Friends around for dinner

walkingbootweather

We've had a number of friends around for dinner at different times this year. Never charged them, but they tend to bring around a bottle of wine or dessert. Chatting with them has opened my eyes to some of the challenges in their jobs or hobbies and may have influenced opinions that I may have expressed here. Do you think I should declare the names of these friend and what we have discussed?

rjsterry

Depends. Fairly sure you don't run the country (unless WBW is an elaborate pseudonym with detailed backstory).

cornerblock

walkingbootweather wrote:

We've had a number of friends around for dinner at different times this year. Never charged them, but they tend to bring around a bottle of wine or dessert. Chatting with them has opened my eyes to some of the challenges in their jobs or hobbies and may have influenced opinions that I may have expressed here. Do you think I should declare the names of these friend and what we have discussed?

You really are a true friend then! :shock: Don't spoil it by being indiscreet. By the way how much is it normally for a 3 course meal at yours?

notsoblue

Well everyone knows you as the "Forumer of business" so its to be expected really :P

walkingbootweather

Cornerblock wrote:

By the way how much is it normally for a 3 course meal at yours?

Well if you want a "Premier League Dinner" I understand the going rate is about £250,000

cornerblock

walkingbootweather wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

By the way how much is it normally for a 3 course meal at yours?

Well if you want a "Premier League Dinner" I understand the going rate is about £250,000

In that case, can I see the Blue Square Bet Conference North menu please?

walkingbootweather

Cornerblock wrote:

In that case, can I see the Blue Square Bet Conference North menu please?

The Blue Square Bet Conference North menu will be cheaper, but for that price you might have to take your tea at my Mum's house. I see her regularly and I'm sure she'll let me know what you said . If you want me listen to your views personally then you'll have to dig a little deeper.

sketchley

There was a bloke on r4 yesterday suggesting that when you vote there should be an "include £3 funding from tax payer" box on the ballot form which go to local party of candidate and then banning all other politcal funding. I thought that was a pretty good idea personally as it would mean to survive a politcal party would need to ensure local people ticked the box in numbers rather than be influenced just a few rich people.

bompington

Sketchley wrote:

There was a bloke on r4 yesterday suggesting that when you vote there should be an "include £3 funding from tax payer" box on the ballot form which go to local party of candidate and then banning all other politcal funding. I thought that was a pretty good idea personally as it would mean to survive a politcal party would need to ensure local people ticked the box in numbers rather than be influenced just a few rich people.

Seems fair in a way that popular parties should get more funding, but isn't there a danger that this just reinforces the status quo, as bigger parties will be able to dominate the media even more effectively than now?

sketchley

bompington wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

There was a bloke on r4 yesterday suggesting that when you vote there should be an "include £3 funding from tax payer" box on the ballot form which go to local party of candidate and then banning all other politcal funding. I thought that was a pretty good idea personally as it would mean to survive a politcal party would need to ensure local people ticked the box in numbers rather than be influenced just a few rich people.

Seems fair in a way that popular parties should get more funding, but isn't there a danger that this just reinforces the status quo, as bigger parties will be able to dominate the media even more effectively than now?

Maybe / Maybe not. I think the bigger concern is how does one finance a campaign as an independent without first getting votes to get the funding. It would suggest that funding to run an election campaign might have to be excluded, which misses the point somewhat. Maybe a candidate is sponsored either by a registered and audited polictal party which is funded from the £3 or by an individual or organisation as an independent.

walkingbootweather

How about a system similar to income tax? The first say £10,000 donation would go directly to the party of your choice, after which an increasing proportion of the contribution would go into a central pot to be divided amongst all parties perhaps based upon previous voting patterns. So if I contributed £200,000, only say £100,000 would go directly to the party of my choice, with the democratic process also benefiting?

sketchley

walkingbootweather wrote:

How about a system similar to income tax? The first say £10,000 donation would go directly to the party of your choice, after which an increasing proportion of the contribution would go into a central pot to be divided amongst all parties perhaps based upon previous voting patterns. So if I contributed £200,000, only say £100,000 would go directly to the party of my choice, with the democratic process also benefiting?

