering".

A search of the parliamentary expenses for the Conservative and Unionist MP for Dumfries-shire, Clydesdale, and Tweeddale, reveals that numerous village halls and other rural buildings were rented for as little as the modest sum of £3.50, including staffing, lighting, and heating to conduct surgeries.

However, out of parliamentary expenses, the same Tory MP paid hugely inflated sums to the local Tory Constituency Association for similar accommodation along with various "extras"?

46

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 21/06/2009 09:54:56
At first when I saw the headline I thought this was another massive fraud uncovered. However, an MP does require an office, and where better than at his local party offices.

The only question is whether the amounts are excessive or not.

If you stop them renting from their local party, they will have to go elsewhere, or - God Forbid - start charging £500,000 like the previous Labour MP for Glasgow East for his home office.

Fronm this article, the LibDem MP seems to be the liar.
47

,

21/06/2009 09:56:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

Scottyboy007,

Glasgow 21/06/2009 09:59:24
16# He doesnt have any food bills anymore as he has eaten his way through the bottom of the Curry trough. In fact, a Mole saw his fat nose sticking out and informed the Foxes. They maybe coming to take Him Away HA HA.
49

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 10:03:12
36
Denis

"Now wait for the arguments that "we have to find better ways to pay for politics" and "we must clean up the system", and the only way to do that is by state funding of political parties."

No need to wait. That discussion has been ongoing for a very long time now.

The tenor of your post suggests that you disagree that a better way to "pay for politics" is required. Or that the system needs to be cleaned up.

You also appear to want something for nothing. Supposing, of course, that you actually do want to maintain democracy and are not one of those who prefers some form of totalitarianism.

50

Roy,

21/06/2009 10:04:54
I recall a certain Edinburgh Labour MP was investigated in 2001 for renting an office, not from his local party, but from himself at what seemed a pretty hefty rent for a dilapidated shop. It was ruled that he was doing nothing wrong.

http://news.scotsman.com/nigelgriffithsfinancialscandal/Griffiths-saved-once-party-saw.2286515.jp
51

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 10:08:47
51
Roy

In what way does the Griffiths case relate to the subject matter of the article under discussion?

52

Don Roberto,

21/06/2009 10:09:18
Re LABOUR PARTY PROPERTIES LIMITED.

I refer you to this take on it.

http://the-universality-of-cheese.blogspot.com/2009/06/whiter-than-white.html

Whilst there you want to read this article on the same subject, written in 2001 by of all people Jason Allardyce, then of Scotland on Sunday, when it was a newspaper.

http://news.scotsman.com/comment/Fit-to-hold-Office.2284415.jp

Wherein you will find this, piece of info about LABOUR PARTY PROPERTIES LIMITED:

(The secretive company Labour Party Properties Limited has proved to be one of the shrewdest property speculators around, using public funds to amass assets worth £2m.

Since 1995, the firm, which owns 18 offices across Britain and rents to Labour MPs who hand over their Commons allowances, has been turned into a thrusting and aggressive affair. In the four years between 1996 and 2000, rental income from the company’s properties almost quadrupled, from £88,861 a year to £320,753.

The period also saw a near-doubling in the value of Labour Party Properties’ total portfolio, from just over £1.2m to almost £2m. Often the company bought properties at low market values - backed by its guaranteed income from MPs - refurbished them and sold them on within a few years for a large profit. Assets bought with taxpayers’ cash could also be used as collateral to seek loans.)
53

,

21/06/2009 10:09:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 10:10:32
46
mr broon

"Numerous hawk-eyed readers of the MPs parliamentary expenses website have already contacted the Daily Telegraph about this form of political "money laundering"."

Or "renting an office" as the sane people call it.

55

Don Roberto,

21/06/2009 10:17:09
LABOUR PARTY PROPERTIES LIMITED owns the constituency offices of MSPs Margaret Jamieson and Des Browne in Kilmarnock and Anne Begg MP in Aberdeen, but it also owns further offices in Bristol and the West Midlands.

The Kilmarnock shop, with two flats above, has proved to be a particularly lucrative buy for the firm - though Browne insists it offers better value to taxpayers than renting from other commercial landlords. He is being charged £8,000 to rent a property worth £20,000 a year, he said. Nonetheless, the company has made a paper profit of some £25,000 on the property since it was acquired.

Labour Party Properties also lets constituency offices on behalf of Labour MSPs and MPs, often renting from local, Labour-controlled Scottish councils.

While it is clear there is a lot of money flowing into Labour Party Properties from rents and property deals, it is not clear whether any is flowing back into Labour Party coffers.

The company has links that go to the heart of the party. Until recently its directors included David Triesman, who is now Labour’s general secretary, and the company is based at Labour’s Millbank HQ.

December 2001.
56

Fifi la Bonbon,

21/06/2009 10:25:59
#45 - perfectly true. I and my family call them potatoes in English.

This proves that we are probably the wrong kind of Scots, who would fail the tartanist equivalent of Norman Tebbit's "cricket test". I don't have a favourite cricket team.

#18 and #19 were written by an impersonator who spelled the "la" in my name with an upper case "i" instead of a lower case "L". Isn't it amazing that there are people with the malice and pettiness to do such a thing? He or she would have had to register a username with a new email address and go through the palaver of all of this - why? To portray me as holding views I don't hold. Can't spell "racist" though. Extraordinary. I must be getting under someone's skin.
57

Nikostratos,,

21/06/2009 10:26:19
To THE GREED OF THE SNP MPs

who said they would be different




Fareweel to a' oor Scottish fame
Fareweel oor ancient glory
Fareweel even tae oor Scottish name
Sae famed in martial story
Noo Sark runs o'er the Solway sands
Tweed runs tae the ocean
Tae mark wher
e England's province stands
Such a parcel o'SNP rogues in a nation
What force or guile could not subdue
Through many wor-like ages
Is rocked now by the coward few
For SNP hireling traitor's wages
The English steel we could disdain
Secure in valour's station
But Parliamentary gold has been oor bane
Such a parcel o' SNP rogues in a nation
O would or I had seen the day
That treason SNP thus would sell us
My old grey heid had lain in clay
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace
But pith and power till my last
hour
I'll mak' this declaration
We are bought and sold for Parliamentary gold
Such a parcel o' SNP rogues in a nation
58

Linda,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 10:38:09
New Labour in action one law for the rich… the little fish like Devine are got rid off but Darling , Hoon & Co are not even put before the Star Chamber. Read Iain MacWhirter in to-day's Sunday Herald
The party leaders clearly believed that by forcing a few backbenchers into early retirement, they had given sufficient blood sacrifice to public opinion. But this was almost as disreputable as the belated cover-up. The Labour "star chamber" has turned into a kangaroo court which has been bullying the weakest Labour backbenchers into giving up their careers. Why is it only small fry like Jim Devine, Ian Gibson and Margaret Moran have been forced to appear before the disciplinary panel while the bigger fish, like the former front benchers Hazel Blears, Geoff Hoon, James Purnell, Tony McNulty and the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, avoid the inquisition? This is not just bad PR but an offence against natural justice.

And others are getting off Scot free. Last week, Darling let the City off the hook, announcing that there would be no new regulation of the big banks to prevent another credit crisis. There can be no doubt that a major cause of this failure to take action against irresponsible lending, the bonus culture, derivative trading, and the rest has been the moral implosion of the political class. In short: how can they take action against people like Sir Fred Goodwin when they have been caught with their own fingers in the till?
59

Denis,

21/06/2009 10:44:25
# 50 Electric Hermit -

Exactly the opposite.

