Thursday, 2 February 2017

The Prime Minister donated money

to his own party for the election campaign? Shock! Horror! What a shocking thing to do!
Quite frankly I think all politicians should be required to donate money to their own parties during an election campaign. If they want to get re-elected then they can help to pay for it. 
Our present Prime Minister is a very wealthy man. If he wants to spend money  that way then I would say, while the present rules remain in place, encourage it. In this case the Opposition can't argue against it. They had more money to spend. 
In this state taxpayer funds were used as well - a lot of taxpayer funds which could have been better spent on other things. They were given to a group which claimed to be "not political". It was "opposed to cuts in health and education". Most people, the vast majority of people, would be opposed to cuts in health and education.  The problem was that the group was actually run by members of the Opposition and was effectively an Opposition campaign strategy funded by taxpayers. It should not have been funded by them - however much people might have agreed with what they had to say. 
My own feeling about elections and election advertising is however simple. There should be a strict limit on how much can be spent, and by whom it can be spent. It would force parties to focus on their own policies not on undermining the policies of their opponents. It would stop a lot of of the vicious commentary by those seeking election and in the media. If you win a certain quota of votes then you get that money refunded. If you are caught spending more than that then you get nothing and pay a penalty instead. 
I know. Too simple. 
But just think what might have happened if that system had applied in America.

1 comment:

Allison said...

"It would stop a lot of the vicious commentary by those seeking election and in the media."

I'm not sure that's true, Cat. I perceive that it is much easier (and therefore, I believe, less expensive) to cast aspersions and mud than it is to clearly lay out your plans so that the electorate understands what you want to do. Much easier to say 'my opponent opposed the bill to raise your wages' (without mentioning just how disastrous that bill would have been) than to explain how you would like to change things to improve the job market.

But it's a lovely dream that people would care about their country's or state's needs rather than their own occasionally. That people would be willing, even anxious, to promote all people -- pale and dark, male and female, gay and straight, healthy and not, young and old -- rather than looking for as many means of exclusion as possible.

Why can't we govern/be governed with love and hope rather than hate and fear?