LaptopAcidXperience

If you truly have a problem, run as an independent or offer to run for your party of choice. You will have a vote in a house where the government in power might not even have majority rule so you will be able to have a truly important vote.

I (and many others, probably everyone on here in fact) wont vote for you, mainly because we aren't in your constituency.... I imagine the rest won't vote because you all you have to say is all bark no bite from a bitter old sod who has nothing better to do than bully and belittle people who do actually believe that democracy can exist. On a small scale I have seen it work myself.

The Election process is not democratic however, it is a tactical game by the parties to ensure that the easier the seat to win the less emphasis they will put in to promoting it over a hotly contested seat. But once in the job is to act on the belief of the party, not really the constituents, however as you were voted in by people supporting your party those views are very similar.

Otherwise, please stop the puerile bitching and condescending posts against other members of this forum.

The reason that the Greens can not afford to have as many candidates is that the cost of applying is around £1000. The Tories raised the limits to stop fringe characters. It should revert to £100 but with no benefits. It used to come with free postage for candidates. Scrap that and it will be much fairer.

Overall the real solution to restoring democracy is to reduce the funds to the parties. This could be a cap on any donation, say £100 including for companies, unless they get a written approval from every shareholder and they can then donate up to £100 per shareholder. Such approval has to specify which political party. So a company could end up making donations for Labour, Tory or even Monster Raving Loony Parties. That would eliminate the ability of big donors being able to by knight hoods or influence. WIth reduced funds the parties will have to make better use of party political broadcasts.

Nice post fin!

And a good point from Amnesia too.

And LaptopAcid, you really think an evil dictator would be better than our current parliament system?

Lets face it it probably couldnt be any worse. for a start its easier to shoot just one corrupt, thieving liar than 600

The only thing is that Firms with larger proportions of shareholders are likely to have more clout.
It would be more effective to limit donation to £1000 per person.
Another problem is that that is unlikely to ever happen since it would be like the tories and labour signing thier own death warrant with them being millions of pounds in debt.

Plus in reality Campaigning Is fairly over rated for the big 2 parties, since they already have massive publicity anyway as they are both continuosly in the public eye. Oppositions don't win elections governments lose them is a statement that holds much stead come election time. Cameron isn't gaining votes brown is losing them the only reason why the tories will have votes is they are the next obvious alternative.

I think it's about time we did away with the whole idea of "parties" and create a Government that can run the country effectively without descending into outdated political views. We've been saddled with this "2+1" party system for far too long and look where it's got us. In this day and age, the country needs to be run like a business, because at the end of the day it's money that counts, and unless the Government supports the generation of that money, we'll end up doing what Labour is doing now - borrowing so much that, if it were a person, they'd have a credit rating so poor they wouldn't even be able to rent a DVD from Blockbuster.

All firms have 100% shareholders, so larger firms may have more shareholders by having a rule that requires all shareholders to give annual permission to donate and to which party, would even things out for smaller firms. A small firm with a couple of shareholders can simple write a note and that will be acceptable. Then the company would be able to make a political donation. Big public companies have loads of institutional shareholders, who would be required to contact all their depositors and get annual permission. In reality this would be too cumbersome, and would mean that block votes by institutional votes to support one party or another would be over. That could reduce the influence of big companies.

The same principle should also apply to unions but since they have regular contact with their members via shop stewards this should not be a problem. Again all parties could benefit from such donations.


That would still give excessive power to the rich. The average person does not make such large donations. £100 is more than enough. Party memberships could be exempt. If you allowed a higher limit it would give more power to those that made the maximum donation.


I would rather a one off donation from the state to reimburse the parties and to eliminate the overdrafts. Mentioning overdrafts they should be banned. If a party can not manage its finances then why manage the country.


I agree with that.

I think fair enough but the realist in me says that is what should happen but that isn't what will happen

I said benign, not evil, whoever said run the country like a business with a board and chairman is probably a better way to describe what I was thinking, which was based on something I read a few years ago, probably before you were born.



Who is belittling who now, you should pull that stick out of your arse before you hurt nick's mouth with it.