It's state funding of political parties which would be anti-democratic, by helping established parties to maintain their positions and exclude new entrants - in other words, they would become a self-perpetuating oligopoly.

Political parties are no more than voluntary associations of citizens; they're not, and should never be allowed to become, state institutions.

So my attitude towards any political party is this:

1. It's your party, so you pay for it.

2. If your party is so unattractive that it can't survive on voluntary donations from its supporters, then let it wither and die.

3. Don't expect the taxpayer to subsidise your party.

4. If at present you are stealing from the taxpayer, just stop doing that - don't try to legalise your theft.

This applies to all political parties, without distinction.

None of them has some sacred right to continue to exist - so, eg, this is just as objectionable:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6539450.ece

"Research company was paid £2.3m from Conservative MPs' allowances"
60

Linda,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 11:05:51
The biggest waste of money is the Scotland Office. It's responsibilities are virtually NIL since devolution yet figures buried in the Scotland Office’s Annual Report 2009 reveal that the total administration costs of the department have rocketed from £3.7m in 1999 to £7.2m a year in 2009.
This is public money paying for Jim Murphy's onslaught on the democratically elected Scottish government.
61

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 11:08:56
60
Denis

"It's state funding of political parties which would be anti-democratic, by helping established parties to maintain their positions and exclude new entrants - in other words, they would become a self-perpetuating oligopoly."

Only if the task of formulating the rules governing state funding were handed to a complete idiot. Are you even applying for the job?

You must be pretty dense not to have noticed that, in Westminster, we already have a "self-perpetuating oligopoly". Some of us want to explore ways of breaking the two-party stranglehold on power. It is for you to explain why you are so eager to preserve the status quo.


62

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 11:10:10
62
Linda

"The biggest waste of money is the Scotland Office."

Very true.

63

tommy,

belfast uk 21/06/2009 11:12:24
To 33
"No such thing as 'Judeo/Christian' values."

Proof once again of labours failed education policies
64

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 11:17:49
30
tommy

"All this is just the result of devolution from Judeo/Christian values..."

Or, as the sane people would have it, liberation from the intellectually crippling fear, ignorance and primitive superstition of religious delusion.

65

Nellie,

Liverpool 21/06/2009 11:29:18
Sorry, but I think what they are doing is an abuse of the rules even if they have not broken them. This cannot be justified and I am very sorry to see some of our contributors here are trying to do so. So, for once - kudos to The Scotsman for "doing a Telegraph".
66

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 11:35:12
67
Nellie

"This cannot be justified..."

And yet it has been. At least to the satisfaction of those mature enough to realise that office space is not provided free by the "Office Space Fairy".

67

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 21/06/2009 11:40:26
What a scurrilous headline to a non story.

The payment of office accomodation which enables an MP or MSP to fulfil his/her duties to the constituents is a legitimate expense. Provided that an independetly assessed rent is paid there should be no problem. That a political party owns the property is irrelevant, in that as a landlord they have expenses of maintenance and other costs to be met. In some far flung constituencies a mobile office might be an option or offices in two distant centres of population.

No, this story was placed here to create the impression that Mike Weir was committing some fraud when in fact he was carrying out his duties like every other responsible MP/MSP, whether Labour, Tory or Lib-dem. Party owned offices tend to be modest properties and are suitable for use as surgeries. The only restriction I consider might be required is that there should be a cap on the rent to ensure that the property is not lavish or extravagant to the needs of the MP.
68

Archie, Gourock,

21/06/2009 11:42:56
My mate told me about this last night in the boozer, so I checked it this morning......

I cannot believe these journalists missed it.....

Check out Douglas Alexander's (paisley south) expenses for election leaflet printing and distribution - £10's of thousands.

Also, check out his printer rental charges, associated consumables and professional software. Fingers in the till again, Mr Alexander?

The election of MPs should work along the lines of the groucho principle... candidates wanting to be elected are barred from doing so.

Scum; the lot of them.
69

GM,

21/06/2009 11:48:03
Strange of this paper to run with this story as a lead but I can't seem to find reference to Jim Devine now being referred to the MET Police.
70

GM,

21/06/2009 11:49:45
Nor anything at all in this paper about the country of Greenland taking what might be the final step before becoming 100% independent from Denmark...
71

Denis,

21/06/2009 12:01:26
# 63 Electric Hermit

"Only if the task of formulating the rules governing state funding were handed to a complete idiot."

We already know who would formulate the rules - the leaders of the main parties already represented in the House of Commons, where the rules would be given a statutory basis.

"You must be pretty dense not to have noticed that, in Westminster, we already have a "self-perpetuating oligopoly". Some of us want to explore ways of breaking the two-party stranglehold on power."

Two parties would be a "duopoly"; that's why I used the word "oligopoly". So which third party do you believe should be allowed to dip its hand into the public purse?

I could guess, but I'll wait for you to tell me.
72

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 12:12:12
70
Archie, Gourock

For goodness sake, grow up! What you have described is nothing more than perfectly legitimate office expenses.

The irresponsible way in which the media - particularly The Telegraph - has presented this expenses "scandal" has led to a situation where brain-dead whingers are seeing "fraud" everywhere.

73

Curley Bill,

21/06/2009 12:17:00
From the article:

'In the most striking case, the Lib Dems in Dunfermline earn £21,000 a year by renting out a property to local MP Willie Rennie and MSP Jim Tolson.'

Why, therefore, is there no picture of these two worthies yet one of the SNP's Pete Wishart?
Despicable tictacs by Minty Barnes.
74

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 12:18:04
73
Denis

"We already know who would formulate the rules..."

That may be what the voices in your head are telling you. Out here in the real world, however, it is glaringly obvious to any moderately well-informed individual that the rules governing state funding of political parties would have to be formulated by an independent body such as the Electoral Reform Society.

"So which third party do you believe should be allowed to dip its hand into the public purse?"

What a remarkably stupid question! State funding would have to be available to ALL qualifying political parties.

75

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 12:23:03
75
Curley Bill

"Why, therefore, is there no picture of these two worthies yet one of the SNP's Pete Wishart?"

Commented on this at #12. Totally agree with you that this is a blatant attempt to smear Pete Wishart. A smear which is doubly offensive because, as I said, Wishart is one of the more worthy MPs. I sincerely hope he makes representations to the Press Complaints Commission about this.

76

Curley Bill,

21/06/2009 12:29:26
#77 Thank you Mr Hermit.
Do you also agree with me that #54 nikostratus is losing it when he accuses posters of being, '... traitorous Nationalist scum...'?
How can one be a traitor AND a nationalist? The mind boggles...
77

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 12:35:43
78
Curley Bill

"Do you also agree with me that #54 nikostratus is losing it..."

I will say only that this poster's condition is giving cause for concern.

78

WL,

Livingston 21/06/2009 12:43:28
If an MP (or MEP or MSP) needs a constituency office then the cost of that should be paid by his party, not the taxpayer !
79

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 12:43:29
41


I have always maintained that all claims which are dubious are undesirable,irrespective of party.
I have NEVER believed anything which is to the contrary, nor will I ever.

The difference is whether the claim is a claim whose date shown is not the period it refers to, for a multitude of possible reasons not least of which is you cant claim expenses in advance since you don't know what they are.You must claim them afterwards since to do otherwise is disingenuous.If you want to debate whether claiming the maximum allowed of £400 is permissible then that's another matter,but it is in the rules and all parties and hundreds of MPS claim it. Eating out to minimise the time used outwith the chamber would soon realise a food bill of £400 unless you consider a diet of fish suppers to be healthy!

