[pp.int.general] Pirate Party UK Critism

[Eric Priezkalns]

On 3 Oct 2009, at 21:11, Pasi Palmulehto wrote:

> On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 20:50 +0100, Eric Priezkalns wrote:
>> On 3 Oct 2009, at 19:17, Kai Mast wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about England. What do you mean with you need money to
>>> place a candidate? In Germany we just need signatures... do I get
>>> something wrong here?
>>
>> Erm... I mean we in the UK need money in order to offer a candidate  
>> in
>> every seat in every election.  Not every country has the same
>> democratic procedures.  In the UK, if we get enough votes, the party
>> gets its money back.  If we don't get enough votes, we don't get the
>> money back.  Currently the threshold for the general election is 5%,
>> so every seat where we get less than 5% of votes, we lose our deposit
>> of GBP500.  That means that if we matched the German result of 2%
>> overall, 3% in some places, it would cost us around 350,000 Euros if
>> we had a candidate standing for every seat, and we would need that
>> money to begin with, just to be allowed to compete in every seat.
>> That is why I don't feel bad that raising money is central to the
>> strategy for PPUK.
>
> If you need to deposit such amount for just participating into
> elections, the member fee sounds very reasonable. For example in  
> Finland
> we do not need to deposit any money for the elections, but we also do
> not receive any funds from the government for promoting our  
> candidates.
>
> We don't have member fees, we will raise the funds for elections by
> donations and selling support stuff (PP shirts and such). Also if we  
> get
> seats or not, no money will be paid back, but after we have at least  
> one
> seat, we will be receiving support money from the government as long  
> as
> we have at least one seat on parliament.

How I wish we had a similar system in the UK!  You civilized  
continentals are so much more refined than we brutish Brits.  Our  
situation is not nearly as bad as the US, but the need to manage a lot  
of money changes the whole dynamic of politics.  British political  
parties have to be run like businesses.  They even pay tax on any  
surplus they generate.  There is very little possibility of state aid,  
even if we were to win seats.  For example, if we had two seats in the  
UK Parliament, we could apply for grants to help us do policy research  
- but there is no guarantee we would get the money and it could not be  
spent for anything else.  The only aid we get guaranteed is access to  
community meeting halls for free meetings during an election campaign,  
postage paid for one free mailing to every house in a seat we fight  
(but we still pay for the printing of the leaflet) and a slot on  
national television if we fight enough seats (but we still pay to  
produce the TV recording).

Of course, managing a lot of money also changes the legal and  
administrative implications - UK law heavily focuses on our meeting  
various obligations to show where our money comes from and that it is  
being properly managed.  That is why even a small party in the UK,  
with no seats in the UK Parliament, can still expect to spend  
USD150,000 per annum on administration by full-time staff.  It means  
that the democratic ideal of a party run entirely by committed  
volunteers soon becomes unfeasible as you grow in size and start to  
handle the large sums of money needed.

E

>
>
> -- 
> Pasi "Scoffa" Palmulehto
> Leader of Finnish Pirate Party
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general