tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post116369952820848643..comments2009-04-18T09:59:55.050+01:00Comments on Roger's Manifesto: Party FundingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-76876049618594562042008-04-24T23:06:00.000+01:002008-04-24T23:06:00.000+01:00I give money to all the parties to fund democracy ...I give money to all the parties to fund democracy using my million pound fortune.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-31671100350576327502008-01-16T09:05:00.000+00:002008-01-16T09:05:00.000+00:00I am in favour of limited regulation, more transpa...I am in favour of limited regulation, more transparency but a cap on election spending.<BR/><BR/>I'm in favour of absolute deregulation.James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-10241490784085899832007-10-28T19:35:00.000+00:002007-10-28T19:35:00.000+00:00Hi RogerJust a quick comment to say that yesterday...Hi Roger<BR/><BR/>Just a quick comment to say that yesterday was a great day out!<BR/><BR/>The rally was a downer but the drinks and chat more than made up for it!<BR/><BR/>I'm really interested in getting involved (as well as John Trenchard) so get in touch<BR/><BR/>Super stuff and here is to the next outting!<BR/><BR/>Cheers <BR/><BR/>GT at BBC-BiasedThomas Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10859845504555047310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-85787471162262354282007-09-28T14:34:00.000+01:002007-09-28T14:34:00.000+01:00Congrats on the Top 100.Congrats on the Top 100.James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-9599718034144841552007-08-20T00:05:00.000+01:002007-08-20T00:05:00.000+01:00Apologies for coming late to the party, but I must...Apologies for coming late to the party, but I must say that's a very interesting idea on denying state employees the right to vote. Very interesting indeed. It will probably make you the first politicians to reduce the British voting franchise since the eighteenth century I believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-5076536766875776452007-04-28T16:37:00.000+01:002007-04-28T16:37:00.000+01:00James, I would not rule that out if the State was ...James, I would not rule that out if the State was not involved in very much and tax was low. <BR/><BR/>However, the issue of vast party funding is a problem when massive contracts or monopolies are awarded by the State, as now.<BR/><BR/>The best way to avoid corruption is to remove monopolies from the purchasing decision and the biggest monopoly we have is the State.Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153744692290896812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-72912649289335558112007-04-28T14:23:00.000+01:002007-04-28T14:23:00.000+01:00Perhaps no public funding and no restriction eithe...Perhaps no public funding and no restriction either on where the private funding comes from, even if it's for a peerage.James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-66889097842221417342007-04-12T20:22:00.000+01:002007-04-12T20:22:00.000+01:00James, likewise "nourishing" is an interesting blo...James, likewise "nourishing" is an interesting blog, btw.<BR/><BR/>This is my "policy" blog, as opposed to my "real time" blog over at NeueArbeit Macht Frei.<BR/><BR/>I felt that my Manifesto is about policy and fairly static and is driven from my views which I post in NAMF. I try to refer back to the Manifesto items as and when events justify.Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153744692290896812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-19160567407071551832007-04-12T19:40:00.000+01:002007-04-12T19:40:00.000+01:00...If people are taxed to pay for party funding yo......If people are taxed to pay for party funding you are forcing people to pay for the promotion of views that they may disagree with...<BR/><BR/>Couldn't agree more.<BR/><BR/>Very pleased to make your acquaintance, Roger. Tell me, which is your main blog? I noticed some quite august contributors and friends on your other blog.James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-2343188134320469782007-04-12T17:27:00.000+01:002007-04-12T17:27:00.000+01:00I agree, mandrill, that the party system is in a m...I agree, mandrill, that the party system is in a mess.<BR/><BR/>It would be better that the whip system was weakened to the extent that people should be able to stand by their PERSONAL manifesto which the electorate then votes on.<BR/><BR/>If we had multiple groups in Parliament that allowed non-exclusive membership, then this would enable an MP to be a member of, say, pro-Nuclear group, an anti-EU group yet be in favour of State Education.<BR/><BR/>The groupings could then recognise the MPs as being in that grouping. <BR/><BR/>However, this is only half the problem. Apart form making the State much smaller, we do need to have more referrendae. Switzerland recently voted on immigration and nuclear energy issues. Try getting any of that discussed properly by MPs in the UK!<BR/><BR/>A smaller state means local authorities can be much smaller and far more concerned with "bins, lighting and parks". This reduces the need for greater power and democracy. One thing worse than a bad politician is one on your doorstep! <BR/><BR/>I am not happy with too much influence in policing in cities, as this runs the risk of pandering to large minorities. The Rule of Law should be consistent and I am still unconvinced that elected Sheriffs at any real level are beneficial.Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153744692290896812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-66647747166903371262007-04-10T13:19:00.000+01:002007-04-10T13:19:00.000+01:00Why bother with parties at all?They lead to cronyi...Why bother with parties at all?<BR/>They lead to cronyism, eliitism and corruption and reduce voter choice. If you vote for a particular party then you're getting all the policies that you don't like along with the ones you do.<BR/>Why bother with a tier of government which is unnecessary?<BR/>Representative democracy is demeaning to the electorate, it implies that individuals are incapable of representing themselves and their views. It is also apparent that MP's put party loyalty before loyalty to those who elected them (or they do if they want to be up for election next time around.)<BR/>Why not give the electorate true control over the actions of the government? <BR/>Instead of politics being about personalities and marketing, it should be about the issues that the voters think are important. Let them decide what the government(them) should concern itself with instead of having proclamations handed down from on high "This is what you should worry about, this is how we're going to fix it."<BR/>Why not make every bill a referendum?<BR/>The technology exists to allow every citizen a vote on every issue and allow voters to decide which issues merit state intervention. The main reason we aren't using it is because of resistance from those who would lose their jobs if it was implemented, i.e.: the government.