I can't see that working, why donate more than £10,000 if another party will benefit.

Personally I'm all in favour or state funding of politcal parties as it removes to a degree the outside influence that is currently courted to ensure party funding. The big problem I have with it is that central funding for all parties mean some of my cash going to parties that I take real issue with, i.e. the BNP. The £3 solution removes that to some extent.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

How about a system similar to income tax? The first say £10,000 donation would go directly to the party of your choice, after which an increasing proportion of the contribution would go into a central pot to be divided amongst all parties perhaps based upon previous voting patterns. So if I contributed £200,000, only say £100,000 would go directly to the party of my choice, with the democratic process also benefiting?

I can't see that working, why donate more than £10,000 if another party will benefit.

Personally I'm all in favour or state funding of politcal parties as it removes to a degree the outside influence that is currently courted to ensure party funding. The big problem I have with it is that central funding for all parties mean some of my cash going to parties that I take real issue with, i.e. the BNP. The £3 solution removes that to some extent.

State funding is fo sho the way forward.

walkingbootweather

Sketchley wrote:

I can't see that working, why donate more than £10,000 if another party will benefit.

Isn't that like saying "why pay me more than £10,000, if you are going to tax me on the extra?" The more you pay, the more the recipient would get. Bigger contributors would support both their favoured party and the greater democratic process.

Sketchley wrote:

Personally I'm all in favour or state funding of political parties as it removes to a degree the outside influence that is currently courted to ensure party funding.

I have no problem with a proportion of my tax going towards a more level democratic playing field. Such a system would make it very hard for an independent or new movement to break through though. In this digital age with clever use of viral videos etc. it is possible to make a powerful point for modest outlay.

Sketchley wrote:

The big problem I have with it is that central funding for all parties mean some of my cash going to parties that I take real issue with, i.e. the BNP. The £3 solution removes that to some extent.

Sorry, I don't understand this. Like you, I wouldn't want to see far right parties prospering, but if all BNP voters, ticked the box, wouldn’t the local BNP party get the same proportion of funding?

sketchley

walkingbootweather wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

I can't see that working, why donate more than £10,000 if another party will benefit.

Isn't that like saying "why pay me more than £10,000, if you are going to tax me on the extra?" The more you pay, the more the recipient would get. Bigger contributors would support both their favoured party and the greater democratic process.

I'm staying away from the tax debate. Re donations I'd be pretty miffed if when making a voluntary donation to a political party that some of that donation went to a party I did not support.

walkingbootweather wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Personally I'm all in favour or state funding of political parties as it removes to a degree the outside influence that is currently courted to ensure party funding.

I have no problem with a proportion of my tax going towards a more level democratic playing field. Such a system would make it very hard for an independent or new movement to break through though. In this digital age with clever use of viral videos etc. it is possible to make a powerful point for modest outlay.

Doesn't you last point prove your first though? If you could make a point for modest outlay then having proved that point you qualify for funding (maybe through being elected). Although point taken it's a concern of mine as well. But you also have to look at what there now, getting elected as an independent is very hard to do due to mainstream parties and big donations to them.

walkingbootweather wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

The big problem I have with it is that central funding for all parties mean some of my cash going to parties that I take real issue with, i.e. the BNP. The £3 solution removes that to some extent.

Sorry, I don't understand this. Like you, I wouldn't want to see far right parties prospering, but if all BNP voters, ticked the box, wouldn’t the local BNP party get the same proportion of funding?

I think you miss understood, the £3 goes to local party of the person you vote for, so BNP get £3 times then number of people who voted locally (if they tick the box), which would be thier choice not mine (note this has interesting options for protest voting you could vote for a looney and simply not choose to fund them).

davmaggs

The flaw (amongst many) of state funded parties is that they barely have to talk to voters now. The parties are now all tightly run centrally and no longer represent the people in them who are paid up members (and they override their own local organsiations). In short they can't even raise enough money by convincing their own people (the ones who like them and believe in them) to pay up, so seizing money from the wider public is hardly going to help.

A better option would probably be to limit the arms race they all find themselves in by controlling spending at election time and donation rules.