True Howard , its all just noise
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
is that edwena [sam & ella] curry your talking about howard.
ended up with egg on her face.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
This is shocking!
I wonder how many national policies - and perhaps u-turns - have been decided over a hand-out to the Conservative party and a dinner at the Camerons.
Would it be plausible to ask what the financial situation of the Conservative party was in May 2010, and how it stands now?
It's so alarming, that perhaps the Government will fall over this! We're talking here of national policy making in return for cash.
This must be the end of Dodgy Dave's career, but I certainly don't want to see T. Blair sneaking through the back door with his tens of millions earned in a few years "advising governments".
This could lead to the break-up of the Conservative party, as many Tory MPs will no-doubt be shocked too.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Dream on Alexander.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
No Barry! I don't think it's something that concerns the whole Tory party, but the PM and his policy-making team. Many Conservative MPs will not want to be identified by their voters as participants in cash for policy legislation.
It seems pretty certain the ball has landed square at 10 Downing Street. I watched the interview on SKY, and the wording is specifically about paying between £100,000 and £250,000 a year to the Conservative party in return for a dinner at the Camerons and a secure priority for the particular policy that is paid for.
The co-treasurer of the Conservative party goes on to say that small payments of £10,000 are not enough to receive a favourable decision, and that a large sum, as that mentioned above, would certainly be awesome for the paying party, meaning that it WILL bring in desired results.
The message is unequivocal. This is collusion to pervert the cause of Parliament and democracy! It is a form of tyranny, as the governing institutions are being by-passed through intervention at the highest governing level to favour a paying party.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The explicit message was also, that not to pay up, or to pay a lower sum, would NOT obtain the desired results that are lobbied for.
This means that UK legislation has not been made in the interests of the Country, but in the interests of those who pay the right amount of cash to a governing political party.
This interpretation, at least now, is what the masses are coming to.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - nothing has happened that has not happened many times before under all governments. Yes there are issues that need to be addressed and Cameron should have done so earlier and not fallen into the same trap. But the rest is all wind and air and total hypocrisy from Labour.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
But who dictates Labour policy and even has sufficient voting power to get their preferred leadership candidate elected? Why, their main donors, of course.
I find it slightly ironic that Miliband should be beating this particular drum when we all know that successive Labour leaders have for generations been slaves to union power. Why else did the public payroll swell so much under Blair and Brown?
I'm not defending the Tories, and this man Cruddas seems to be a bit of a bad egg, but I really think Labour ought to have noticed the elephant in their own room by now. Should have gone to Specsavers.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
ALL parties are as bad as each other this time it was the Conservative representative that got caught.
All large donors expect to have an input with their respective parties, they do not give large amounts of money to a group that will completely ignore their views.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
it all lends weight to the argument for state funding of political parties and a ban on donations other than through membership fees.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
There is no argument for state funding of political parties, IMHO Howard. How many parties would we end up with?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The idea of taxpayer's money going to fund political parties is frankly appalling. Better more transparency and a limit of, say, £50k on individual and corporate donations.
It is worth pointing out that there are various reasons for people making donations. One is simply to provide help to a cause that they support without any expectation of getting anything back, I like many I am sure on this forum make such donations to all sorts of groups or organisations. Some because of a large ego and make a large donation because they can and want to be seen to do so. Some will donate simply because they are looking for a chance to rub shoulders with the great and good (and not so good...). Some will do so because they think they might get some privileged access and influence policy - the big question really is whether they get listened to and exert as much influence as they would like to think, I suspect not.
As for how much is donated - it is merely a matter of scale. For some people a £250,000 donation is no more of a stretch or big deal than when I may make a £100 donation or someone else £25 or £10....
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
you will see already from barryw that the shutters are going up,
although the tories have been left wanting, the idea of state fundng won't appeal to the 2 big parties because it won't help there financial position.
lets not always blame labour for everything that happens
this tory has been caught and cameron rightly is having an enquiry, maybe it would be best for the enquiry to be independent(refused by cameron) and what may have influenced cameron by donating large amounts of dosh remains a mystery.
There is of course a view that there should not be state funded parties as the cost would be high and why should the tax payer pay.
there was a move some time ago by labour to disclose all donations over a certain amount, and limit amounts that can be donated, of course cameron wouldnt want this so only half measures were taken, thus todays problems.
Maybe the political parties should get there act together and instead of having big debt in there parties and spending so much at election times and cut there cloth to suit today, this wil continue until something drastic is done.
of course the 2 main parties will do there upmost to oppose any such moves, as there backers nearly keep them afloat.
of course those parties that cannot afford such dosh to be spent in there parties and dont have such donors will of course shout for state funding as they would benefit most.
its an interesting one,,,,, but just another nail in the coffin of politicians in general
apathy scores again
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Shutters up - what on earth are you talking about Keith? Read what is written.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw;
hope you have a nice day
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
The public funding of Political Partys is an appalling idea. Transparency is key and if questions are to be asked as to where all the money comes from:Do union members agree with the funding? Do share-holders, likewise? Answers should be found.
Perhaps it is better to set limits.
[I shall have to lie down now, far too much agreement.
]
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
tom;
not far wrong geezer
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I thought the law said donors to political parties had to be on the electoral roll. Since when did companies and unions register to vote?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No Peter - as long as they are UK registered businesses its OK. It is overseas individuals and companies that are banned.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, said demands for lists of visitors to Cameron's flat in Downing Street were unreasonable, but insisted the party had nothing to hide."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/26/cash-for-access-cameron-meetings-donorsIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
