• 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

Are They really people still around who honestly believe that politicians ( whatever party they belong too) are not out to look after themselves first, they can not wait to get their noses in the trough after elections.

Talk about naivety
 
More examples of media led politics trying to pull the wool over the eyes of a broader, 'greener' electorate. This has been going on for decades. Im fudging sick of it all. The hypocrisy from all sides is pathetic. While there are serious questions that need answering and issues that must be dealt with we have this dramatic nonsense taking our headlines. We should not be suprised really because Jordan having a brick is newsworthy these days. This though is pathetic. The desperation from one party to show another up to be in some way dishonest, when all are clearly a bunch of ****s is just ridiculous. Right now the Coalition can obviously generate more money from corporate entities than New Labia. It is logical. 80% of NL money comes from Trades Unions who oddly enough have not been this active for years. Funny that.. the fundraisers of the pseudo lefty opposition are also those desperate to hold a fudging strike for any reason they can muster while we have a Government in that they do not fund. What an utter monsoon shower of shallow brick.

Just give each party the same amount of cash and let them get on with it. Trade Unionss should have no influence in British politics whatsoever. Just look after the rights of those you are supposed to represent. The most telling thing about these tossers was when a leader of one of them was asked whether he would call off a strike if the Goverment sat down to talk and accepted their demands. After all sorts of wriggling it became very clear that a strike had been booked in, holidays and overtime pay organised and it clearly wasn't about their farking demands at all. tossERSVILLE.
 
I don't understand why this is news, it's not as if they've ever been secretive about it.

When I joined the party and donated, I got invited to a dinner (not with the PM). I also got sent a list that gets sent to every donator, listing upcoming events, who would be at them, and how much of a donation an invite would cost. It's not sneaky, it's not underhand, it's just how privately funded campaigning works.

I'd be equally happy to see publicly funded campaigning, at least that would end the unions once and for all. Until then, I'll keep donating to ensure at least one party receives more funding than the one they donate to. If that gets me a meal and the ear of an MP then so be it.
 
It sounds corrupt on the face of it but sadly I don't see an alternative and I'd be quite happy to hear some suggestions.

  • We need a variety of political parties to have a democracy
  • The political parties need money to operate
  • The parties require donations to get that money
  • People only want to donate if they get something back
  • All the parties can give back is their attention

We can't have a pot of taxpayers money and split it amongst parties either. If we did that, we'd either have to decide upon who was a political party and split the money amongst them evenly, otherwise me and a gang of my mates could turn up in suits and claim we're a political party and receive taxpayers money. But if the money is divided evenly amongst the same group every year then we'd have no smaller parties breaking through - no Green Party, no UKIP, and less choice. If it's divided based upon the size of the party and/or the number of votes/seats they won last time around, it turns into a capitalist regime of the big parties bullying the smaller parties out until they had nothing left and there would be no small parties or independent candidates left.

Some of you might argue that we're practically in a two party state already. But I still think we need the smaller parties to keep the others on their toes. If the Tories had won the seats that all the smaller parties and independents had won at the last election then they wouldn't have even needed to form a coalition with the Lib Dems to have a majority.
 
Dorothy said:
More examples of media led politics trying to pull the wool over the eyes of a broader, 'greener' electorate. This has been going on for decades. Im fudging sick of it all. The hypocrisy from all sides is pathetic. While there are serious questions that need answering and issues that must be dealt with we have this dramatic nonsense taking our headlines. We should not be suprised really because Jordan having a brick is newsworthy these days. This though is pathetic. The desperation from one party to show another up to be in some way dishonest, when all are clearly a bunch of ****s is just ridiculous. Right now the Coalition can obviously generate more money from corporate entities than New Labia. It is logical. 80% of NL money comes from Trades Unions who oddly enough have not been this active for years. Funny that.. the fundraisers of the pseudo lefty opposition are also those desperate to hold a fudging strike for any reason they can muster while we have a Government in that they do not fund. What an utter monsoon shower of shallow brick.