The rest of your post I shall treat with the contempt it deserves.You and Eric Joyce deserve each other.

As Nicola Sturgeon has pointed out the SNP have ASKED for an investigation and will co operate with submission of all details . WE WELCOME THIS !

Your party is rotten to the core and where an apology is in order you cant even do that!
I would try to repay the insult but all the words I know would still be a compliment to you!
You are not defending Labour, you are showing everybody why they can never vote for your party again!

Please please DO NOT STOP .
80

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 12:48:20
80
WL

"If an MP (or MEP or MSP) needs a constituency office then the cost of that should be paid by his party, not the taxpayer !"

Why should the party pay for something that is directly related to an MP's job?

81

Archie, Gourock,

21/06/2009 12:49:09
#74..

Douglas Alexander - it's yourself.

"legitimate office expenses" .... five grand for Election Flyers.... Explain to me again - why is this legitimate?

Let me explain to you, Sir Pseud.. "whingers are seeing "fraud" everywhere" because perhaps... THERE IS FRAUD EVERYWHERE... You filth can't even elect a new speaker because every single candidate has been exposed to be even filthier than Martin. You Marxist scum didn't just read Animal Farm... you live it; "two legs good four legs bad" is your life mantra.

Leftists were failures at school, uni and careers. The left is a refuge for societal flotsam. Another time, another place and you bleating apologist parasites would have a large yellow "L" sewn onto your jackets.

Party politics are doomed forever. Darwin is doing cartwheels in his grave at how society's least able are not just surviving but actually flourising.


82

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 12:53:40
83
Archie, Gourock

Sorry! I didn't realise you were a nutter. Thanks for putting me right.

83

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 12:55:02
80 If an MP is to avail himself to his constituents and do his/her job they need a constituency office.
The alternative is the pay for the hire of premises, which is the same thing in a sense,but probably represents lesser value for money.Of course we could just ask everybody to go to where they think their MP might be ,a bit like SPOT THE BALL and even if they get that right they still have to guess when they will be there.
Its impossible to be an effective MP without premises which are central and accessible to all.
If you want an MP you have to pay for it.
I can think of no more genuine claim for expenses incurred ,than an office which EVERYBODY CAN SEE AND ENTER and has a telephone which can be used as a contact point (using an answering machine) and houses all the equipment and services which he needs to do his job efficiently.
What we are debating are expenses which are unjustified. Premises which facilitate the electorate are a prerequisite ,not an extravagance.
84

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 13:18:08
85
morris

"Premises which facilitate the electorate are a prerequisite ,not an extravagance."

Why is this not obvious to everybody?

85

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 13:24:03
86 A good question,but I have no idea what the answer could possibly be!Maybe they are SPOT THE BALL FANS?
86

Denis,

21/06/2009 13:29:09
# 75 Electric Hermit

"... it is glaringly obvious to any moderately well-informed individual that the rules governing state funding of political parties would have to be formulated by an independent body such as the Electoral Reform Society."

Eh, yes, but even if the views of the Electoral Reform Society represented the views of the electorate, when did it gain the power to pass laws authorising the disbursement of public money?

"State funding would have to be available to ALL qualifying political parties."

And who would decide which political parties qualify?
87

Temple,

Italy 21/06/2009 13:33:51
amazing
I can't see where is the problem
50,000 £ x 2 branches x 4 years in rent, rates, printing costs and even the hire of a caravan.
its about 500 a month per branch .
Try another Scotsman.com
88

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 13:34:23
88
Denis

"Eh, yes, but even if the views of the Electoral Reform Society represented the views of the electorate, when did it gain the power to pass laws authorising the disbursement of public money?"

Did somebody make such a claim? Surely it is obvious that the necessary legislation would have to be enacted by parliament. But the legislation would be derived from the recommendations of some independent body.

"And who would decide which political parties qualify?"

The same independent body, of course.

89

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 21/06/2009 13:43:00
"Scots MPs funnelling public cash to parties
Published Date: 21 June 2009
By Eddie Barnes Political Editor"

The interesting thing about the above is the missing comma between Barnes and Political.
90

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 21/06/2009 13:45:05
Or maybe the Headline and/or the non article is by Eddie Barnes' Political Editor.
91

tomias,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 13:50:13
92,now 93 posts all I suggest to no avail;
read A Smith and his writints on morality; all there in print.
gerald Warner is even tempted to side with Smith.
But before any scheme functions we are into the next or the next but one generation.
So- Folks look at the pictures from Tehran !
We are in Browns theocrac lets get out before the ice cover over our society.
92

mr broon,

Edinburgh 21/06/2009 13:57:04
Tomorrow, the Daily Telegraph has further claims about two Tory Shadow Ministers, who it seems claimed they were in one place, when their expenses claims revealed they were elsewhere?

Could this be the real reason for the redaction of thousands of MPs receipts?
93

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 13:58:12
88

We currently use the lost deposit to deter every Tom Dick and Harry from contesting. This has served us well. You either command a level of support which is x% or you forfeit the deposit.The level at which x should be set is debatable.The fact that we already have done so suggests that it is desirable for exactly the same reasons as it always was. A similar arrangement can therefore apply to a fixed sum of expenses which are /are not payable depending upon your performance.I would not wish to deter minorities or independent candidates any more than we currently do,so I think the adoption of the same rules and procedures seems a good starting point( but subject to review of course).
What level these should be set at is a point worthy of debate. I would suggest the current figure is a good place to start? If it was good before it still is ! Of course we do still have to discourage (but never exclude in totality)the "Groucho Marxist" parties of this world! (I make no inference either for or against Karl Marx here by the way)
If the Mafia want to contest then in theory freedom demands that we should allow this but they must have a level of support before we should expect the public purse to finance their campaign.
Personally I think the Mafia's slogan "WE TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE" is unlikely to secure much support.Of course they would no doubt counter with people consider it to be a matter of life and death that they are elected!

A level playing field is conducive to democracy. Anyone who says otherwise clearly has self interest at heart.You can make such a claim but you will not convince many people if you do, I suspec
94

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 14:03:00
95 cont


t!
95

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 14:12:28
95 Clarification I say a fixed sum for the following reasons.
1) In an ideal world the expenses claimed should be those spent .
2) Reality necessitates a ceiling and therefore a fixed sum, which is what will be claimed and if necessary also genuinely spent.
Provided the level is set at a realistic figure I see no problem. The only variation would then be who made the best use of the money? That might be no bad thing!
Why?
Because they cut their own throats if they do not achieve the level of support which is the cut off point.
96

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 14:14:37
95
morris

Formulating a set of rules to govern equitable, transparent state funding of political parties is hardly rocket science.

Candidate parties would first have to qualify on the basis of proven support. A minimum number of members paying a minimum subscription would be a good starting point. Other qualifying criteria might be added. Most likely criteria similar to those that apply to charities, ie published accounts, statement of purpose, registered address etc.

Initial funding could be based on a fixed amount plus a rate per member, with additional funding related to electoral success.

Not massively complicated. And probably not massively expensive either. We are all paying for this anyway, either through a trade union levy or through the money we spend on goods and services. It would be good to know exactly how much we are spending and on which parties.

97

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 14:31:39
98 Food for thought there I would say .

I agree that there are a number of possibilities ,some of which you have covered and I can only agree with you.
It may be that they wish to set payment at a level which reflects the number of members they have, or the number of votes secured.
I personally prefer a flat rate payment per candidate provided they secure the minimum % of the vote designated,but I agree that many permutations are possible,and I would be happy with the majority view as always.

