No public money should be given to political parties. The money already given for "research" should be withdrawn. Politics should not be nationalised when it is clear that existing parties do not command widespread support. Let the members pay - money only gets wasted on TV spin anyway. Donations should be facilitated by a mechanism which leaves the donor anonymous. Oh, for the days of old-fashioned political meetings and debates which vanished in the 1960s. It was much healthier. Peter Holttum, Poole, Dorset

I have no problem with private donations or loans to political parties as long as they are disclosed within a month after being made. I am not in favour of a cap because why should we stop someone from spending their money as they see fit? However, if we had an elected second house then we will not have this problem of buying peerages. I am very keen to know how did all the existing members of the House of Lords get their peerages? The taxpayers certainly should not be asked to fund political parties as that will mean I am paying for parties that I hate. Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey

Individual donations, with full disclosure, subject to a fairly low cap, say between £5,000 and £10,000, no state funding. In consequence, no individual donor could exert undue private influence and state funding which entrenches existing party success is prevented. If a party is genuinely popular (which is supposed to be the basis for a democracy) then it can raise adequate funding; if it can't, then so what? If a party is so unpopular that it can't raise donations to match other parties, so be it. If public funding is to be used it would have to be strictly neutral, ie., all parties get the same, Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, BNP, UKIP, Socialist Workers, Respect, etc. Any other system would simply be existing parties dipping their snouts into the tax trough at the expense of the long-suffering taxpayer. Elizabeth Burgess, Slough

Fund them with private or business and union donations and the giver can never be expected to be altruistic. Fund them through the exchequer? Come on! Are we not taxed enough? Sometimes a difficult problem has a simple answer. Why not classify political parties as charities? The funding can then come from the National Lottery. A few more donations to some more worthless causes will not dent the lottery funds. Moiz Saigara, Nottingham

I think the taxpayer funding political parties would be the last straw. The blood-sucking monsters live off enough of our money. There are probably few things which might start a revolution in this country. This suggestion is probably one of them. Andrew Saul, Huntingdon

Funding of political parties by the taxpayer transgresses an important point of principle. It is as distasteful as MPs voting themselves large pay rises while others are subject to restraint. Those who control the money should not spend any of it on themselves. This is what corrupt dictators do. Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth

The question is rather academic as it is increasingly unlikely that our society and our present form of government will last much longer. More and more the productive and law-abiding (note: not necessarily the majority) population of the UK sees its views ignored and decried as reactionary. At the same time this ever decreasing population is taxed till the pips squeak to support welfare policies which are anathema to them. There will come a tipping point at which the whole system will begin to break down. With the rise of ubiquitous antisocial behaviour and the breakdown in law and order, some argue that the descent has already begun. PC certainly can't cover it up for much longer. Against this background, a discussion of funding for political parties makes rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic look like a good idea. Derek Sinclair, Dundee

Why are so many people so reasonable in their responses? We should all be very angry and it should show. Look, the public purse is wide open and no amount of hand-wringing will save a penny. State funding of parties will cut out the middleman. No longer will the Government be encouraged to place billions of pounds' worth of contracts with second-rate service providers in the hope that a few millions may trickle back to their private coffers to help them stay in power by overwhelming the public with advertising, gimmicks, and the noise of trumpets at election time. All of this important election spending can be had directly from the pockets of the same citizens who feed the MPs between elections. Our MPs are the envy of the world and the level of state funding for them should be decided by them. New parties will remain unable to enter the fray, unable to disturb the status quo. Such a system, well honed by the back room men, the Alastairs in the press room, will keep the hierarchy in power in perpetuity. But how will the poor billionaires who want to receive honours be rewarded? By direct payment to the decision makers, secret mortgages, holidays in ever more exotic places and even a few £100 watches so that the MPs can tell the time. But this way, their time will never be up. Jack Dogberry, London

I struggle with the concept of loans to a political party, which is after all an organisation that doesn’t generate any income. Or will we have more information about this in the forthcoming budget? Howard Broadwell, Nottingham

Primarily through party membership but also partly through public funding. The reasons are self evident, it would encourage more political involvement by an otherwise disinterested public. It would prompt the parties to make some attempt to hold the interest of the public at times other than the two months preceding a general election. The argument against public funding often just boils down to "well then the BNP would be funded...how distasteful". Well you can't have an omelette without breaking some eggs and you can't have a real democracy without having the involvement of less desirable political parties. Time for the home of democracy to put it's house (in many senses of the word) in order. Paul Letts, Hoddesdon

I would object to any more calls on the public. Why should they finance political parties? Instead let the members of those parties provide the funds. This would no doubt provide much less than the parties would like, so be it, would we be any less well served without expensive advertising campaigns? Ian Milne, Leeds

Like many people who supported Tony Blair over the past few years, my respect and admiration has largely been supplanted by feelings of disgust and loathing. I am not a naive person; I do not have any illusions about politics and politicians; you couldn't find enough members of parliament who are selfless and interested in governing the country with commitment and dedication to fill a bendy-bus. What is difficult to accept is a man who made a point of condemning under-the-table deals, proclaiming transparency and openness far and wide but who is discovered, caught up in the same sleaze and dirty dealings that we found so unacceptable under the Conservative government. There should be a cap on contributions to political parties and the taxpayer must provide the funding in the future. Everyone who has received an honour or a peerage over the past 20 years should be investigated and if loads or contributions were made to any party, they should be stripped of their titles or honours. Finally, any "loans" received by any party in the past should be investigated and publicised. Is it any wonder the electorate don't trust politicians? Tom Edwards, Bromley

I would strongly oppose any public funding for political parties. Why should I pay for them to put up conflicting posters telling me how to vote ? A political party should pay for it's expenses by membership dues. Nobody requires that elected MPs should get together in an organised party. Tony Lawrence, Bournemouth