text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Opposition Day - Political Parties (Funding)
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>Those voting No rejected the motion for debate:</p>
  
  <blockquote>This House notes with concern the corrosion of public trust in democracy following the recent succession of scandals over the funding of the governing political party; regrets that a comprehensive package of proposals to reform electoral law was not achieved by the inter-party talks owing to the refusal of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Labour representative, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Watt">Mr Peter Watt</a>, to accept a comprehensive cap on donations; observes the unhealthy increase in back-door state funding through the Â£6 million of funds allocated to special advisers and the funding of over 3,000 press and communications officers across Whitehall and its quangos; asserts that the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6502331.stm">Communications Allowance</a> is an unhealthy extension of taxpayer funding for party propaganda that advantages the governing party; and calls for a comprehensive package of reforms to restore public trust and to support a vibrant local democracy and voluntary activism, which must include an across-the-board cap and annually a genuine individual choice for union members on whether they wish to donate to their favoured political party.</blockquote>
  
  An alternative motion was proposed by the <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/account/wiki.php?type=motion&date=2007-12-04&number=20">next vote</a>.
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  