Fair comment Hermit!

The important point is are we the punters the beneficiary? If the answer is clearly yes,then End Of Debate as far as I am concerned.
98

nova albion 3,

21/06/2009 14:41:09
Whether rules have been broken or not, it is still morally wrong to do what these MPs are doing! Has no one got a conscience anymore.
99

Observer,,

Glasgow 21/06/2009 14:41:11
This is allowed in the rules. Both the SSP (when they had MSP's) and SinnFein quite openly use allowances as party income and pay their MP's/MSP's a wage.

I find this less horrendous than MP's using the allowance system for personal profit.

I think state funding of politics is the best way forward. It would be less expensive to the tax payer, more transparent, and would attract candidates who would know what personal renumeration they were getting at the outset, and would not attract candidates who wished to maximise their personal income.
100

Observer,,

Glasgow 21/06/2009 14:46:57
Fifi you have arrived, everyone gets a fake at one point. But as with ''Astonished'' I knew it wasn't you, you are not that crude.
101

nova albion 3,

21/06/2009 14:50:04
Whatever the out come,these MPs are a disgrace to their constituents.
102

Observer,,

Glasgow 21/06/2009 14:53:23
103 No they are not you are just being silly. There is nothing personally corrupt about this behaviour. It is actually quite clever, and they are using these allowances to further their parties political aims. That is what politicians should be doing, rather than personally enriching themselves. There is nothing disgraceful about it. However I would like to see this formalised.
103

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 14:58:58
104
Observer

"No they are not you are just being silly."

You are being too polite. It is a pestilential troll and should be completely ignored.

104

nova albion 3,

21/06/2009 15:01:57
104. So,it's ok to scr'w money out of the taxpayer! did it ever occur to you that without these "party enriching" MPs the people they serve just may get a better deal.
105

nova albion 3,

21/06/2009 15:04:00
105. I can see you got out of the wrong side of the bed!
106

nova albion 3,

21/06/2009 15:09:58
1 TO THE "pestilential troll" HEY SHOCK JOCK!
107

Brianwci,

21/06/2009 15:14:54
Forget Westminster's mess for a sec and take a closer look at Oslo's new Opera House, as advertised on this page. Worth Googling it.

This is Norway's biggest cultural project in 700 years. Now where do you suppose tiny Norway got the money to build something that would grace the shores of Dubai, New York, London or Tokyo?

Think of all the modern buildings built in Scotland since Oil, including Holyrood. None of them compare, but then we don't have Oil and Gas revenues.....London does.

And Scotland's British Nationalists are determined that it stays that way while the Scottish Nationalists are determined that the money should stay in Scotland.

Which group do you support?
108

Observer,,

Glasgow 21/06/2009 15:15:13
106 You appear to be incredibly stupid. But I will take Electric Hermit's advice and leave it at that.
109

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 15:35:08
111
IndependentlyInclined

"Why are the union movement not forced by law to evenly split their donations to all political aspirants evenly..."

Are you proposing similar regulation of ALL donations? Or are you content to leave yourself open to accusations of prejudiced selectivity?

110

,

21/06/2009 15:56:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
111

Observer,,

Glasgow 21/06/2009 16:11:12
113 On what basis is it not morally acceptable within the context that they are operating ?
112

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 16:18:19
113
The Lord of The Golden Horn

"What is going on here is "within the rules"-a favourite phrase of insincere MP's- but it is not morally acceptable."

Pompous, sanctimonious, reactionary claptrap. How stupid do you have to be to come on here and admit that you are too stupid to recognise that constituency offices are an essential adjunct to an MP's job. With the caveats previously mentioned, it matters not a jot who they rent the office space from. In fact, if the local party branches benefit in some small way, that can only be good for democracy.

To suggest that there is some moral issue here is plainly nonsensical.

113

Denis,

21/06/2009 16:18:52
# 90 Electric Hermit -

"Surely it is obvious that the necessary legislation would have to be enacted by parliament."

I'm glad we agree on that.

"But the legislation would be derived from the recommendations of some independent body."

Would it? So you really think that Brown, Cameron and Clegg, with a little input from Salmond and rather less from whoever leads Plaid Cymru and the parties in Northern Ireland, would tell their MPs to support a system of state funding which would expose their parties to significantly greater electoral competition?

And after their preferred system was in place, and their parties were getting an assured income from public funds, they'd tell their MPs to stop stealing from the taxpayer?

That hasn't happened in other countries where political parties have managed to get themselves subsidised by the state.
114

,

21/06/2009 16:19:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
115

nova albion 3,

21/06/2009 16:19:42
110. With the greatest respect,it is you who is unbelievably stupid! you seem to think it's fine for these people (who are meant to be serving their community) to have the morals of a skunk.
116

Denis,

21/06/2009 16:22:13
# 95 morris

"We currently use the lost deposit to deter every Tom Dick and Harry from contesting."

It wasn't always the case that candidates had to put down deposits, and the independent Electoral Commission has proposed that they should be abolished.

Page 4 here:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0014/16052/Standing_9 846-7972__E__N__S__W__.pdf

On page 17:

"Deposits for Westminster Parliamentary elections were first introduced in the Representation of the People Act 1918 following a number of candidatures which were regarded as ‘frivolous’. There was no full Parliamentary debate on this aspect of the legislation because all the main parties represented at the time supported the initiative."

So deposits weren't introduced because they were recommended by some independent body, but because the leaders of the main parties in the Commons - Liberal and Conservative, at that time - wanted them to be introduced; recently an independent body recommended that they should be abolished, but the leaders of the main parties in the Commons preferred to keep them.

Any idea why that might be?
117

,

21/06/2009 16:24:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
118

Denis,

21/06/2009 16:25:36
# 98 Electric Hermit -

"Candidate parties would first have to qualify on the basis of proven support. A minimum number of members paying a minimum subscription would be a good starting point."

Even supposing that this was a good basis for dishing out taxpayers' money, how would you validate the claimed figures for party membership and minimum subscriptions?

For example there was a period of several years when the Labour party continued to count many tens of thousands of people as being party members, when in fact they were so disillusioned with Blair that they hadn't renewed their subscriptions.

"Initial funding could be based on a fixed amount plus a rate per member, with additional funding related to electoral success."

It could be, but why should it be?

Why should people who are not members of a party be compelled to pay for it just because other people are members, and why should people who don't want to vote for a party be compelled to pay for it just because other people have voted for it?

Here's a simpler solution, which doesn't involve scrounging off the taxpayers - if your party needs money, go out and tell people what your party is trying to achieve, and ask them to support you.

If your philosophy and policies resonate with a section of the population then you'll be able to fund your party through voluntary donations; on the other hand, if your philosophy and policies are totally unappealing then your party will wither away and die, as it should.
119

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 16:31:20
116
Denis

"Would it?"

Of course it would. There is no way legislation for state funding of political parties could be drafted without reference to some independent body.

"And after their preferred system was in place, and their parties were getting an assured income from public funds, they'd tell their MPs to stop stealing from the taxpayer?"

You make the double error of conflating the entirely separate issues of state funding for political parties and MPs expenses as well as generalising to the entire body politic from a few examples.

And you make the further error of supposing that things are as you imagine them to be and must always be so. The expenses system will be reformed and a system for state funding of political parties is neither as complicated nor as inevitably subject to manipulation as you seem to believe.

A little cynicism is a healthy thing. But taken to extremes it will distort your world-view in a way that leaves you quite divorced from reality.

