Gransnet forums

News & politics

Oh, dear, more sleaze! Do we need to change the way that parties are funded?

(40 Posts)
growstuff Thu 26-Jan-23 18:32:44

Fleurpepper

growstuff

Some think tanks are more transparent about their funding than others.

This is from 2017, but it ranks think tanks from A to E:

www.businessinsider.com/who-funds-you-ranking-of-think-tanks-transparency-2017-7?r=US&IR=T

We have never evder been given a list of the ERG, a right-wing extremist think tank funded by us, the tax payers- and who were those pushing for Brexit and a very hard extreme Brexit at that. We know of some members, but we do not have access to a full list. Remember the interview with Suella Braverman!?!

Oh yes! Indeed!

varian Thu 26-Jan-23 18:29:44

It is not easy to identify all the members of the ERG but I happen to know that my MP , David Warburton, has been listed as a member of the ERG and seems to be very close to Jacob Rees Mogg.

Could this possibly explain why some nine months after his exposure in the Sunday papers as having dubious financial dealings with a very dodgy Russian, having been accused of sexual assault by three different women (lurid details available from The Sun) and strong evidence (photos and mobile phone evidence) of him taking class A drugs, David Warburton has still not resigned as an MP and enabled the voters of Somerton and Frome to replace him with a good Liberal Democrat?

Is Warburton being protected by the all-powerful ERG?

Fleurpepper Thu 26-Jan-23 18:15:29

Here it is, if you have forgotten

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbkog8tY5U8

Fleurpepper Thu 26-Jan-23 18:13:17

growstuff

Some think tanks are more transparent about their funding than others.

This is from 2017, but it ranks think tanks from A to E:

www.businessinsider.com/who-funds-you-ranking-of-think-tanks-transparency-2017-7?r=US&IR=T

We have never evder been given a list of the ERG, a right-wing extremist think tank funded by us, the tax payers- and who were those pushing for Brexit and a very hard extreme Brexit at that. We know of some members, but we do not have access to a full list. Remember the interview with Suella Braverman!?!

varian Thu 26-Jan-23 18:05:41

The think tanks are not the only block to a level playing field MaizieD.

What about the media? Most of our national press is or has been owned by billionaires who are either foreign nationals or tax exiles. More than 80% of newspaper readers read papers such as The Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph, Sun, etc which feed them a right wing view, day in day out.

Then we have social media, which we do know has been exploited by well funded political influencers using targeted messages to steer voters in a certain direction, the most blatant example being the pro-brexit factions (including Russia) just before the fraudulent referendum of 2016.

I wish I could see how any of that might be controlled to the extent of achieving anything like a level playing field.

growstuff Thu 26-Jan-23 18:01:53

Some think tanks are more transparent about their funding than others.

This is from 2017, but it ranks think tanks from A to E:

www.businessinsider.com/who-funds-you-ranking-of-think-tanks-transparency-2017-7?r=US&IR=T

MaizieD Thu 26-Jan-23 17:30:15

There are left wing and centrist Think tanks, too, varian.

I have no idea what to do about Think Tanks... Perhaps politicians shouldn't be able to work with those think tanks that don't disclose their sources of funding? Or those with non UK funders?

varian Thu 26-Jan-23 15:47:21

Even if, as seems very unlikely, the private funding of political parties were to be banned as MaizieD suggests, we would not have a level playing field as long as so-called "think tanks" were uncontrolled.

There are think thanks aligned to various political positions but it is the right wing think tanks working in Tufton Street which have huge power and influence, whilst not disclosing the source of their funding.

According to Wikipaedia -

"55 Tufton Street is a four-storey Georgian-era townhouse on Tufton Street, in Westminster, London, owned by businessman Richard Smith. Since the 2010s the building has hosted a network of libertarian lobby groups and think tanks related to pro-Brexit, climate science denial and other fossil-fuel lobby groups. Some of the organisations it houses have close connections with those at nextdoor 57 Tufton Street, including the Centre for Policy Studies and CapX.

A group of these lobbying organisations, dubbed "The Nine Entities", used the building for biweekly meetings to coordinate policy and public messages. The nine lobby groups—the TaxPayers' Alliance, the office of Peter Whittle (a former deputy leader of UKIP), Civitas, the Adam Smith Institute, Leave Means Leave, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (the UK's principal climate science denial group), BrexitCentral, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute for Economic Affairs—were accused by former Vote Leave employee Shahmir Sanni of using the meetings to "agree on a single set of right-wing talking points" and "securing more exposure to the public".

This network is tied to major US funders of climate science denial and organizations supporting right-wing political causes including the Koch brothers of Koch Industries and Robert Mercer. The network works closely with British politicians, and also has extensive ties to populist right-wing parties in Europe, such as the Sweden Democrats and the Brothers of Italy."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/55_Tufton_Street

Grantanow Thu 26-Jan-23 13:03:53

Some years ago there was a government commissioned study into state funding of political parties but as I recall the parties could not sign up to its recommendations. I think it was led by Sir Hayden Phillips, a former Permanent Secretary.

Wheniwasyourage Thu 26-Jan-23 12:48:32

MaizieD

The state should fund all the political parties, with nothing from the public allowed apart from party membership fees (to be set for all parties at the same rate, by law) and MPs should not be allowed to accept donations. They should be paid much, much more to compensate (and level the playing field) and they should only be allowed to undertake other work in the field of expertise on a pro bono basis (i.e with no remuneration whatsoever) .

This.

MaizieD Thu 26-Jan-23 11:55:36

Whitewavemark2

😄 I can see them all going for that maizie

Not a chance in hades

🤣🤣🤣

I can see potential problems with it, but we really need to solve the problem of money buying political favours...

Whitewavemark2 Thu 26-Jan-23 11:52:54

I was listening to AC/RS podcast and didn’t know that MPS weren’t paid until the 1940s.

So I think it is time the whole thing was revisited.

Whitewavemark2 Thu 26-Jan-23 11:50:56

😄 I can see them all going for that maizie

Not a chance in hades

MaizieD Thu 26-Jan-23 11:34:49

The state should fund all the political parties, with nothing from the public allowed apart from party membership fees (to be set for all parties at the same rate, by law) and MPs should not be allowed to accept donations. They should be paid much, much more to compensate (and level the playing field) and they should only be allowed to undertake other work in the field of expertise on a pro bono basis (i.e with no remuneration whatsoever) .

foxie48 Thu 26-Jan-23 11:19:12

Extract from the Guardian

*The UK climate minister – who recently stated not all fossil fuels were the “spawn of the devil” – received campaign donations from one of the largest fuel distributors in the UK as well as an aviation consultant and recruiter, it has emerged.

Graham Stuart, Conservative MP for Beverley and Holderness, was appointed climate minister by Rishi Sunak in September. He has responsibility for net zero strategy and low carbon generation, and is the Commons lead for clean heat.
Stuart has confounded some during his short tenure as climate minister with claims that a fresh round of oil and gas licensing are “good for the environment” and more recently stating not all fossil fuels should be “viewed as the spawn of the devil”."
How do we ensure that political decisions are being made in the interests of us, the voters, without the input of "interested" parties. Idealistic, I know but surely there's a better way than what we have currently?