Comments on: MP expenses and MP selection: the missing link

By: Power, structure and accountability in the Labour party: why the National Policy Forum should be disbanded « Though Cowards Flinch

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:37:47 +0000

[...] expeenditure) and regular monitoring. These proposals are set out in more detail here and here, including proposals for changed financial arrangements for constituencies and constuency parties [...]

By: The bankruptcy of Labour « Though Cowards Flinch

The bankruptcy of Labour « Though Cowards Flinch — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:50:58 +0000

[...] These proposals are set out more fully here , here and (in respect of legislation for all parties) here. There are more thoughts on the localisation of PPC selection here. [...]

By: David and Goole « Though Cowards Flinch

David and Goole « Though Cowards Flinch — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:16:24 +0000

[...] what it’s worth, here’s how I think candidates should be [...]

By: Ed letter day « Though Cowards Flinch

Ed letter day « Though Cowards Flinch — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:02:26 +0000

[...] There are more thoughts on the localisation of PPC selection, which you also raise in your piece, here. [...]

By: On not standing for the NEC « Though Cowards Flinch

On not standing for the NEC « Though Cowards Flinch — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:52:28 +0000

[...] manifesto would have included a quite specific agenda for changing the power balance within the Labour party through the reordering of financial flows within the party, in a way which goes beyond the still [...]

By: All that is wrong with the Labour party « Though Cowards Flinch

All that is wrong with the Labour party « Though Cowards Flinch — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:44:12 +0000

[...] have set out here how I think, organizationally, a shift back towards member power might be brought about. But [...]

By: Don Paskini: Player Hater « The Bleeding Heart Show

Don Paskini: Player Hater « The Bleeding Heart Show — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:55:15 +0000

[...] much preferred Paul Cotterill’s response to my post, not just because it includes that most self-evident of truths (“Neil is [...]

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:02:40 +0000

Dunno, not thought it all the way through, but probably some figure based on averages of parties’ memberships, but with the requirement to have a small group of ‘trustees’ overseeing his/her spend to ensure fairness.

Important to note that this idea is not entirely new:

‘In 1992 the German Constitutional Court recommended that state funding should be related to the amount that a party can raise from its supporters rather than just the votes that it receives. A subsequent commission came forward with proposals which recommended that in addition to funding based on votes, a party would be entitled to DM0.5 for every DM1 which it receives in subscriptions and donations. Currently, the SPD has approximately 700,000 members paying €100 each.’
(Committee on Standards in Public Life (1998)), as noted in a 2002 IPPR report by Matthew Cain and Matthew Taylor http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=174

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:31:38 +0000

A fascinating idea, Paul, and one which certainly appeals to my "this is a local shop for local people!" zealotry. There is a question, though, about how this system would respond to someone seeking (and winning) elected office independent of party. Clearly such people can't be banned, and on those few occasions when an independent does win, he or she will need to be paid. In that event, how are resources allocated? Is the winner then required to seek a second mandate by constituting themselves as a kind of person-party and hunting for members, or would the system make an estimate based on the number of votes received?