120

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 16:33:37
120
The Lord of The Golden Horn

Seems I hit the nail squarely on the head.

121

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 21/06/2009 16:43:20
Perhaps the JP should own all office space and rent it out to political parties. They might then make a useful living.

Providing, of course, that they are not found out to be giving Labour preferential prices.
122

,

21/06/2009 16:43:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
123

Fitba Krazy,

21/06/2009 16:54:51
This is neither news, a surprise, or illegal so what is it doing in a newspaper?

Is there no limit?

In this day and age all they need is a decent computer in a small studio/office and a waiting room and a meeting room. That should fit in one of their houses nae bother, or why not designate a spare house solely for the purpose and use what they already have and SAVE some money for a wee change. No?

Computers can do all the printing, make your CDs and DVDs and you can post them out or even stick the info on a web site instead or as well. All of which doesn't require much in the way of space.

Anyway, most of the pamphlets and leaflets are ignored and thrown out as people know what they are about anyway and also already know who is their favourite political party (or none.)

The impartial news we get renders the need for paraphernalia redundant anyway. That's a joke btw, but it bwiddy well should, but, alas, it's a gross waste of money, neither an unusual occurrence, an offence, nor a decent story neither, just a load of superfluous mince, I am sorry to report.
124

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 16:58:41
121
Denis

"...how would you validate the claimed figures for party membership and minimum subscriptions?"

FFS! How can you so readily believe that people are capable of contriving the most devious schemes for their own advantage yet simultaneously be convinced that people are incapable of devising schemes to counter such deviousness.

There are well established methods for auditing all sorts of organisations - from huge private corporations to small charities. And yet you cannot see how it might be possible to verify political party membership.

Try this! Members must be on the electoral register. Their membership must require a current address. And they must pay an annual subscription. Put those three things together and you have all you need for a very simple method of validation on a yearly basis.

To date there has been no real requirement for parties to keep accurate, up-to-date records of membership. It might be a good idea to change that situation.

"It could be, but why should it be?

Why should people who are not members of a party be compelled to pay for it..."

I see now that we are dealing with one of Thatcher's baleful brood, totally devoid of any concept of society. Until they need the help and support of that society, of course.

The poor, benighted creatures simply cannot understand why we pay for schools even if we have no children of school age. Or why we pay for libraries even though we buy our books online. Or why we pay for hospitals even though we are not currently ill.

That part of their brain which comprehends the concept of mutuality has been lobotomised. So there is little hope of them ever understanding the concept of financing an improved system of democratic participation and representation to the benefit of society as a whole.

They consider something shared as something lost. They are to be pitied more than reviled.

125

Denis,

21/06/2009 16:58:50
# 122 Electric Hermit

"There is no way legislation for state funding of political parties could be drafted without reference to some independent body."

Of course it could. Politicians routinely disregard the recommendations of independent bodies, for good reasons or for bad reasons.

"the entirely separate issues of state funding for political parties and MPs expenses"

Clearly they're not separate issues, as MPs of all parties have been using their expenses to indirectly and illicitly fund their parties, and there's no reason to suppose that they could be bought off from doing that through the introduction of official grants to their parties.

"a system for state funding of political parties is neither as complicated nor as inevitably subject to manipulation as you seem to believe."

As I say, that isn't borne out by experience in other countries where state funding of political parties has been introduced; but in any case it always comes back to the question why there should be any system for compelling people to pay for any political party.

It's your party, so you pay for it.
126

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 17:07:08
125
The Lord of The Golden Horn

"It is as simple as this:Funds for the service of the general public should not be diverted to political parties."

You completely fail to understand that no funds are being "diverted" to political parties. That is what the Sowhatsman is trying to suggest. And you are the credulous fool who swallowed it whole.

The funds ARE being used "for the service of the general public". The article even says as much - if you were to bother to read it. Constituency offices where people can have access to their MP are an essential part of our democracy. That the rent paid for such office space goes to a political party is of no more significance than if it went to some other organisation or to private profit.

In fact, as has been explained in the simplest of terms, there are distinct SOCIAL advantages in having this public money help maintain the political parties which are also an essential part of our democracy.

127

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 17:22:13
128
Denis

"Of course it could. Politicians routinely disregard the recommendations of independent bodies, for good reasons or for bad reasons."

I am being realistic. I leave the flights of paranoid fancy to you.

"Clearly they're not separate issues..."

Clearly they are. In the first place, MPs have not been "using their expenses to indirectly and illicitly fund their parties". They have been using their expenses to directly and legitimately fund their constituency offices. The article was intentionally written to convey a false impression. and you were dumb enough to fall for it.

To avoid such foolish errors in the future I suggest that you seek to become an ACTIVE consumer of media messages, rather than the passive target of them. Course are available, I believe.

"As I say, that isn't borne out by experience in other countries where state funding of political parties has been introduced..."

You do say that, don't you. Although it is noticeable that you omit to provide any examples.

And whatever bad examples you might you might find, you might like to explain why we would want to emulate them rather than learn by the mistakes of others.

"...it always comes back to the question why there should be any system for compelling people to pay for any political party."

That you are incapable of comprehending the reasons does not mean that there are no reasons.

And we have ample evidence of the depth of your incomprehension. As has already been explained, we (and that means YOU) are already funding political parties. But it is all but impossible for us to know how much we are giving and to whom.

128

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

21/06/2009 17:26:56
#128 Denis

The most pertinent reason for the funding of political parties has nothing whatever to do with this "scandal" and only partially to do with last years dodgy donations scandal.

More to do with the cash for amendments scandal and the accepted practise of wealthy individuals, trades Unions and company directors *purchasing* a disproportionate amount of influence over the political process and consequently our lives...by making large or regular donations to political parties.

The only way that this can be realistically combated is by state funding and strict regulation of political parties additional income streams.

If this is not accomplished soon, the American model...where both sides are funded by the same corporations will soon be upon us.



129

Denis,

21/06/2009 17:32:37
# 127 Electric Hermit

"And yet you cannot see how it might be possible to verify political party membership."

I can indeed; I was asking you how you would do it.

"To date there has been no real requirement for parties to keep accurate, up-to-date records of membership."

That's because they're voluntary associations of citizens, and so there's no need for the state to inquire into their membership any more than the state needs to inquire into the membership of any other association which like-minded citizens may care to form and join; and in fact there are especially good reasons why the state should refrain from inquiring into the membership of a political party, except in the context of a genuine criminal investigation or if there's some question relating to national security.

"It might be a good idea to change that situation."

Some might think so; but then some believe that the state has an automatic right to everything about every one of us.

"The poor, benighted creatures simply cannot understand why we pay for schools even if we have no children of school age. Or why we pay for libraries even though we buy our books online. Or why we pay for hospitals even though we are not currently ill."

I see. So which of the current political parties do you believe bears comparison with a school, or a public library, or a hospital?
130

,

21/06/2009 17:38:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
131

Denis,

21/06/2009 17:43:25
# 129 Electric Hermit

"the political parties which are also an essential part of our democracy"

Would you care to identify one of the present political parties which in your opinion is an essential part of our democracy, indispensable and irreplaceable, without which our democracy would collapse?
132

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

21/06/2009 17:45:59
~133

Sobered up Chuck?

You seem to be making more sense than you were in the we small hours.
133

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 17:55:00
132
Denis

"I see. So which of the current political parties do you believe bears comparison with a school, or a public library, or a hospital?"

Another example of your serious incomprehension. The analogy is not between these institutions and a particular political party but the party political system that is central to our democracy.

