Watching the Government trying to dig itself out of the financial hole that the cavalier and sloppy overpaid banking community managed to drop us all in, made me wonder how the Devil the Labour Party could possibly win a 2010 general election?
Just as the economy showed some signs of growth, then Unite, Labour’s biggest financial backer, encourages BA cabin staff to take industrial action. Has the strike been contrived to achieve a higher political agenda by the Union? It must be remembered that cabin staff were balloted prior to the event- it was their choice whether to risk losing their virtually free travel perks and ultimately risk losing their jobs. I doubt these workers who already command high salaries are all fundementally politically motivated so as to support a strike, which could be used as a bargaining tool against a future Labour Government’s political direction. Moreover at a time when Labour risks losing a General election. Not all Unite leaders would have gone completely bonkers. However it is possible some mud will still stick.
Now on the otherside of the coin Cameron keeps very quiet about his own financial backers (he has links with the wealthy hunting community that contributes thousands of pounds to the Tory party). William Hague, chief whip, gets caught out by the BBC for knowing the Billionaire Lord Ashcroft’s real tax status at the time the Lord’s peerage was being orchestrated. The favours being passed on to rich Tory backers tend to be a little less subtle than those passed down to the powerful leaders of workers’ unions.
So where does that leave ordinary voters? Generally people want a Government that is committed to creating a society where every vote influences the way the country is run and not by every pound pocketed by the political parties from wealthy benefactors. One plausible system could rely on donations from all political party members being limited to say a hundred quid. Such a system would mean large donors would be forced to distrubute money through a network of members, this method would make it harder for rich donors to secure favours from the political system as many more people would be made aware of who and where the money was coming from.
Currently the limited state funding is shared out mainly between the three larger parties with the lion’s share of about £5 millions a year going to the Tory party. Labour and the Lib Dems share £3 millions.
State funding has long been Green Party policy, as is proportional representation which takes away a lot of the unfairness of the traditiona First-Past-The-Post system. In total the Tory Party always, out spends the other parties by a factor of millions. This year they have an £18 millions pile of cash for 2010 elections.
While readers digest the facts determining why the system favours political parties that have attracted huge funds from dubious sources they might consider that, the Green Party relies in the main on small donations from ordinary members. Greens are proud to tell voters that no one should earn more than ten times the minium wage, the state pension should be £170 per a week and everyone should live in an unpolluted environment.
