State funding of political parties

TONY Blair yesterday opened the door to state funding of political parties.

The move, which could cost taxpayers £40million to fund general election campaigns, was one of several reforms proposed in a bid to end sleaze rows threatening his survival.

Mr Blair also said he said he wished to renounce the right to nominate people for honours except in rare cases.

Labour last night refused to comment on a Channel 4 report it received "somewhere in the region" of £12million in undisclosed loans last year.

Lenders were later put forward for peerages by the PM but appointments have been stalled by the independent appointments commission.

Mr Blair made his shock announcement of a new look at taxpayers' cash for political parties at his monthly press conference.

He said: "We should look again at party funding, whether we can further enhance state support."

In exchange parties could accept a "cap" on donations, he explained.

Blair should not be allowed to nominate peers anymore especially when he only allows them in for giving him money.

Personally I like the idea of PARTIAL state funding but with my way it wouldn't cost £40 million. It would be far less with my way. With my way each party would get £10,000 for every MP they get elected which would add up to £6,460,000. They would still be able to get private donations but there would be a cap of £50,000 per year and unions would be banned from giving any money. Unions should use their money to fight for their workers and not try and change the political situation. Political parties should also have to declare all their sources of finance including loans and grants.

It has become clear that no government can be trusted with the House of Lords therefore it should be partially elected. Keep the life and heridary peers that we have now. This is how the election of the lords would go:

There will be 65 elected lords (close enough to 10% of MPs) and the country would be split into 65 lord constituencies.

They will not be allowed to be part of a political party or receive donations from political parties or unions. This is because at the moment the Lords that are part of political parties always go with their party. Independent Lords (in theory) would do what they think is best for the country and not what their party or financer wants them to.

To run they have to pay $5000 (the Lords are supposed to be elitish-We cant have just anyone becoming a lord) which they will not get back even if they win unlike House Of Commons elections where those who get 5% of the vote get their deposit back.

They would be elected for 2 years. Those who have been elected none stop for 20 years will automatically become a life peer. Those who are elected for 30 years none stop (if they continue after being a life peer) will become a partial hereditary peer and their first born child will be allowed to sit in the Lords as a lord but the child dies it won't pass on through the family anymore.

Elected lords will be much more powerful than others. When the Commons uses the Parliament Act after the House of Lords sends a bill back to the Commons the elected lords will meet up. Once the Parliament act is used it still won't go through. It will be given a vote and this time only elected Lords will be allowed to vote on the bill.

I think that would be good enough. What do you guys think?