134

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 17:57:47
132
Denis

"Some might think so; but then some believe that the state has an automatic right to everything about every one of us"

Get off that high-horse. You begin to look ridiculous. We give an address when we join a motoring organisation or a book club. why not when we join a political party. Nobody is suggesting that personal party affiliation should be a matter of public record.

135

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 18:02:56
134
Denis

"Would you care to identify one of the present political parties which in your opinion is an essential part of our democracy, indispensable and irreplaceable, without which our democracy would collapse?"

Once again you exhibit the atomistic thinking which seems to be a common trait among Thatcher's unfortunate brood. Just as you are incapable of conceiving of society as an entity, so you are incapable of thinking in terms of a party system, rather than individual parties.

I feel genuinely sorry for you. I can no more imagine what it must be like to be afflicted with this cognitive disability than I can imagine what it is like to be unable to read.

136

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

21/06/2009 18:03:27
#134 Denis,

The victims of a massive fraud are trying to claim the £2.4Million Donation which was made to the Lib/Dems, by the convicted felon, is rightfully theirs and should be handed over to them.

The outcome of this action is still in the balance but if the Lib/Dem's are forced to turn the £2.4million possibly plus interest and legal costs, over to either The Electoral Commission or the criminal's creditors...They may well go bust.

I would say Hip Hip Hooray!

But would that be in the best interests of democracy?
137

Observer,,

Glasgow 21/06/2009 18:03:50
125 It's principle not principal.

Anyay we already do divert funds from the public purse to political parties, it happens every day. Far better to do that honestly, transparently, and under a regulatory framework than the rather ad-hoc basis on which it happens just now.

And a system such as that would give elected members a clear definition of what renumeration they can expect thus dis-encouraging those who are in it for themselves.

Other than that, as another poster has said, we may see ourselves reaching a situation like the Americans, perish the thought.

138

Denis,

21/06/2009 18:13:00
# 131 - The Col. of Monte Cristo

I have no problem with any individual citizen giving as much as he wants to any political party, provided it's his own personal money and provided that the electors can know who's been making abnormally large donations to a particular party well before they decide how to vote.

Ideally, those larger donations would be itemised on the party's public website more or less as soon as they were received.

I don't think it's necessary or desirable for a party to have to name the sources of smaller donations - one could argue about the limit, but maybe a donor should be allowed to remain anonymous if his total donations during a year were below £100.

I do have a problem with donations from companies, genuine and shell, unions, charities, external fund raising committees and other organisations, and large donations made through proxies to conceal the identity of the donor.
139

Observer,,

Glasgow 21/06/2009 18:13:34
Denis do you have any idea how much casework the average MP or MSP has to deal with ? Who do you suggest pays for it ?
140

nova albion 3,

21/06/2009 18:21:44
Is it not the duty of members of parliament to serve the people that elected them,not spending half the day chasing after donations to their particular party.
141

Observer,,

Glasgow 21/06/2009 18:29:18
143 Precisely, a neat summary of the argument for state funding.
142

Denis,

21/06/2009 18:31:13
# 139

I don't think the LibDems will go bust if they have to forfeit Michael Brown's £2.4 million, because they've got enough members to chip in and cover the loss - I think it works out at £30 - £40 per member.

But whether or not the party members cared enough to pay that amount each on average in order to save their party, there's no reason why the state should intervene to save it.

Incidentally, even if they have to forfeit the original capital, they won't have to account for the interest accrued or avoided since 2004, which is itself quite a substantial benefit.
143

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 18:45:54
145
Denis

"But whether or not the party members cared enough to pay that amount each on average in order to save their party, there's no reason why the state should intervene to save it."

For someone who was earlier objecting to oligarchy, you seem determined to create one by ensuring that control of the political parties goes to the highest bidder.

"Incidentally, even if they have to forfeit the original capital, they won't have to account for the interest accrued or avoided since 2004, which is itself quite a substantial benefit."

Nonsense! If the money belongs to someone else then so does the interest earned. The rightful owner has been deprived of both.

144

Denis,

21/06/2009 19:17:57
# 142 Observer -

Case work is part of an MP's or MSP's parliamentary duties, and there's no argument about the need for the public to meet the legitimate expenses of that.
145

Freddie and Bruno,

Paisley 21/06/2009 19:23:19
#84 Electric Hermit

I am afraid that it is you that is the nutter Electric Hermit, Archie, Gourock is correct, If you bother to go and look a Douglas Alexander's expenses you will see that he got his leaflets printed by a company called The Printbrokers which is supposed to be on Paisley's High Street but the address is actually a private house address at 80 Victoria Road Paisley beside the RAH Hospital. You will also see that he got the leaflets distributed by a company called PM Distribution for a price of over £4000. You try and find a company with this name in this country. He also has a thing about printers for a office that does not actually do much work with regard to constituents, a Dell, an Epson and a Rex Rotary MPC Multifunctional printerwhich could easily print all these leaflets itself. This has already been reported to the Telegraph so we will see what they come up with regarding these points soon.
146

Denis,

21/06/2009 19:29:30
# 146 Electric Hermit

On that side issue, last March I specifically asked the Electoral Commission whether interest on the £2.4 million would also be liable to forfeiture along with the original donation, and the answer was:

"The relevant legislation, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, refers to certain payments that are not to be defined as donations. Section 52(1)(h) states that any interest accrued by a party in respect of any donation which is correctly dealt with by the party in accordance with provisions of the Act may not be regarded as a donation."
147

nostress,

grangemouth 21/06/2009 19:37:14
OK let's get this right then...the SNP are paying the going commercial rate for office rental...the unionist Lib Dems are paying over the odds to their own benefit, i.e. fiddling the system...and yet this paper has as its main photograph Pete Wishart from the SNP, thus implying that he is guilty of some wrongdoing? Fair and impartial journalism from Johnson Press? Don't make me laugh!
148

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

21/06/2009 19:58:21
#149 Denis,

If the Lib/Dems have to forfeit the donation to the Electoral Commission they will be quids in.

Unfortunately Mr Brown's creditors think they have a prior claim on it and would be seeking interest and legal costs.

I'm no amateur lawyer but I do know that if you buy a stolen car in good faith...It is still the property of the insurance company.

149

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 20:09:39
148
Freddie and Bruno

I clearly referred to "what you have described". And what was described in #70 was nothing more than perfectly legitimate office expenses.

If there is more to the matter, that was not made clear.

It is not uncommon for an office to have several printers for different purposes. And in-house printing ceases to be economical when print runs go beyond one or two hundred. Especially when there is finishing involved.

There is a firm called The Print Brokers Scotland Ltd in Paisley. Their web site is down for maintenance. But it is perfectly possible for there to be a shop in one location and an office in another. It proves nothing.

I found two companies called PM Distribution Ltd which seem to offer leaflet distribution services. One in Darlington and the other based in Belfast.

I have no time for Douglas Alexander. But neither do I have any patience for people who leap to conclusions on the basis of what hardly amounts to evidence at all.

150

Observer,,

Glasgow 21/06/2009 20:21:14
I think it would be very unwise to make any judgement of guilt based on who we would like to be guilty. Making thosae kind of judgements nearly always comes back and bites you on the bum.
151

nostress,

grangemouth 21/06/2009 21:15:26
#152 EH - PM Distribution is a courier company based in Kilmacolm - not that far from Paisley. Like you, I don't like this leaping to conclusions. Just because Douglas Alexander is an olegeanous wee scuzzball, doesn't mean he can be condemned on no evidence.
152

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 21:18:01
154
nostress

Thanks for that. Nice to know that others are also defending the principle of presumption of innocence.

