Cash for Cameron scandal

MaxwellBygraves

So, it seems the Tory party have been selling access to the PM in exchange for very large sums of money. Can't say I'm surprised.

Based on the article in the Times, Peter Cruddas co-treasurer of the Tory party, is seen encouraging 'premier league' donations of over 250K+ in exchange for direct access to the PM. Mr Cruddas has resigned.

Another Tory staffer is mentioned having said that if they wanted access to senior government figures they should make a 'huge donation.' This was uncovered after journalists posed as business representatives and secretly filmed it. So much for democracy!

MaxwellBygraves

Good article here: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... competence

estampida

Thats not all they are selling - and as its a murdoch paper they are out to sink the tory party and support labour for the next election, which is wrong, millaband will be mates with the sun soon enough......

did you notice the budget was late this week???

was it waiting for the NHS reforms to be pressed through on monday / tuesday, that means there were 2 budgets 1 if they won 1 if they lost

and glaxosmithkline, were briefed on this budget last week as their announcement was made too quickly after the budget on wed, who else was briefed and how big are their companys..... Oil is the next scandal

It appears the next 6 month in this country will be steered by big business and a small amount of top end Tory party members - nice democracy we have here, just what I voted for

MaxwellBygraves

Cameron replies with: 'This is not the way we raise money in the Conservative Party.'

Now I suspect that this is exactly how they raise, and have always raised, money for the Conservative party

Smokin Joe

Then of course there was Bernie Eccleston's one million pound donation to the Labour Party in return for an exemption to the ban on tobacco advertising on Formula one cars.

Anyone who thinks this is "Typical Tory" is living in a Nu Lab dreamland.

OffTheBackAdam

And Labour's above all this, white as white, no selling favours to the unions?
See Smokin' Joe's point, as just one example not involving unions.
They're politicians, they're all corrupt.

markos1963

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

And Labour's above all this, white as white, no selling favours to the unions?
See Smokin' Joe's point, as just one example not involving unions.
They're politicians, they're all corrupt.

The Labour Party was born out of the Union movement, it has never hidden it's connection and members of Unions can opt out of the political levy if they so wish. Does your pension money invested in a company that 'supports' the Tory party have the same exemption?

MaxwellBygraves

markos1963 wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

And Labour's above all this, white as white, no selling favours to the unions?
See Smokin' Joe's point, as just one example not involving unions.
They're politicians, they're all corrupt.

The Labour Party was born out of the Union movement, it has never hidden it's connection and members of Unions can opt out of the political levy if they so wish. Does your pension money invested in a company that 'supports' the Tory party have the same exemption?

Indeed. I'd add that when you say 'selling favours' what exactly do you mean? In reality, New Labour conciously did nothing to remove some of the most anti-union laws in Europe.

MaxwellBygraves

Smokin Joe wrote:

Anyone who thinks this is "Typical Tory" is living in a Nu Lab dreamland.

I'm certainly not a fan of New Labour, in the same way that am I am most certainly not a fan of the Tories.

Not typical? They're even stupid enough to list it on their website (scroll to bottom)! Donate over 50K and you get access to the dear leader's 'inner circle' ... http://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx

rick_chasey

Isn't it more that Cameron himself made a point of saying that this kind of thing should be stamped out - just before he was elected?

"Secret corporate lobbying is the next big scandal waiting to happen" or something along those lines?

Seems poor judgement. If you're going to do it, and inevitably most do, then don't draw attention to it!

MaxwellBygraves

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't it more that Cameron himself made a point of saying that this kind of thing should be stamped out - just before he was elected?

"Secret corporate lobbying is the next big scandal waiting to happen" or something along those lines?

Seems poor judgement. If you're going to do it, and inevitably most do, then don't draw attention to it!

Yes he did say that secret corporate lobbying was the next big scandal to happen in politics - just before 2010 election IIRC.

Stone Glider

Is this Murdoch getting his retaliation in? I await further developments with relish.

Jez mon

Smokin Joe wrote:

Then of course there was Bernie Eccleston's one million pound donation to the Labour Party in return for an exemption to the ban on tobacco advertising on Formula one cars.

Indeed, it's nothing new, or surprising.

There is an underlying issue.

