However, after a very stressful couple of weeks—after which I have finally relocated, temporarily, at my father's place in Barnes—and a well-earned rest, your humble Devil felt a mild restlessness this morning: it was time to take to the blogsphere again, in search of irritations to vent about.
Unfortunately, apart from the deaths of a few mildly famous people (who didn't even have the common courtesy to die in interesting ways), there seems to be very little to entertain such a perverse spirit as is possessed by myself, and so I am forced to revisit older topics (which I had bookmarked for a bit of a kicking amongst all of the packing frenzy).
So, let us turn to the delightful subject of party funding, i.e. we taxpayers being forced to pay for the corrupt, venal and lazy (no, you fool; I'm talking about the forced funding of political parties, not benefits).
First, Trixy is righteously and eloquently pissed off.
Why should politics be allowed subsidies? If political parties want more cash, perhaps they should try address the problems of why people aren't joining up with their parties or making donations. If a company was losing money say, by not selling it's product, would it be allowed to ask tax payers for funding to carry on? No. It would either sink or adapt so people did want to by their products.
Trixy also points out that UKIP are (as far as I know) the only party opposed to the state funding of political parties; because, you see, we've been stitched up, yet again. Are you surprised? I'm not; those bunch of fuckers ruling us don't give two shits what we, the voters and the funders of their lavish lifestyle, say or think or do. Not really.
We are still exercised about the battle between Tory, Labour and LibDem, and to do so is to miss the point; it is no longer a contest between political parties, a struggle between ideologies. No.
It is now the politicians versus the voters; that is the only battle that matters. The three main political parties now, fundamentally, agree on almost everything.
- The bastards might quibble about how best to distribute both taxes and the methods of raising them, but they pretty much agree that on the overall levels of tax.
- They may wrangle over how best to control our lives and everyday behaviour through legislation and punitive tax regimes, but none of them disagree that we must be controlled.
- They may have the odd disagreement over climate change and the extent to which humans are to blame, but they have all accepted the unproven theory that it is our fault and that we must be made to suffer for our own good. It's a little like the treatment of left-handers during Victorian times: the people may suffer for some spurious, quasi-religious mania, but it's for their own good and to the benefit of society really.
- All three of these stupid cunt fuck shithead parties agree that it is only the state that can mend the ills of the world, despite ample and incontrovertable evidence to the contrary.
- And, lastly, all three parties agree that they should be paid more—whether it is MPs moaning that they should be paid £100,000 per year (plus expenses) or forcing us to stump up for their plush party offices and nubile researchers—and that the people who should stump up is, once again, our own good selves.
Well, you know what? Fuck you, you fucking bunch of bastards. You know why we object to being forced to fund you? It is for the same reasons that we will not voluntarily fund you: we don't trust you, you don't stand for anything that we believe in, and we are firmly convinced that you will waste our fucking cash on jaunts, junkets and free travel for you latest cockwarmers.
My impecunious, Hellenic buddy has written a most entertaining post summarising precisely why we should think all of this. For a start, I agree on this point on the difference between Major sleaze and NuLabour sleaze (indeed, I have been banging on about it for years).
There is now considerable evidence, though, to suggest that the situation under this government is worse than it was under the previous Conservative administration. One reason for this, I would suggest, is that in the Major years, most of the instances of “sleaze” that eventually helped to bring that government to its knees were individual misdemeanours – extramarital affairs, cash in brown envelopes, the Aitken affair, and so on. What they were not – for the most part, and with some exceptions – were indicative of systematic abuse of the power of government. They were born of personal failings, even though the frequency with which they seemed to occur spoke all too eloquently of a party that had grown fat and lazy through years of power.
I entirely agree with this assessment, and concur with Mr E's conclusions.
What ties many of the scandals of the Blair years together, as has often been remarked before, is that they involve New Labour’s fascination with, and close ties to, rich men – Ecclestone, Robinson, Hinduja, Anschutz, Mittal, Berlusconi, not to mention the many donors that have received knighthoods and peerages since 1997. Time and again, ministers – not obscure backbenchers or PPS's - have, even on the most generous possible interpretation of the facts, found themselves in trouble thanks to these links, their heads turned by the whiff of money, like a frisky Labrador getting excited over a particularly fragrant bitch. We can speculate on the reasons why men and women who purportedly went into politics to help the poor end up sniffing the hind quarters of the rich, but only the most diehard of Labour loyalists would deny that it is so.
There are some, as Mr E points out, who still retain enough integrity to speak out against the state funding of parties; that's right, it's the Vulcan again.
It would be a huge mistake to make up the shortfall by forcing extra money from the hard pressed taxpayer. It would be absurd – and insulting – for politicians to argue that because they cannot any longer be trusted to raise big money from a few people, they therefore should simply take money off everyone through the tax system. There are two answers to the money shortfall from the large donors. The first is to spend less. Spend less on market research, computers and fancy campaigning – get back on the streets with a volunteer army. The second is to enrol more members . If you persuade every member to give £10 for an election – not a big ask – you can have a £7.5million campaign from just 750,000 supporters, far fewer than used to belong to the Conservative party. That’s still more than enough money to annoy voters if you spend it badly!
Quite. But sensible though Mr Redwood is in saying all of this, it does not alter the fact that Mr Redwood is a member of, and an MP for, a political party whose avowed policy is in favour of state funding. (Mr Redwood thinks that it is "stupid" to vote for UKIP and doesn't see the point of the party, and yet Mr Redwood is also a EUsceptic. I think that I'm starting to see a pattern here. Mr Redwood is happy to stick with the Tories because he himself benefits from it, but he actually seems to disagree with all of their key policies. Mr Redwood appears to be a fucking hypocrite, even though he actually talks sense. I shall put him in the Iain Dale camp of people who hold sensible views and yet seem determined to continue to retain membership of a party whose views almost entirely oppose their own, in the hope that they may change it from within. A bit like the Tory/NuLabour attitude to the EU actually.)
No state funding. Go fuck yourselves, you cunts.