Just give each party the same amount of cash and let them get on with it. Trade Unionss should have no influence in British politics whatsoever. Just look after the rights of those you are supposed to represent. The most telling thing about these tossers was when a leader of one of them was asked whether he would call off a strike if the Goverment sat down to talk and accepted their demands. After all sorts of wriggling it became very clear that a strike had been booked in, holidays and overtime pay organised and it clearly wasn't about their farking demands at all. tossERSVILLE.
Click to expand...

I would actually pay to see that.
 
SUIYHA said:
It sounds corrupt on the face of it but sadly I don't see an alternative and I'd be quite happy to hear some suggestions.

  • We need a variety of political parties to have a democracy
  • The political parties need money to operate
  • The parties require donations to get that money
  • People only want to donate if they get something back
  • All the parties can give back is their attention

We can't have a pot of taxpayers money and split it amongst parties either. If we did that, we'd either have to decide upon who was a political party and split the money amongst them evenly, otherwise me and a gang of my mates could turn up in suits and claim we're a political party and receive taxpayers money. But if the money is divided evenly amongst the same group every year then we'd have no smaller parties breaking through - no Green Party, no UKIP, and less choice. If it's divided based upon the size of the party and/or the number of votes/seats they won last time around, it turns into a capitalist regime of the big parties bullying the smaller parties out until they had nothing left and there would be no small parties or independent candidates left.

Some of you might argue that we're practically in a two party state already. But I still think we need the smaller parties to keep the others on their toes. If the Tories had won the seats that all the smaller parties and independents had won at the last election then they wouldn't have even needed to form a coalition with the Lib Dems to have a majority.
Click to expand...

Superb post - common fudging sense at last!
 
SUIYHA said:
It sounds corrupt on the face of it but sadly I don't see an alternative and I'd be quite happy to hear some suggestions.

  • We need a variety of political parties to have a democracy
  • The political parties need money to operate
  • The parties require donations to get that money
  • People only want to donate if they get something back
  • All the parties can give back is their attention

We can't have a pot of taxpayers money and split it amongst parties either. If we did that, we'd either have to decide upon who was a political party and split the money amongst them evenly, otherwise me and a gang of my mates could turn up in suits and claim we're a political party and receive taxpayers money. But if the money is divided evenly amongst the same group every year then we'd have no smaller parties breaking through - no Green Party, no UKIP, and less choice. If it's divided based upon the size of the party and/or the number of votes/seats they won last time around, it turns into a capitalist regime of the big parties bullying the smaller parties out until they had nothing left and there would be no small parties or independent candidates left.

Some of you might argue that we're practically in a two party state already. But I still think we need the smaller parties to keep the others on their toes. If the Tories had won the seats that all the smaller parties and independents had won at the last election then they wouldn't have even needed to form a coalition with the Lib Dems to have a majority.
Click to expand...

Until you hear that only 3 people have actually dined with Cameron and they were personal friends as well as funders.

yet another attempt by the labour biased press to throw brick on someone and failing to make it stick.
 
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...

its a good point with two options;

1. limit the number of parties that can run and have a set starter pool that everyone gets (limiting the party no is not ideal from a freedom perspective - but sometimes process does need to superceed idealism, especially when the process is progressive)

2. and ive forgotten what my 2nd idea was! it was something around getting a certain numbers of people on a petition pledging their support to prove the party has some worth and isnt just a crook trying to get some publc funding
 
monkeybarry said:
its a good point with two options;

1. limit the number of parties that can run and have a set starter pool that everyone gets (limiting the party no is not ideal from a freedom perspective - but sometimes process does need to superceed idealism, especially when the process is progressive)

2. and ive forgotten what my 2nd idea was! it was something around getting a certain numbers of people on a petition pledging their support to prove the party has some worth and isnt just a crook trying to get some publc funding
Click to expand...



I'm not sure this would work. I seem to recall that enough people wrote Jedi on their census return in 2001 for it to officially classed a religion. They needed to change the rules to stop Jedism being classed as a religion. With the advent of the internet age, I could quite see a bunch of loonies/crooks manipulating the numbers to get funding fior their 'new' party
 
How much for access to Ed Miliband I wonder? I'm guessing free.