153

nostress,

grangemouth 21/06/2009 21:21:42
This is a real non-story. What SoS should be investigating is the legal scandal that the Labour Party property company - Labour Party Properties uses the rent paid for by the taxpayer through their Mp's to pay off the mortgages on their properties which they then sell for private profit - if the money were to be paid back to the taxpayer then fair enough, but it's not. The Labour Party buys properties and get us to fund them and then sells them and keeps the profits. Legal, yes. The sort of thing we should expect from a party of socialists? Well I'll leave others to be the judge of that.
154

nostress,

grangemouth 21/06/2009 21:42:44
Here's another nice little tale concerning my very own trough snouter Michael Connarty, Labour MP for Falkirk East and Linlithgow, who says: "I do not agree with the argument that I'm a better MP than you, because I'm a cheaper MP. I've been 17-years an MP and I've worked my butt off. At the end of the day I don't think that £64,000 is a lot of money."

Bejasus and gommorah...that's a lie for a start! Have you seen the size of Connarty's butt? Doesn't look like he's been working that much at all if you ask me.

As for thinking £64,000 isn't a lot of money? Well, maybe not in your corrupt little world Mikey, but I reckon 80% or so of your constituents might just disagree with you there. Especially, when you take into account the £633,467 you've managed to claim on expenses over the past 4 years. Now, that's what I call serious dosh Michael!
155

JC1,

Glasgow 21/06/2009 22:00:02
oh it's nostress again- the nat's pal.... any word on the hypocrit salmond?
156

Denis,

21/06/2009 22:23:48
# 136 and # 138 - Electric Hermit

As you've avoided answering my two questions, I'll answer them for you.

1. There is no comparison between any of the current political parties and a school, a public library or a hospital.

Most people, including myself, are willing to pay taxes to fund facilities which are set up to provide a useful service to the general public - the whole population.

By definition any political party exists primarily to promote the sectional political interests of its members and supporters, rather than the general public interest, which is one reason why none of them should ever expect to receive public funding.

However as far as the present main political parties are concerned it goes beyond that, because they've actually become the source of the most serious problems in our political system and they're working against the general public interest.

And the general public know that, which is why barely 1% of the population is now prepared to be a member of any political party, and why there's an increasing reluctance to even vote for any of the candidates they offer.

2. None of the present political parties is essential to our democracy; none of them are indispensable or irreplaceable.

It wouldn't worry me if the Liberal Democrats did go bust, or if any other party went bust.

In fact if the Liberal Democrats couldn't even raise £2.4 million through an appeal to ca 70,000 members, an average of only £34 per head, then they deserve to go bust.

It would just clear the way for new parties to emerge - a natural process of renewal, which you would try to prevent by keeping moribund parties on life support with a drip of state subsidies.

Why? Where is the benefit to the general public?
157

Freddie and Bruno,

Paisley 21/06/2009 22:29:55
#152,153,154,155

Having been one of a team of people that have been investigating these scum for years we know the scams that they get up to.

That is why Cllr Tommy Williams, Renfrewshire, has been charged with defrauding the tax-payer after years of "working" for Glasgow Council but never actually ever being there. The Labour party have known for over 20 years about this 'phantom worker' and did not do anything about it. How many phantom workers are there in Labour councils and who is benefiting. It will be interesting to see if this councillor is going to take the wrap or if he will spill the beans. There are other councillors awaiting their fate with the Procurator Fiscal and hopefully MP's soon too.

Unfortunately Labour has corrupted Scotland along with their Media friends as they have known what has been going on and have been trying to bury it, the internet and some determined people have made sure that this will not happen. Good on the Telegraph as this would not have happened with the so-called Scottish Press. Also here in Renfrewshire the SNP are just as bad as Labour.
158

Fitba Krazy,

21/06/2009 22:35:10
Initially here you are led to believe a scam is happening and later they say it is a larger more spacious office for the higher rent and the elec + phone bills are included, so as far as scams go it is at the lower end of the scale, at most, if it even makes the scale, however it is worth trying to identify waste and inefficiency of which there must be a fair degree of, and have a realistic figure that reasonably covers the cost of what is required.

I don't think donations should be allowed to spiral out of control because this is seen as buying influence.

The Government and political parties who aspire to be so are supposed to come up with an efficient set of ingredients to create circumstances for economic growth and supposedly deal with the poverty and lack of funding issues in the wider society not feather their own nests while more important issues remain under-funded.

Nearly everyone claims under-funding, so a system has to be devised to get away from wastage in individual parties competing with each other to out poster or out leaflet or out advertise etc. each other and them cancelling each other out to a large degree in this respect is wasteful and an example of priorities being skewed and is hardly sorting the real problems that require to be.

There are many apparent loose ends needing tightened up to deal with what has got out of control through both selfishness and the need to compete on a level surface, so the level surface is what should be worked on achieving first, for everyone. That means, 1)Regulating amounts for allowances in every dept. that has to be regulated to get rid of the absurd nonsense that has engulfed the political scene. and caused apathy through ineptness and gross waste of public funds.

Oh nearly forgot,

2) Scottish Independence from Westminster.
159

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 22:35:54
159
Denis

"As you've avoided answering my two questions, I'll answer them for you."

Both answered. You just didn't like or, more likely, failed to understand the answers.

And don't presume to imagine that you answer for me. Take responsibility for your own childishly naive utterances.

Ayn Rand is dead. And so is the pseudo-science of social darwinism. Thatcher and her sidekick Reagan are exposed as deranged and their "economic philosophy" discredited by bitter experience.

It is June 2009. Try to catch up.

160

Nellie,

Liverpool 21/06/2009 22:41:16
Electric Hermit

What is wrong is that it appears parties are profiting from tax payers money, not simply using it to provide accommodation.

And besides, if they were to be taking accommodation at tge tax payers expense then the tax payer should decide what is a reasonable expense! There is office space and office space, some costing hundreds and other, thousands. I wouldn't trust politicians to make a reasonable judgement about such matters - would you? And when it comes to the tenant sub-letting to himself for a profit ...
161

nostress,

21/06/2009 22:44:34
# 158 oh it's nostress again- the nat's pal.... any word on the hypocrit salmond?

Hi JC1 - good to hear from you again. Yeah, I've got a word for Mr Salmond, First Minister in the first comptetent pro-Scotland government Scotland has seen - BRILLIANT!
162

Freddie and Bruno,

Paisley 21/06/2009 22:46:53
#159 Denis

With you all the way. Why should the tax-payer pay for people to do nothing.

Fact is all Scottish MP's are getting paid to do absolutly nothing. Full-time wages for not even doing part-time work. Get rid of them all together we do not need them. Save tax-payers money not waste even more on a bunch of wasters.

Same with Councillors, most of them are getting paid a wage to do absolutely nothing. Most of them here in Renfrewshire are now working full-time and still getting paid to do the work of a full-time councillor. They do very little the same as the councillors who do "work" full-time but who hide in the new PR system. There are too many councillors now so let us not waste any more tax-payers money on these wasters either.

