http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23955577

Ouch.

It was going to happen the way the Labour leadership take their supporters for granted.

Just goes to show that the unions own Labour.
'Do as we say or we'll cut your funding, even though you're still the best party for us....... yes we know you're skint, that why we're blackmailing you into doing what we want.'

All political parties are paid for by somebody. It's just a question of who your prefer your government to be owned by.

Not unions. At least not unions that still work on the 70's principle of 'we strike therefor we are'.

How many strikes by unionised staff have there been in the last five years? Can you even tell me that? And how is that better or worse than taking most of your finances from 130 people out of a population of 60 million?

The BBC reported this morning that there are roughly 400 people who effectively control political funding in the UK of all the major parties. Whether they are union general secretaries or investment bank directors, that's plainly wrong.

The whole 'political funding by private donation' system is a recipe for corruption, lobbying and preferential treatment for somebody or other. The only way our political system is going to start working for the people it's supposed to - the voting population as a whole - is if the funds of political parties are a) limited in terms of size of donation by any one party, with criminal sentences for party treasurers if it's found they are trying to circumvent the rule - and b) limited in terms of how much money a political party can spend and have spent on it's behalf by other parties in any given year.

As long as we have a system where some individuals (whoever they may be) have influence over the agenda of a political party simply because they control some significant part of that parties purse strings, our system is broken. And if a party - whichever party - can't survive without huge donations from single parties intent on influencing policy then tough - they're obviously not popular with enough people to deserve to run the country.

The system should be a funding by membership based one with set fees - if you want more money, get more people to think you're worth giving money to. That's democracy.

It is exceptionally corrupt as it stands right now. What we need is an absolute cap on donations from all sources of £1000 per person. No chance of someone buying a knight hood as a bonus. So if your company did a donation it should be with names of every single shareholder and who they want the money to go to, with a maximum of £1000 per person. That should require annual declarations from shareholders and they nominate who to pay. Even BNP and UKIP. The same for unions they must get a declaration annually so that money can be paid to the Tories if desired.

Party treasurers must ensure that all donations or union subs from each donor does not exceed £1000 in total. If they do they must inform the police for prosecution. There should also be a bar on non-voters being able to donate. Again criminalise non voter contributions. Ban interest free loans, in fact ban political parties from overdrafts. If they cannot run their own finances they should be disqualified from office. Ban third parties providing other support such as free adverts in papers or sponsoring assistants etc. All of which could be seen as bribes.

Once parties are clear of dodgy funds then they will have to adjust their spending and reconnect with voters rather than 400 of them.

I like your thinking.

Compared to pretty much any other country, the level of actual corruption here seems fairly low. I think nepotism is a bigger issue than cash for policies.

You must have missed all the donations by the banks. They got their money back 100 fold when they collapsed. The politicians got cushy jobs when they left office. Nepotism is a minimal problem, and even if they employ family members it is minimal compared to the cash for questions that brought down the last Tory government.

Top easy to get around

I want to run for Party X as a candidate. I am a multimillionaire so I will self fund my election. No need for Party funds as I can afford my own advertising / staff etc. You will therefore end up with only the very rich being in politics - back to the Victorian era parliments

There are already limits on how much you can spend in a constituency. Zac Goldsmith funded his campaign almost completely from his own personal funds. Though you could limit who can be a candidate by ensuring that only people who earn no more than 5 times median wage and have a wealth of no more than £1 million excluding the house. It is supposed to be a House of Commons.

Hardly universal if you exclude some people based solely on thier income - and if say while an MP I inherit / win £1M does that mean I am kicked out of the commons

Maybe they could limit it based on taxable income. If rich people use tax avoidance, they can't dontate as much to the party that helps them get rich. Obvioulsy there'd need to be some lower limit other wise poorer people couldn't give. But it might help abuse at the top end of the scale.

Too complex. The more complex you make it, the more people will circumvent it and the harder it will be to enforce. Keep it simple: Limit total expenditure on political activities to a certain amount per year (raised in an election year, now we have set parliamentary terms) and limit the donations from any one source to a reasonably small amount, say in the thousands of pounds.

Make all political party & MP finances public by law and make breaching the regulations a criminal offense (as it's effectively attempting to rig an election).

Jon