I must admit, I was surprised to read this morning that the SNP have doubled their income in six years. There aren't many entities out there that can say the same. The Nationalists have amassed a £1.8m income in 2009. Scottish Labour's equivalent figure is reported to be £396,000.
Typically it is money to charities that is amongst the first to go when belts are tightened during recessions and although I would never intentionally labal the SNP a charity-case, I do think it and all parties should be treated like one. In the nicest possible way of course.
I see Labour have at least toyed with the idea in the past that political parties should attract charitable status for tax purposes. A welcome move if ever it should come about.
The funding of political parties looks set to be one of the many policy discussion fallouts of the expenses scandal and, if the eerily prescient Political Dissuasion is accurate once again, it is state funding of parties that will be the preferred option in due course.
Let me share in his distaste at such a prospect.
Political parties should be organic beasts, borne out of discussions in dimly-lit, smoke-filled rooms* and fuelled by the energy of its activists and the persuasive power of its ideas. To keep flagging parties going with the money earned by people who wouldn't think for a second of donating to them is certainly a wrong turn and not how the game should be played.
For a game it is. Parties are up against each other as much as Celtic are Rangers or Aberdeen are Sigma Olomouc (bless them). Should a fan from the Greener side of Glasgow be forced to pay money to support the blue team? Not likely.
And along what lines would money be allocated? Vote share? Number of MPs? Would the repugnant BNP get any dosh? Would donations still even be accepted?
Providing tax breaks to political parties is vastly preferable to state funding if there really is a pressing need to ease the financial burden on parties. Although this will effectively be money going back to parties that would otherwise be going into the public purse, if we see such money as never really being ours in the first place then hopefully a change to the rules can be applied with little public outrage.
And even without such a break for political parties in these tough times, mercifully we have the SNP who have shown the way on how to attract numbers, new ideas and fat cheques even when the economic climate is not at its most amenable.
(* Clearly, any new political parties will have to be formed in Cuba or some other country that has yet to have the smoking ban foisted upon itself.)
Friday, July 31, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
on Earth would ANYONE see money paid in tax to the government as not being ours in the first place?
I think this serves to highlight just how deeply engrained apalling Socialist claptrap is engrained in Scottish minds.
Scotland needs to realise that 1946 is actually over and that being subsumed into an anonymous 'region' in the European Socialist Union is very, very far away from the traditional meaning of 'independence'.
Lots of companies treat VAT as "not their money", and price accordingly.
Anon, I think you misunderestimate me.
Of course money paid in tax is ours to spend. But maybe not all tax that is collected should have been to begin with.
Let me explain the confusion:
You have to accept there is a difference between money in my pocket (mine) and money paid to the Government in taxes (ours as a nation).
My point is, if I choose to pay £1 to Labour or the SNP or the Greens, maybe it would be nice to change the rules such that all of that £1 goes to the political party as intended rather than 70% or whatever the tax rules are at the moment.
That's all I'm saying, nothing to do with the rather arbitrary 1946 that you speak of.
Sorry to have upset you, Comrade.
* as per Jeff's suggestion regarding the smoking ban, if anyone wants to join me in Cuba tomorrow at about 3pm to start a new political party, just let me know!
I would like to point out that there is only one place in the UK not covered by the smoking ban...the UK Houses of Parliament.
PD - you're half right. The smoking ban doesn't apply legally to the HoC since it's a Royal Palace. However, smoking is still forbidden in all parts of the Palace except those which are outdoors.
I was once told that as it was a Royal Palace, no-one who had lost their vital signs was ever pronounced dead there - this task being performed over the river at St Stephen's Hospital instead. The reason for this is apparently that anyone, even a 'commoner', who dies in a Royal Palace is entitled to a state funeral.
One of these daft little stories that probably isn't true, but ought to be... :-)
Post a Comment