text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Political Parties Funding - Reform rejected
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  The majority voted against the motion:[1]
  
  **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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Watt Mr Peter Watt], 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 Communications Allowance[2][3] 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.
  
  An alternative motion was passed in by the next vote.[4]
  
  * [1] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-12-04c.698.1#g698.3 Francis Maude MP], House of Commons, 4 December 2007
  * [2] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6502331.stm MPs vote for Â£10,000 web funding], BBC, 28 March 2008
  * [3] [http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2007-03-28&number=87  Division 87], Communications Allowance, 28 March 2007.
  * [4] [http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2007-12-04&number=20 Division 20], 4 December 2007.
  
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  