• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Cameron for Cash

Leeds Spur

Leeds Spur

Banned
In other news, bears deficate in the woods! :)

It's distasteful, but this is the modern world.....do we think the Unions aren't buying favour with their donations to Labour?

Or Labour don't have huge donations from businessmen?

The media really are desperate to try and bring him down aren't they?!!

Teflon Dave will grin and come through it as per.

It doesn't sit well with me but the government are already bringing forward legislation covering political donations...prior to this happening.

And the Times is owned by Murdoch....coincidence eh??! :)
 
Ed Miliband got made labour leader because the union bosses placed an envelope under their members chairs, with their "choice" of labour leader.

Same brick, different set of people.

It's not what you know, it's who you know.

David Miliband would've been better competition, but he wasn't on the union 'payroll'
 
@frankieboyle

Of course the worrying thing about paying 250K for dinner with David Cameron is that he'll probably feel obligated to put out afterwards
 
Seriously?! Labour wouldn't have even been able to run in the last election if it wasn't for the unions! Party leader in cash for promises shock-o-rama. Whatever.
 
Leeds Spur said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17510020

Good article by Nick Robinson........

I would ban lobbying and donations all together.....
Click to expand...

how would partys then get funding to run?

i hate the culture - and personally would like to see part of the public spending budget made availalbe to political parties* (maybe on previous election performance = slightly larger fund ratio), but then there is the issue that we dont have any money!!

*with amounts being realistic to create normal canvasing and communication of politics rather than the huge PR machines we curretnyl have. policies rather than personalities
 
monkeybarry said:
how would partys then get funding to run?

i hate the culture - and personally would like to see part of the public spending budget made availalbe to political parties* (maybe on previous election performance = slightly larger fund ratio), but then there is the issue that we dont have any money!!

*with amounts being realistic to create normal canvasing and communication of politics rather than the huge PR machines we curretnyl have. policies rather than personalities
Click to expand...

Very true.

What if you're a new party? No funding?

Let's remember that Friends of the Earth are a lobby group!
 
Leeds Spur said:
Very true.

What if you're a new party? No funding?

Let's remember that Friends of the Earth are a lobby group!
Click to expand...

It is funny how naive people can be. At the end of the day, politics is just another word for posturing. The speaker keeps the speaking honest, the opposition keeps the government honest, the financiers keep the parties honest and so the whole white elephant of meaningful change rumbles on.
 
southstand1882 said:
Ed Miliband got made labour leader because the union bosses placed an envelope under their members chairs, with their "choice" of labour leader.

Same brick, different set of people.

It's not what you know, it's who you know.

David Miliband would've been better competition, but he wasn't on the union 'payroll'
Click to expand...

Funny isn't it?

Watched Milliband give it the big 'un in Parliament today, and my first thought was "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Hypocrites.
 
Don't agree with it but this is how politics works. If you have the money and parties are willing to take it then of course you are going to be able to gain access and try to have some influence on policy decisions. Theres no guarantee that you will have influence but i believe that the more more you offer the more you are likely to be listened to. Im more suprised that the media seem aghast with the current situation as if they were totally oblivious to this kind of practice happening.

Look at the presidential elections in America and the number of big companies who fund election campagains for both candidates so they have the ear of the winner irregardless of the result. Similar concept.
 
Cash for access: Barack Obama wouldn't even get out of bed for ?ú250,000


The President could give the Prime Minister a few fundraising tips


Here’s something worth considering in the midst of all the speculation about the Conservatives selling cash for access: 41 of the 364 guests at the state dinner that Barack Obama threw for David Cameron two weeks ago were Democratic Party donors. Together they had raised at least $10.7 million towards the President’s re-election. Their presence at the feast was a reward for their loyalty, and that’s exactly the kind of one-on-one quality time they probably expected to get when they wrote their cheques.


In America, cash is swapped for access all the time. It’s an everyday part of electoral politics. Similar things go on in Britain, with two crucial differences.


First, the Brits are terribly uptight about it. To be sure, it would be nice to live in a world where rich people don’t get invited to stuff just because they have money … but only the Brits pretend such a Shangri-La exists. When a union hands over a vast wad of its members’ dues to the Labour Party, it’s understood that it will enjoy a role in policy making. This isn’t cloak and dagger politics: it happens right out in the open at conference. Thanks to the electoral college system, the public sector unions basically own Ed Miliband.


And what do the British really imagine that these big donors give to the parties for, if not for access and influence? Take the ?ú250,000 that Peter Cruddas told a journalist would get him into the “Premier League of donors,” which allegedly amounts to dinner with Cameron and Osbourne and an invite to lunch after Prime Ministers’ Questions. What is so shocking about a little bit of customer care? Heck, if I gave David Cameron ?ú250,000 I’d expect a lot more than just dinner. I’d be looking for a weekend for two in Florence.