Voting for a political party is a waste of time now as all they consist of is their Councillors, MSP's, MP's and a few of their family and lackeys to keep them in position. Why should the tax-payer have to fund their attempts to keep their privilaged positions.
163

nostress,

grangemouth 21/06/2009 22:59:22
#165 Frddie and Bruno, "Voting for a political party is a waste of time now as all they consist of is their Councillors, MSP's, MP's and a few of their family and lackeys to keep them in position. Why should the tax-payer have to fund their attempts to keep their privilaged positions"

While having some sympathy for your position, I cannot quite give in to the politics of despair you espouse. There ARE good people in political parties (though I do have my doubts about those who choose to join the BNP), who DO believe in trying to help their fellows and the best way to change the direction of any party is from the inside. We need more political involvement at the grassroots level from all our fellow citizens, not less. That way the cliques and cabals heve less chance of dominating matters and the parties themselves will reflect their members views.
164

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 23:04:02
163
Nellie

"What is wrong is that it appears parties are profiting from tax payers money, not simply using it to provide accommodation."

That is what the article was intended to convey. I am not about to condemn anyone on the basis of a newspaper headline. Especially one in this rag.

165

Denis,

21/06/2009 23:20:32
# 162 Electric Hermit

OK, here's a final, straightforward, question for you to answer:

If the Liberal Democrats had to forfeit the £2.4 million they accepted from the fraudster Michael Brown before the 2005 general election, and as a result their party faced bankruptcy, do you think that every taxpayer in the country should be compelled to bail them out?

"Yes" or "no" would be sufficient.
166

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 23:27:13
168 If we had funding of political parties the Lib Dems would not have needed to accept the donation in the first place!
167

Electric Hermit,

21/06/2009 23:33:13
168
Denis

You don't get to tell me how to answer. You can try. But you will only end up looking even more foolish.

The scenario you describe has nothing whatever to do with the issue of state funding of political parties. Because nobody is suggesting that the state should bail out bankrupt parties. That is not what state funding of political parties is about.

State funding of political parties is about ensuring that the widest possible range of political opinion can be adequately represented within the democratic system by providing basic financial support for qualifying political parties.

It is also about reducing the potential for influence-peddling by minimising parties' reliance on large-scale donations from vested interests. And facilitating regulation of such donations.

When you have grasped these basics, maybe you will have something sensible to say. You will forgive me if I maintain normal respiration in the meantime.

168

morris,

edinburgh 21/06/2009 23:42:24
170 Apart from anything else it would presumably be difficult to become bankrupt when the state funding was guaranteed.A party which still could not manage its own afairs under this guaranteed scenario deserves to go under! Please take note LABOUR!
The party which cannot survive under these circumstances is the last thing we should seriously consider as a government!
169

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

21/06/2009 23:44:45
#165 Freddie and Bruno - "Voting for a political party is a waste of time"

Your mantra is becoming ever more popular, a young Ned in a rangers top, said it to me when I was taking some posters down the other week, he added that if they made voting compulsory he would vote BNP, "because they're British and they hadn't had their turn to f**k. things up yet.

It is the closest thing I've heard to an analytical justification of your position to date.
170

Electric Hermit,

22/06/2009 00:04:21
171
morris

"Apart from anything else it would presumably be difficult to become bankrupt when the state funding was guaranteed."

That may be true. Although I stress that I only foresee state funding at a very basic level. Parties will still have to rely on their own fund-raising efforts for much of their finances.

In theory, it would still be possible for a party to go bust. But along with state funding comes a certain degree of state regulation. My expectation would be that borrowing powers would be limited.

Apart from anything else, debt is yet another way in which vested interests can exert pressure. The idea is to minimise such interference in the political process.

171

Denis,

22/06/2009 00:09:23
# 170 Electric Hermit

It's a perfectly straightforward question, so why can't you give a straightforward answer?

Surely you must have thought ahead to what should be done if a qualifying political party in receipt of state funding got its finances into a mess and was on the verge of folding, so that the widest possible range of political opinion would no longer be adequately represented, so what would you do if the Liberal Democrats were about to go bust?

I know - you'd give them a state bailout, wouldn't you?
172

Electric Hermit,

22/06/2009 00:17:51
174
Denis

"It's a perfectly straightforward question, so why can't you give a straightforward answer?"

Others had no difficulty understanding my response.

"I know - you'd give them a state bailout, wouldn't you?"

Precisely the opposite of what I actually said. No wonder you are so pathetically incapable of understanding plain answers. You don't even read them.

173

Denis,

22/06/2009 00:53:38
Nevertheless, that's what you would do.

Logically, that's what you'd have to do, as you know but don't want to admit.
174

Electric Hermit,

22/06/2009 01:02:30
176
Denis

You really are an arrogant bumpkin, aren't you. Who the hell are you to tell me what I "would do". Seems you are one of those sad individuals who, when they don't get the answer they want, simply make up one that suits them.
175

Fitba Krazy,

22/06/2009 01:16:01
Denis 176

If the parties were funded to a basic level to allow them to exist it would be up to themselves how they manage to thrive, therefore if they got into difficulties on a level playing field under equitable conditions at base level then it would be illogical to bail them out. There could be a safety net of some sort as a last resort, a loan guaranteed by the members assets perhaps, but really, if they do not have enough members to cover the debt between them or they are unwilling to do so if they could or are just simply unable to, then it would imply they were pretty hopeless.

In the circumstances you refer to as in paying back £2.4M, that may appear a large sum to an individual but to a party with thousands of members they should be able to cover it albeit perhaps grudgingly, that is different from being skint and unable to, so bankruptcy would be highly unlikely.

176

peter1958,

Glasgow 22/06/2009 13:38:33
I'm not sure I follow the logic of some posters here - is it perfectly OK to rip of the taxpayer if the money is being diverted to a cause the SNP support - such as the SNP itself or the funding of a wholly fatuous attempt to impeach Tony Blair (at a cost of over £14,000 to me on top of whatever food allowances various SNP MP's like to claim as their due)?

Call the polis now! If it was good enough to remove Henry McLeish from office it's good enough to remove others!

Or is equality before the law such a strange concept to nats?
177

subrosa,

22/06/2009 13:38:52
David Marshall, retired MP for Glasgow East, claimed £500 for rent space and this money was paid to the Scottish Labour Party. This arrangement went on until February 2007 when he moved to somewhere twice as expensive. Strange.
178

Jimmy Fae the West,

Land O' Green Ginger! 22/06/2009 14:37:36
Woooo hoooooo. Another fraudulent tale in support of the dinosaur union bites the dust. Corrupt, antidemocratic and undignified is how the sorry life and jubilant death of the Union will be retold in history.
179

morris,

edinburgh 22/06/2009 16:26:38
179

The SNP have agreed and requested that their accounts and claims are investigated.They are open to scrutiny and have never ever tried to prevent this.

The claiming of funds is the issue .Who they are payable to has bof all to do with it if the claim is bona fide and the money would be paid to somebody anyway !

As for Tony Blair the issue is whether he is guilty or not and any procedure which helps to bring about an enquiry and verdict by any means possible is acting in the public interest. It seems to me that you think that to protect the Labour Party when they have much to answer for is an honourable position.
180

morris,

edinburgh 22/06/2009 16:53:42
173 You are of course correct!

I have no doubt that Labour would still rake in monies from Union contributions, and probably donations/and every other source they could think of.
The Tory party would still try to secure advantage by donations from corporate sources.
Some form of regulation would be necessary probably, but that does not necessarily mean it would happen.
Presumably Tweedledee and Tweedledum would only agree to stat funding if it was NOT a level playing field!
The level playing field that I refer to would be better described as a more level slope than previously existed !
Any party that still could not balance its books
and avoid insolvency ,its termination would probably be in the public interest.
Certainly electing that party to run the nations affairs hardly seems sensible !The current government are an excellent example of this !

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.