I don't like the system at all but can't think of a reasonable alternative.
 
monkeybarry said:
its a good point with two options;

1. limit the number of parties that can run and have a set starter pool that everyone gets (limiting the party no is not ideal from a freedom perspective - but sometimes process does need to superceed idealism, especially when the process is progressive)

2. and ive forgotten what my 2nd idea was! it was something around getting a certain numbers of people on a petition pledging their support to prove the party has some worth and isnt just a crook trying to get some publc funding
Click to expand...

Who decides who can run? Isn't that a supression of freedom of speech and democracy?

Politics works by ideas, and having ideas in common with other people means you form a group, a party. If you can get a large enough group of people supporting your ideas you can get elected.

In the House of Commons there is no guarantee YOUR idea will get voted in as policy, you need to win the debate. That's life!
 
nw7 yid said:
How much for access to Ed Miliband I wonder? I'm guessing free.

I don't like the system at all but can't think of a reasonable alternative.
Click to expand...

eh? Go to Cameron's constituency and you can see him as well for free!

But Labour take donations from corporates and unions alike, they charge for access the same way. Please don't mug yourself off mate and try and make this party poltical.
 
SUIYHA said:
It sounds corrupt on the face of it but sadly I don't see an alternative and I'd be quite happy to hear some suggestions.

  • We need a variety of political parties to have a democracy
  • The political parties need money to operate
  • The parties require donations to get that money
  • People only want to donate if they get something back
  • All the parties can give back is their attention

We can't have a pot of taxpayers money and split it amongst parties either. If we did that, we'd either have to decide upon who was a political party and split the money amongst them evenly, otherwise me and a gang of my mates could turn up in suits and claim we're a political party and receive taxpayers money. But if the money is divided evenly amongst the same group every year then we'd have no smaller parties breaking through - no Green Party, no UKIP, and less choice. If it's divided based upon the size of the party and/or the number of votes/seats they won last time around, it turns into a capitalist regime of the big parties bullying the smaller parties out until they had nothing left and there would be no small parties or independent candidates left.

Some of you might argue that we're practically in a two party state already. But I still think we need the smaller parties to keep the others on their toes. If the Tories had won the seats that all the smaller parties and independents had won at the last election then they wouldn't have even needed to form a coalition with the Lib Dems to have a majority.
Click to expand...

It's a one party state mate.
 
Give us money, you get to meet the leader of the country and influence policy.

How much clearer could it be? For those that are doing so, stop making excuses or clutching at straws. If it had been Labour you would have a different opinion. Why did the guy resign if there was nothing wrong with it?

Its corrupt and it takes a fool not to think so. Its the sort of thing you expect in Nigeria, not here. There is no reason why anyone making a donation to a political party should be guaranteed anything more than a "thank you for your support". If they arent happy with that, dont donate.

And Cameron acting like he has nothing to do with it... would that guy really be saying that sort of thing if it wasnt possible? Cameron has said how wrong it is, but it wouldnt be possible without him being in the know. What a clown the guy is.
 
SUIYHA said:
It sounds corrupt on the face of it but sadly I don't see an alternative and I'd be quite happy to hear some suggestions.

  • We need a variety of political parties to have a democracy
  • The political parties need money to operate
  • The parties require donations to get that money
  • People only want to donate if they get something back
  • All the parties can give back is their attention

We can't have a pot of taxpayers money and split it amongst parties either. If we did that, we'd either have to decide upon who was a political party and split the money amongst them evenly, otherwise me and a gang of my mates could turn up in suits and claim we're a political party and receive taxpayers money. But if the money is divided evenly amongst the same group every year then we'd have no smaller parties breaking through - no Green Party, no UKIP, and less choice. If it's divided based upon the size of the party and/or the number of votes/seats they won last time around, it turns into a capitalist regime of the big parties bullying the smaller parties out until they had nothing left and there would be no small parties or independent candidates left.Some of you might argue that we're practically in a two party state already. But I still think we need the smaller parties to keep the others on their toes. If the Tories had won the seats that all the smaller parties and independents had won at the last election then they wouldn't have even needed to form a coalition with the Lib Dems to have a majority.
Click to expand...