In short, Cruddas is accused of doing something that was regarded as systematic in the Blair government and is germane to governments across the West: offering generous men ten minutes with the party leader in exchange for cash. Big whoop.


Not that the whoop really is that big. The second difference between American and British cash for access cultures is the amounts involved. Cruddas is supposed to have started the bidding for dinner with the PM at ?ú50,000. That’s roughly $75,000. How much did Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson donate to Newt Gingrich’s presidential Super PAC this year? An astonishing $16.5 million. Adelson’s daughter gave $500,000. The amounts Cruddas was raising were chicken feed and speak to the relative poverty of UK elections. In Britain, election spending is capped at ?ú19.5 million ($30 million). Despite the fact that the bar is set so low, no party has ever bothered to exceed it. In 2010, the victorious Conservatives spent ?ú16.8 million ($26 million) and Labour just ?ú8 million ($13 million). The total spend for that election was ?ú31.5 million ($50 million). By contrast, in 2008 the Americans blew a cool $5.3 billion – and all for a turnout nearly 10 points lower. Puts the Cruddas gaffe into context, doesn’t it?


The reality is that Britain and America operate stakeholder democracies. The government rakes in cash from taxes and distributes it back to competing interest groups in tax breaks, subsidies, infrastructure, benefits etc. The system is innately corrupt, because it’s all about taking from the silent many to give to the loudest among the few. Unsurprisingly, those who end up getting the most money are those who understand the system best and are prepared to spend money chasing money. Unions and corporations both appreciate that when it comes to politics, you have to speculate to accumulate.


So long as we run our democracy as a spoils system, people will offer cash for access. Presuming that we’ll never get rid of that system, let’s at least be honest about it. Let’s move towards full transparency so we know who’s giving what to whom and why. That way we can make an informed judgement about who not to vote for next time.
 
Crawley said:
Funny isn't it?

Watched Milliband give it the big 'un in Parliament today, and my first thought was "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Hypocrites.
Click to expand...

The thing I find funny, is that the same people on here who claim not to support the Tories no matter what, are posting about Labour while making no comment about the real story here.

Forget what Labour do, its not relevant (two wrongs dont make a right). The story here is about Cameron for cash, now unless anyone is really a naive fool, its quite clear we are being run by a bunch of scum bags putting money/greed/power before anything else. Anyone disagree?
 
Golfball said:
The thing I find funny, is that the same people on here who claim not to support the Tories no matter what, are posting about Labour while making no comment about the real story here.

Forget what Labour do, its not relevant (two wrongs dont make a right). The story here is about Cameron for cash, now unless anyone is really a naive fool, its quite clear we are being run by a bunch of scum bags putting money/greed/power before anything else. Anyone disagree?
Click to expand...
I agree with you, if it was labour a lot more would be made of it by some of us and wrongly so. What has happened is wrong and prison sentances need to be handed out, just because it is a party i sort of support does not mean it is ok.

Im more UKIP these days then tory anyway. But fairs fair if someone does something wrong they should face up to it.
 
Golfball said:
The thing I find funny, is that the same people on here who claim not to support the Tories no matter what, are posting about Labour while making no comment about the real story here.

Forget what Labour do, its not relevant (two wrongs dont make a right). The story here is about Cameron for cash, now unless anyone is really a naive fool, its quite clear we are being run by a bunch of scum bags putting money/greed/power before anything else. Anyone disagree?
Click to expand...



As I've stated many times now, I have voted Tory before, but several issues recently have turned me away from them. Possibly forever.
My point was purely to hi-light the hypocrisy of Labour, who gather party funding from Unions who pass a percentage of workers union fees onto Labour regardless of the workers views.

And what was that comment the other day about following you around and arguing with you in threads?

Pot, kettle, black?

Not stalking me, are you? ;)
(That is a joke, by the way)
 
Crawley said:
As I've stated many times now, I have voted Tory before, but several issues recently have turned me away from them. Possibly forever.
My point was purely to hi-light the hypocrisy of Labour, who gather party funding from Unions who pass a percentage of workers union fees onto Labour regardless of the workers views.

And what was that comment the other day about following you around and arguing with you in threads?

Pot, kettle, black?

Not stalking me, are you? ;)
(That is a joke, by the way)
Click to expand...

Amen to this.
 
Nope. This is the political system. No one has done a thing illegal. Talk of prison sentences is laughable. Laws a passed in the commons and lords. Not David Cameron's flat!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back