If you're going to have political parties, then they are going to require money. One option of this would be for the state to supply funds, but this is fraught with complications. So the solution is for them to rely on donations and what's the point in donating, if that particular party is not going to have policies which promote your own personal goals?

One solution may be to limit the size of individual donations.

daviesee

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

They're politicians, they're all corrupt.

As a summary, that about covers it.

ilm_zero7

its hardly the end of democracy is it ..... besides it is pretty insignificant to what Blair ripped out of the post. With the inexplicable climax as his Middle East Peacemaker role - honestly!!

Mr_Cellophane

markos1963 wrote:

members of Unions can opt out of the political levy if they so wish.

Wasn't that one of Thatcher's union reforms ?

The Left are jealous because no one would ever want to pay to talk to Milliband. 8)

MaxwellBygraves

ILM Zero7 wrote:

its hardly the end of democracy is it ..... besides it is pretty insignificant to what Blair ripped out of the post. With the inexplicable climax as his Middle East Peacemaker role - honestly!!

But that's exactly the point, Blair was bad, Cameron promises to put an end to this sort of thing, then get's caught out doing exactly the same sort of thing! Until people start to engage with and demand more from politics this merry circus will carry going on round and round.

markos1963

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

members of Unions can opt out of the political levy if they so wish.

Wasn't that one of Thatcher's union reforms ?

Yes and as much as I hate her I agree with it. It means that non Labour people can join a Union if they wish to and support a movement that does more for working class people than New Labour will ever do.

MaxwellBygraves

Francis Maude, Conservative, has said that it is unreasonable for the public to know who David Cameron has been having dinners with at No. 10 who may have donated to Conservative party yet also claims the Conservative Party have nothing to hide.

MaxwellBygraves

You have to wonder what they were serving up at those dinners. Cam Hock terrine? Sausage Casherole? Bribeye Steak? Perhaps for desert a nice Eton Mess or Sticky Toff pudding? Followed by a Sleaze board and After Donate Mints.

Thanks to the good folk on Twitter for those awful puns.

MaxwellBygraves

Oh! Cameron's changed his mind. Looks like he might publish a list of donors after all.

Edit: So, I wonder how many private healthcare companies have had dinner with Cam and how much they had to donate for the NHS Bill?

Frank the tank

daviesee wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

They're politicians, they're all corrupt.

As a summary, that about covers it.

Volounteer required for the role of Guido Fawkes.

That would just about sort it.

Rigged

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Oh! Cameron's changed his mind. Looks like he might publish a list of donors after all.

Edit: So, I wonder how many private healthcare companies have had dinner with Cam and how much they had to donate for the NHS Bill?

Plenty of Lords already own shares in, and have other affiliations with, plenty of private healthcare companies. Have a read of http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/nhs-privatisation-compilation-of.html?m=1 for a pretty thorough list someone has thrown together. Actually makes for shocking reading some of it...democratic process my ar$e is it!

MaxwellBygraves

Rigged wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Oh! Cameron's changed his mind. Looks like he might publish a list of donors after all.

Edit: So, I wonder how many private healthcare companies have had dinner with Cam and how much they had to donate for the NHS Bill?

Plenty of Lords already own shares in, and have other affiliations with, plenty of private healthcare companies. Have a read of http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/nhs-privatisation-compilation-of.html?m=1 for a pretty thorough list someone has thrown together. Actually makes for shocking reading some of it...democratic process my ar$e is it!

I have already read that before, it's really quite scary. Clearly when Cameron said we're all in it together, what he really meant was just him and his dinner party guests.

symo

If only the donations were capped to 50k. Oh wait donations through Unions to labour are well in excess of that, not to mention all the schmoozing Millband (Wallace as me and GF call him owing to his likeness to a certain Nick Park creation) actually does.

rake

symo wrote:

If only the donations were capped to 50k. Oh wait donations through Unions to labour are well in excess of that, not to mention all the schmoozing Millband (Wallace as me and GF call him owing to his likeness to a certain Nick Park creation) actually does.

not quite the same though is it?

MaxwellBygraves

symo wrote:

If only the donations were capped to 50k. Oh wait donations through Unions to labour are well in excess of that, not to mention all the schmoozing Millband (Wallace as me and GF call him owing to his likeness to a certain Nick Park creation) actually does.

