I don't think it does remove the TU influence.
Just think how many supposed charities start advertising the ruinous effects any reduction in public spending will have on their clients (They really mean on their own salaries). How many councils, health bodies etc etc etc all take out full page advertisements every election.

Nominally, the Conservatives usually outspend Labour in an election. If you include the amounts spent by their various supporters, the reverse is true.

The difference is that Conservative supporters are spending their own money or their company's money. And their shareholders can bar political contributions - and many have. Labour supporting organisations are generally spending public money. And there is no way of preventing it (at the moment).

What businesses can do is very tightly controlled. Not so the supposed third sector. The Labour Government changed Charity Law so that political campaigning by charities is now permitted. That is precisely why the Labour Party want public funding. It leaves them with all the cards.

Whatever happens we need to avoid ending up like the US when it comes to political funding and the ridiculous amounts of money involved both directly and indirectly.

Random lottery seems a bit risky, our old milkman was a good and hard-working person but probably not the best choice for the role of deciding on fisheries policy

How about nomination? People who are not necessarily politicians, ideally non-partisan experts in their field, and most importantly don't want a job in politics, and don't crave power and authority. A bit like conscription, but hopefully with a lower risk of death, and decent compensation so that they and any family of theirs are not set back by a few years helping out?

Everyone gets to nominate everybody else or themselves, but numbers win. Like democracy but without wealthy / well-connected types taking the steering wheel all the time. Those types would have to properly compete for a change??

Mister Maker runs school arts and crafts programs, engineers control the communications networks, sensible economists get taxation, logistics types get transport, Boris does stand-up comedy? Not so much about putting 'experts' in charge, more like putting 'respected and capable' people in charge. No doubt there are flaws with this approach, but career politicians (with a few exceptions) are not exactly shining... just a thought.

There is an old saying that "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach" (which I always thought was a bit cynical as most teachers are very talented, and a lot of very talented people can't teach to save their lives).

These days, it seems that those who can't, go into politics.

Yes there are a lot of can'ts in politics.

Oh wait, I didn't spell that correctly, did I?

I'm not casting aspersions as to the collective ability of the teaching profession in the UK but

it's a funny thing that here in the Caribbean, there is an obsession with gaining masters degrees or even PhDs as a pre-requisite to being appointed into lofty positions in the civil service. In addition, school teachers are held in particularly high esteem and much of the 'perceived' talent goes into teaching - naturally also with masters degrees. Once settled in these stable and better paying positions, there is little demonstrated inclination to ever get out, which might suggest that the 'talent' here doesn't really lend itself to anything beyond teaching. Then there are the lawyers.

The end product in all of this is an incredibly arrogant and aloof intellectual class that thinks it is god's gift to the nation, particularly if they have been 'away' to the UK or wherever at some point.

Most unfortunately, they are typically utterly incompetent at providing anything in the slightest way useful to move the country forward because they have no experience at actually doing anything and seeing something through from the theory, intellectual exercise or initial thought-process of somebody else into actual practice.

They couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag.

This naturally includes the politicians and government ministers as well. There is little demonstration of the common sense approach to pretty-much anything, mainly because they don't have any.

The peter principle seems to rule, throughout and we are held hostage to this.

In our case, it's more like Those who can - LEAVE!

Funnily enough, the same Those who can - LEAVE rule applied in the UK around the time I left in 1976.

The UK could be an awful lot worse in this regard but it is a travesty when the shenanigans in Westminster and Washington is used as an excuse for the corruption, uselessness and on and on that pervades the 'developing' world.

If you want to know about political corruption come to Canada

The government here from Federal to Provincial to Local, has opened our eyes and cast a dark cloud over our choice of place to live! I will take Westminster anyday over Ottawa! Most citizens here just shrug their shoulders and say
c'est la vie !

The patois equivalent here. People (the average people) feel utterly powerless to be instrumental in implementing any kind of change so they belly-ache big-time about the prime minister of the moment and that is it.

Politics is terribly clannish though, meaning that it isn't actually politics at all - rather an election is giving the keys to the cookie jar to another clan (policy doesn't enter into it) - so you could never have an open discussion thinking that somebody's opinion / viewpoint could be changed.

At this point I'm just not sure how I will feel when I'm back in the UK from the political side of things. I think it likely best to keep my mouth well and truly SHUT, whereas here we - my St Lucian friends and I - talk about it all a lot in spite of talking in itself being pretty pointless.

Hello my little mate...it is you isn't it.....the "Mad Punter" ?.....how are the donkeys going these days...still making a fortune to add to your pile ?

Now that we have the "pleasantries" out of the way...just exactly is it that you consider me to be "clueless" about ?

If you honestly think that Australian highways are "shite" then you should either travel more extensively or stick to donkey bothering mate...

Well after 30 odd years in Australia I reckon the roads are pretty crap generally, some are good, a few are very good but many are just awful.

Most things judging by your contributions on here.

if you were a few quid behind me you would be doing well