Iain Paterson suggests we fund political parties in proportion to the number of votes received at the last election, but to me that is a recipe for keeping larger parties in power (Letters, March 28).
A party that got a large number of votes last time would go into a new election with a clear financial advantage and new parties would get no funding. Tired old parties would get financial support but a new progressive and vigorous party would get nothing. If the funding comes from private donations that is fine but not if funding is from the public purse.
Presumably the Government got more votes than the opposition last time but it does not seem right that it should favour its own party or Coalition financially or in any other way.
Bob MacDougall (Letters, March 27) does not want any of his money to go to a party he does not support, but in a democracy we cannot avoid this. Funding has to take place before the election and we would not wish to waste money on frivolous candidates, which is why candidates who do not secure a quorum are financially penalised. That practice is not above criticism.
In the 1920s it was difficult for the Labour Party to gain most votes but eventually it did and had a sweeping victory in 1945 with modest Clement Attlee defeating Winston Churchill, the popular wartime premier who described Mr Attlee as having much to be modest about. The Attlee government's legacy is now the near sacrosanct National Health Service.
Political prediction is not easy. General elections should not be about who did best last time but preferably about who electors think will form the best government next time, but not all electors vote for that reason.
Chris Parton,
40 Bellshill Road, Uddingston.
In my view the state (ie the taxpayer) should provide only that funding necessary to organise and hold an election. The parties say they need to raise substantial funds to contest an election, but the problem then is the perception that large donations are made to seek influence for the donor on the policies of the recipient party.
One way to obviate or at least mitigate this perception would be to put no limit on the amount of donation a donor chooses to make once the election date is established. The proviso would be that all donations are made to or passed to a single fund from which they are distributed to all the parties participating in that election in amounts pro rata to the popular vote each party enjoyed at the previous election.
It would be interesting to see how much was donated under such arrangements.
Alan Fitzpatrick,
10 Solomon's View, Dunlop.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article