As you well know, millions of people giving a few quid a year to the Labour party via a Union in order to be comprehensively ignored is very different to a few of Dave's Bullingdon Club mates buying tax breaks.

Frank the tank

Being as you have an option to opt out of political donations or even being a member of a trade union at all; what is it that the right wingers on this forum find so abhorent about groups of ordinary working people funding a political party that (should) have their interests at heart, whilst it's alright for the rich to support a party that looks after their interests?

They obviously believe the masses should have no voice at all and that only the wealthy and powerful have any political sway/say what-so-ever. Thus trampling us all into the dirt where we all obviously belong.

I'll tell you something 99.999% posters on here would be in the dirt along with all us looney lefties aswell.

TBH I just wish the labour party was the labour party as I've said before they're not a lot different to the tories truth be told IMHO.

Jez mon

I don't think anyone's saying that the labour party shouldn't be allowed to accept donations but the Tory party should, just that both parties are guilty of taking donations from those whose best interests may not align with the best interests of the country as a whole.

As for the general bashing of unions, most of us only come into contact with them when their members decide to strike and often, strikes are bloody inconvenient. Furthermore, some prominent leaders of trade unions aren't particularly democratic when interviewed on TV/radio (I'm thinking Bob Crowe here) and I don't think this necessarily goes down well with a public which is accustomed to airbrushed politicians.

There's also a group in the middle, people who for whatever reason aren't in a union, but aren't in a position to loan large sums of money to a political party.

Fundamentally, aren't the Tory donors just better at getting bang for their buck?

Cleat Eastwood

Frank the tank wrote:

Being as you have an option to opt out of political donations or even being a member of a trade union at all; what is it that the right wingers on this forum find so abhorent about groups of ordinary working people funding a political party that (should) have their interests at heart, whilst it's alright for the rich to support a party that looks after their interests?

They obviously believe the masses should have no voice at all and that only the wealthy and powerful have any political sway/say what-so-ever. Thus trampling us all into the dirt where we all obviously belong.

I'll tell you something 99.999% posters on here would be in the dirt along with all us looney lefties aswell.

TBH I just wish the labour party was the labour party as I've said before they're not a lot different to the tories truth be told IMHO.

+1

and that blog is disgraceful

verylonglegs

Jez mon wrote:

I don't think anyone's saying that the labour party shouldn't be allowed to accept donations but the Tory party should, just that both parties are guilty of taking donations from those whose best interests may not align with the best interests of the country as a whole.

As for the general bashing of unions, most of us only come into contact with them when their members decide to strike and often, strikes are bloody inconvenient. Furthermore, some prominent leaders of trade unions aren't particularly democratic when interviewed on TV/radio (I'm thinking Bob Crowe here) and I don't think this necessarily goes down well with a public which is accustomed to airbrushed politicians.

There's also a group in the middle, people who for whatever reason aren't in a union, but aren't in a position to loan large sums of money to a political party.

Fundamentally, aren't the Tory donors just better at getting bang for their buck?

Lot of truth in there. Don't know how old you are Jez but I'm wondering if it's a generational thing, to me the political system in this country is still stuck 30yrs back with an us/them or red/blue mentality and to me and my peers it leaves us feeling rather reluctant to get engaged with politics as we aren't represented. I have a mixture of views that prevent me siding with right or left and as an example I have friends who work for web/IT companies, small businesses, specialist engineering firms, self-employed plumbers/electricians...what use would a union be to them?! Equally they don't care for overt tory principles so they are left with not much to choose from.

Unions possibly have some leverage in the public sector as it is not exposed to the global market but for most private companies now if you strike then there is plenty of scope for out-sourcing that work overseas to someone who won't. (I've yet to meet an advocate of unions to suggest a way around this). Although a works council as utilised by the dutch location of the company I work for seems to be a happy middle ground. It's worth remembering a powerful union can be just as destructive and dis-agreeable as the bosses it takes on.

Ideally for me I'd like either the Labour or Conservative party to implode, I don't care which, over it's key problem which is Labour no longer actually representing it's voters or Conservatives over European policy, and then hopefully something a little different, modern and progressive will emerge. Until then I've had enough of it quite honestly.