JK Rowling gives £1million to the Labour Party

SystemSystem Posts: 8,573 Community Managers
Oh yes. According to the Beeb; "Harry Potter author JK Rowling has donated £1m to the Labour Party, the party has announced. Ms Rowling said she was motivated by Labour's record on child poverty and opposed a Conservative plan to give tax breaks to married couples. Her donation will boost Gordon Brown as he tries to calm unrest among party members at Labour's annual conference. Mr Brown said he was delighted to have the backing of 'one of the world's greatest ever authors'." Click here for more.

Naturally, I'm critical of this news. But I think this sums up how I feel about it.

Mind you, it's not as if this money will make much of a difference. Labour's apparently struggling with debts of around £18million at the moment, so it's not exactly going to go far. Over to you...

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Her money, she can do what she likes with it....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Henry Brubaker isn't even a real person. As Flashman said it's her money - on the other side would you prefer he gave it to the self serving conservatives.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was waiting for the SG rant about this.

    I think what would be more interesting is the list of people who have donated that we do not know about. Plus its not as if she doesnt have money rolling around.

    So all you people that bought anything harry potter related in the past, you have just bankrolled the labour party. :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the reasons she stated on the BBC article are sound but I'm not sure the rest of what comes with having Labour again is all that good :-/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Henry Brubaker isn't even a real person. As Flashman said it's her money - on the other side would you prefer he gave it to the self serving conservatives.

    Well, yes... :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The main problem with labour is that they're not as frugal as the conservatives so we have a fair bit of bloat and a big public sector. More people on the sick now instead of on the dole, more people working for the government (so basically more people who everyone who -doesnt- work for the government has to pay), more overspend, more bureaucracy. The benefit is less people without access to good healthcare (remember NHS waiting lists pre labour?), less people without access to a good education, less people struggling without jobs to feed themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Henry Brubaker isn't even a real person.
    That's because it's satire, you idiot. :p
    As Flashman said it's her money - on the other side would you prefer he gave it to the self serving conservatives.
    He gave it? Last time I checked, JK Rowling was female. :p And no, I certainly wouldn't. A plague on the Tory Party as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why couldn't she have given the 1m to an organisation that needs/deserves it, ie Cancer research or similar.

    (if she already has then fine)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    she donates fuckloads of money to various charities, and runs two of the herself already.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Mr Brown said he was delighted to have the backing of 'one of the world's greatest ever authors'."

    Prolific? Yes. Popular? YEs. Successful? YES! One of the greatest ever authors? Erm .. keep it real. Gordon. :yeees:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh well that'll buy a few more missiles and bombs...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    GoodFella wrote: »
    Oh well that'll buy a few more missiles and bombs...

    Does the Labour Party fund defence out of their own pocket? Fucking hell, no wonder they're in debt
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    she donates fuckloads of money to various charities, and runs two of the herself already.



    Fair enough, but why the Labour party? I'm sure cancer research could have done with another million quid.;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because of the reasons she said I presume, that she believes that poor families will be better off under Labour than under the Conservatives. Whether or not that's true is another matter but it's her money so she can do what she likes with it really.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Large donations to parties by individuals will always pose questions and sit uncomfortably with many.

    Still, I have less of a problem with a writer donating money to Labour (or any other party) than businessmen and people with interests in more important areas (transport, defence, economy etc).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Given the amount of money she has she probably has shares in a lot of those (not sure about defence - given her political views). She may also have an interest in things like copyright laws, tax breaks for artists etc...

    To be honest political parties are either funded by the state or privately - I much prefer that they're funded privately.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Given the amount of money she has she probably has shares in a lot of those (not sure about defence - given her political views). She may also have an interest in things like copyright laws, tax breaks for artists etc...

    To be honest political parties are either funded by the state or privately - I much prefer that they're funded privately.

    Maybe they should have to be funded by individuals, rather than organisations, and there should be a limit on the amount any single person can donate? One way to ensure that political parties can't get away with just cosying up to a select few people with money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe they should have to be funded by individuals, rather than organisations

    Never really going to happen. Labour couldn't survive without the unions...
    and there should be a limit on the amount any single person can donate?

    ...and the Tories couldn't survive without a few very wealthy donors.

    TBH I think privately funded political parties (the status quo) is preferable - if there is complete transparency, no anonymous donations and an independent media scrutinising political parties and who's funding them...

    I think the public (and media) perception of the level of corruption within politics is exaggerated. The cash-for-honours scandal wouldn't have been news, let alone a scandal in most countries...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Never really going to happen. Labour couldn't survive without the unions...
    So?
    ...and the Tories couldn't survive without a few very wealthy donors.
    So?

    Maybe this would be a good thing for politics? Maybe it would result in more representive political parties other than a little bit left of centre vs. a little bit right of centre with no-one else getting a look in. Maybe they would have to spend a hell of a lot more time campaigning for donations from a wide range of people? Maybe it would result in more parties based locally reflecting local issues? I don't know, but why would reduced power of the big two parties be a bad thing?

    Incidentally, on the unions, presumably since unions are just representatives of workers, it would be possible to allow members to contribute to a political party through their union. Provided this was an optional extra to members, rather than a necessity. If corporations want to offer the same opportunity to their customers, then they should be allowed to too, but I doubt many would go for it. Their shareholders might be interested though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Given the amount of money she has she probably has shares in a lot of those (not sure about defence - given her political views). She may also have an interest in things like copyright laws, tax breaks for artists etc...

    To be honest political parties are either funded by the state or privately - I much prefer that they're funded privately.
    I must say I'd rather private parties were not allowed to fund them at all. The conflict of interests and the opportunity for corruption and influence on policy are all too great to ignore.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I must say I'd rather private parties were not allowed to fund them at all. The conflict of interests and the opportunity for corruption and influence on policy are all too great to ignore.

    The same is true for State funding... Political parties become dependent on the largresse of the State and parties in power have greater access to change the rules to their advantage
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru


    So?

    Maybe this would be a good thing for politics? Maybe it would result in more representive political parties other than a little bit left of centre vs. a little bit right of centre with no-one else getting a look in. Maybe they would have to spend a hell of a lot more time campaigning for donations from a wide range of people? Maybe it would result in more parties based locally reflecting local issues? I don't know, but why would reduced power of the big two parties be a bad thing?

    Not sure I follow. parties use the money they get to campaign (ie to spread their message to voters). All that would happen is that they'd still have to campaign, but they would have to target more wealthier areas, where voters have the spare money to donate.

    I don't think it would lead to smaller parties (after all the US state funds presidential campaigns and it only has two major parties, and a couple of smaller powerless ones). the big parties, Tory and Labour, have the national organisations and funds to effectively lobby. Smaller parties, such as the Greens, BNP etc, don't have these national organisations and would struggle just as much as they do now to solicit funds.
    Incidentally, on the unions, presumably since unions are just representatives of workers, it would be possible to allow members to contribute to a political party through their union. Provided this was an optional extra to members, rather than a necessity. If corporations want to offer the same opportunity to their customers, then they should be allowed to too, but I doubt many would go for it. Their shareholders might be interested though

    I'm not sure of the details (my union isn't affiliated to the Labour Party), but as a Union member you already have the right to opt out of your political levy. I'm not sure how well this is publicised to members though
Sign In or Register to comment.