<BR/>If things continue as they are we, as a population, will no longer be capable to decide anything for ourselves and will rely on the state to do our thinking for us. Our independence of thought and individuality will have been 'educated' out of us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-51305625722742375982007-03-23T11:48:00.000+00:002007-03-23T11:48:00.000+00:00Hi , just popped in to mention how much I enjoyed ...Hi , just popped in to mention how much I enjoyed this <BR/><BR/>"I climbed Mt Everest, the only difference being it was Glastonbury Tor"<BR/><BR/>Jolly funny and a good pointNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-1166096550457813462006-12-14T11:42:00.000+00:002006-12-14T11:42:00.000+00:00As ZaNu Labour get most of their corporate sponsor...As ZaNu Labour get most of their corporate sponsorship from those made rich by PFI, don't hold your breath.Serfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03298915724856708344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15640514.post-1164381813391995782006-11-24T15:23:00.000+00:002006-11-24T15:23:00.000+00:00Given voter dissatisfaction with "lesser evil" and...Given voter dissatisfaction with "lesser evil" and "one choice" elections as well as excessively negative campaigns, many voters often wish to vote NO in elections to office just as they can on ballot questions.<BR/> <BR/> Why not? In a democracy, government must obtain the consent of the governed, and all legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent. Clearly, the legitimate consent of voters requires they be able to withhold their consent to an election to office.<BR/> <BR/> Essentially, elections to office are hiring decisions made by voters, where the political parties act as search firms and the campaign serves as the interview/assessment process. Can you imagine any institution arranging its affairs so that each search firm sends a single job candidate for a position, with the understanding one of them must be hired? Compounding the problem, the two largest search firms arranged the institution's regulations so that, expect in rare instances, only they present candidates for selection. Worst still, often only one candidate is presented in these "must hire" elections. Furthering difficulties, where there is a choice of candidates, the “must hire” method causes candidates to attack each other rather than discussing their own qualifications. Any institution using such methods would soon be controlled by those search firms. The wonder is government is not more of a mess than it is, since that is exactly how we hire (elect) most candidates for public office. <BR/><BR/> Instead, we could enact Voter Consent laws giving voters a binding "None of the Above" (NOTA) option after each candidate list, which calls a new election, with new candidates, to fill the office should NOTA win. While NOTA by-elections are an expense, they would not occur unless voters vote to hold them, and are likely less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office.<BR/> <BR/> With a NOTA ballot option, voters make the final decision about the choices political parties made, rather than those parties deciding the final choices voters can make. Even candidates running unopposed would have to obtain voter consent to be elected. And all political parties would know their selected candidates must face NOTA as well as any opponent, reducing the incentives for negative campaigning and "lesser evil" candidates. Buying "access" to candidates or determining election outcomes with contributions becomes a more uncertain enterprise.<BR/> <BR/> Surely Voter Consent laws will not solve all the problems with democratically governing ourselves; however, it seems to me NOTA based Voter Consent laws are a common sense, much needed improvement, returning some power to "We the People", from whom our constitution draws its legitimacy, and taking some power from political parties and corporations, whom our constitution never mentions.<BR/><BR/> Below is a list of specific reasons for enacting NOTA based Voter Consent laws:<BR/><BR/>o All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; "None of the Above" gives the voter the ballot option to withhold consent from an election to office, just as voters can cast a "No" vote on a ballot question. <BR/><BR/>o Would end the "must hire" elections where voters are often forced to vote for the least unacceptable candidate, the all too familiar "lesser evil." <BR/><BR/>o A candidate must obtain voter consent to be elected, even if running unopposed. <BR/><BR/>o Voters would decide the fate of the political parties' choices, instead of the parties deciding the voters' choices. <BR/><BR/>o It should reduce negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to campaign for their own candidacy rather than against their opponent's candidacy.<BR/> <BR/>o Many voters and non voters, who now register their disapproval of all candidates for an office by not voting, could cast a meaningful vote. <BR/><BR/>o The meaning of elections should become more clear, since voters would no longer be tempted to vote for a presumed losing candidate, with whom they really do not agree, as a protest vote. <BR/><BR/>o Establishes flexible, voter controlled term limits of one term for every office, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended. <BR/><BR/>o Campaign contributors who give to all candidates to insure "access" would no longer be sure they backed the winner; in general, buying elections should become a more uncertain enterprise. <BR/><BR/>o Improves checks and balances between voters and political parties, especially needed in jurisdictions with one dominant political party or nearly identical alternatives. <BR/><BR/>o Political parties would nominate candidates knowing those candidates must be a better choice for voters than "None of the Above." <BR/><BR/>o Follow-up by-elections are far less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office. <BR/><BR/>o Office holders, knowing they face "None of the Above" in the next election, would be encouraged to insure their re-election by focusing more on doing a good job in office and less on attempting to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition candidate. <BR/><BR/>o When pre-election polls include "None of the Above", the feedback from voters should help guide candidates and parties. <BR/><BR/>o Even when "None of the Above" does not win or is a non-binding NOTA, the reported NOTA vote would help identify those offices for which voters might be more receptive to new candidates in a future election as well as limits the winner's mandate. <BR/><BR/>o Provides a permanent option for voters to withhold consent that is independent of expensive and infrequent candidate based "reform" movements. <BR/><BR/>o Should make public service more attractive by improving the quality of those elected to office. <BR/><BR/>o Opportunities for election fraud should be reduced because fewer blank votes for an office would be cast. <BR/><BR/>o Applies to all candidates and parties equally.<BR/> <BR/>o It is a relatively simple, fair, sensible, accomplishable and permanent improvement to our current system, hopefully making for a more democratic and ultimately stronger America.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com