Public Funding of Political Parties, Part 4

As the MP has still not responded to my previous e-mail, and as I've had more time to think about it, and get riled up, I decided to write another one to him.  Just sent the following to him:

Dear Mr. Loughton,
I am disappointed to see you have not yet acknowledged any of the points I brought up in my last e-mail.  I hope it is due to being too busy, and not because you dismiss them outright.

I've also been thinking more about your initial response to me and I have a few questions myself, particularly as the Fleet Street/BBC/Westminster consensus won't ask them...

What "problem" are the parties seeking to address in seeking taxpayer funding for their operations?

What is to stop corruption and influence from other sources? 

What benefit does taxpayer funding of political parties bring to the taxpayer?

What benefits do the main political parties' continued existence bring to the taxpayer that there is sufficient justification to take money from us to maintain?  If it is self-evident, as your initial response to me seems to imply, I am missing the point altogether.  Perhaps I am a bit slow. 

I seem to recall hearing prior to the leadership election that Cameron's lot were willing to lose 25% of the Conservative grassroots in order to re-brand the Conservatives (they certainly lost me).  Why should the Conservative Party not live with the membership implications of the decision to publicly abandon core conservative principles in the same way that Labour should learn to live with the decision to abandon Clause IV?

Why wouldn't a parliamentary act supporting taxpayer funding of political parties look like collusion between the three "mainstream" parties?

Is Britain a better place for the quality of its political class over the past two decades?

In what ways, outside of the key marginals, are any MPs democratically accountable?  For instance, if you - or your party - were to vote on key issues against the wishes of a majority of your constituency, what is the chance of you or a member of your party (and hundreds of your parliamentary colleagues in similar relatively safe seats) not re-taking your seat in the next general election?  Would taxpayer-funding make parties more democratically accountable? 

Why shouldn't the parties choose to live within their current means?

If there is taxpayer funding of political parties based upon the Philips formula, what's the next step?  It strikes me that this will succeed in alienating even more people from the voting booth, making the potential pool of voters shrink.  Will Parliament just vote to increase the per-voter payment available under the Philips formula?

Is the current lead in opinion polls that the Conservatives enjoy due to the intrinsic qualities of the Conservative Party and Conservative Party policy? Or is it more due to the same type of factors that brought about the 1997 Labour landslide?

I know many of the points I put in my previous missive are the equivalent of asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, but I put it to you that the gutsy leadership it takes to vote for Christmas is the sort of thing that would energise a detached electorate.  It is exactly what made the Congressional Republicans in the US a majority throughout the 90s and up until recently; with the Contract for America they stated that they would, in fact, vote for Christmas, and if they ceased doing so, the electorate had every right to vote them out.  And it is this principle that has energised the conservative grassroots enough in the US to not only stump up the money to fund the Republican Party, but also to finance literally thousands of local, state, and federal political campaigns and movements.

And if the Conservative Party adopts the concept of taxpayer funding as one of its own policies, it will only go to confirm my growing suspicion that parliamentary democracy, at least here in the UK, is more akin to having the right to vote for the organised crime family that gets control of the protection rackets, rather than about bringing change and improvement to people's lives. 

As a reasonable person, I am, of course, open to persuasion otherwise (and have been known to make 180 degree changes in fundamental positions with enough evidence, and have contributed financially to my new positions).  However, if someone wants my money, they should sell me their product, not arrange a vote to force me to buy it.

I await your response, as I raise some valid and reasonable questions.

Regards,
James G