i had thought about that and it is possible to acheive if;
a) we deal in small ammounts - parties dont need masses of money to put across the message and policies they would introduce if elected
b) putting restriction on what activites a party can take to stop it becoming nothing more than a PR and image war

the more votes a party gets, naturally the bigger the party is and therefore its costs are greater so would need a larger slice of the pie to operate

but making sure politics is fought on nothing more than issues and manefesto contents will allow (and force?) the people and the parties to make informed, straight up, decisions
 
This thread is embarrassing. Do some people even know what they are arguing ? or what the issue is ?

David Cameron said Mr Cruddas's claims of access in return for donations were "completely unacceptable" and "shouldn't have happened" <-- So he is quite clearly saying its wrong. Why are some people in support of him saying it isnt wrong. You may think that, but it goes against the opinion of the person you are defending.

So what is the issue ? The most damaging suggestion was that rich donors were able to buy influence over government policy.

The debate in here should be whether the tory boy is telling the truth, or was he making up a complete load of rubbish that Cameron had no knowledge of. The debate should not be whether its right or wrong, of course its wrong and you wont hear Cameron saying different.
 
Golfball said:
Give us money, you get to meet the leader of the country and influence policy.

How much clearer could it be? For those that are doing so, stop making excuses or clutching at straws. If it had been Labour you would have a different opinion. Why did the guy resign if there was nothing wrong with it?

Its corrupt and it takes a fool not to think so. Its the sort of thing you expect in Nigeria, not here. There is no reason why anyone making a donation to a political party should be guaranteed anything more than a "thank you for your support". If they arent happy with that, dont donate.

And Cameron acting like he has nothing to do with it... would that guy really be saying that sort of thing if it wasnt possible? Cameron has said how wrong it is, but it wouldnt be possible without him being in the know. What a clown the guy is.
Click to expand...

Because they are saying making a donation doesn't influence policy!

If I donate a million quid and ask for all gays to be shot it doesn't fudging happen....you get access, nothing else.

The guy was making promises above his pay grade and that's why he resigned.

I don't have to hypothesize about what if Labour did it as we know they do! Labour are 100% controlled by the unions....they won't stand with the public against the tube drivers, tanker drivers, teachers and any other interest group regardless of teir actions as they dont want to tinkle off their paymasters.

So yes - I stand 100% by my statements on this thread, there is nothing wrong with paying for access and nothing wrong has been done.
 
Golfball said:
This thread is embarrassing. Do some people even know what they are arguing ? or what the issue is ?

David Cameron said Mr Cruddas's claims of access in return for donations were "completely unacceptable" and "shouldn't have happened" <-- So he is quite clearly saying its wrong. Why are some people in support of him saying it isnt wrong. You may think that, but it goes against the opinion of the person you are defending.

So what is the issue ? The most damaging suggestion was that rich donors were able to buy influence over government policy.

The debate in here should be whether the tory boy is telling the truth, or was he making up a complete load of rubbish that Cameron had no knowledge of. The debate should not be whether its right or wrong, of course its wrong and you wont hear Cameron saying different.
Click to expand...

Paying for access isn't wrong - I have invites to events where ministers will be present. It happens will all parties all over the world.
 
Leeds Spur said:
Paying for access isn't wrong - I have invites to events where ministers will be present. It happens will all parties all over the world.
Click to expand...

Its not the whole issue though.

Paying money and then getting invites to events / dinners makes sense, you are going to want supporters at the events and if someone makes large donations you expect contact to say thank you etc.

But saying "give us x amount of money will guarantee you premier league access and chance to influence policy" - it's corrupt. Simple as that.

There is a clear difference in giving money with no strings attached, to giving a set amount of money for a guaranteed return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back