Tuesday, 22 November 2011

Smoking out political funding

Two 'reports' have been issued today, one in the Mail which states that a Japanese tobacco firm spent £23,000 on 'entertaining' 20 MPs in six months, nearly half of which voted against the proposal to ban smoking in cars. The second is the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, one in respect of whether our political parties should be funded by the public.

How many of us who do and have worked in the private sector have enjoyed a day out, one paid for by a company whose 'services' your own employer comes into contact with? During my days in estate agency I would invariably, one or twice a year, enjoy a day at Lords or the Oval but that did not put me in the pocket of the bank, building society or firm of solicitors who may have been my host. Admittedly a certain amount of work was passed to these organisation, but it was done evenly and fairly. Having said that, the question has to be asked whether MPs should, because of the nature of their position and power, accept days out funded by private companies? I think that all would agree arguments can be made for and against that question - although that is not the point of this post.

The first paragraph of the Introduction to the Executive summary of this report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life states:
"Political parties play an essential role in this country’s democracy. The public may be cynical about them. But they affect all our lives in important ways. They produce the platforms and leadership between which electors choose when casting their votes at elections. They provide and support the individuals who make up the government, the opposition and the membership of hundreds of local authorities. They develop policies. They build support for those policies by engaging with the electorate. When in opposition, they scrutinise and debate government policy and hold the Government to account."
That opening paragraph contains so many unbelievable statements, I am at a loss where to start - but I digress. Neither of these two subjects - acceptance of corporate hospitality and party funding - would be of much importance were politicians not part of a dictatorial pact, one that ensures the continuance of their subjugation of the people.

Were politicians just 'managers' of policies imposed on them by the people; were policies devised by politicians liable to public intervention whereby they could be annulled or amended; the problems of corporate hospitality and party funding would not arise as companies in the private sector would realise those on whom they lavish 'hospitality' in fact have limited power. On the same basis, the funding of political parties by private organisations would also fall for the same reason. The added bonus would of course be the saving in the cost of 'committees' being set up and funded to find yet more ways of preserving our political, dictatorial, class.

Just saying............

Afterthought: For those who may not have seen earlier posts, a fairly long post is planned for the weekend in which an alternative form of democracy will be suggested.

No comments: