On 26 Mar 2012 at 6:47am Zebedee wrote:
Leopards don't (want to) change their spots
On 26 Mar 2012 at 11:10am Clifford wrote:
It's a warning to the Tories from Murdoch. It was, after all, in the Sunday Times.
On 26 Mar 2012 at 4:45pm bastian wrote:
how bad does it have to get before we can call for a vote of no confidence?
On 26 Mar 2012 at 5:04pm jrsussex wrote:
What is required is a full investigation into the complete aspect of party funding, lobbyists etc. The paying to political parties for some level of "special treatment" has gone on for many years and has been a regular practice of all parties so it is, in my opinion, rather stupid for any party to be screaming about the latest revelation. An organisation I was involved with throughout the 80's paid 10k per annum to am MP for asking questions as and when in the House of Commons. The only reason I will not name him is that he has passed away. The unions are, and have been for more years than I care to remember, doing it and what do people think lobbyists are? You pay them money (politely referred to as a fee) and they have an in to politicians seeking to assist you in whatever the matter happens to be.
Like the MP's expenses the whole thing needs an inquiry and to be stopped.
On 26 Mar 2012 at 5:30pm Merlin Milner wrote:
There should be caps on donations and election spending. Just look at the spending on US elections by the 2 parties.
On 26 Mar 2012 at 7:49pm bastian wrote:
it is the political implication of corruption that these donations bring that is in question.It doesn't matter how long it's been going on for it is open to to many questions so it should stopPolitics should not rely on funded campaigns but on clearly set out policies and a manifesto that is open and crystal clear for the public to see in full without having to ask to see a copy, that would limit it to a few lines rather than the swamp infested bulk of diatribe it has become(more to confuse than explain)
On 26 Mar 2012 at 8:27pm expat two wrote:
Of course there is another knock on effect in all this. Ex-ministers are often welcomed onto a board of directors in very comfortably paid non-executive roles, on the strength of their access to parliament - effectively privately owned lobbyists. This leads to MPs claiming their mp salary doesn't reflect their value in the private sector - which is the gripe they always use when they want more money or fraudulent expenses or an 'unsustainable' pension scheme.
On 26 Mar 2012 at 9:34pm Fairmeadow wrote:
It would be interesting to FOI a list of £50K donors who had NOT been invited to Cameron's "kitchen suppers", and then find out which other ministers thay had been granted access to. My money would be on the property developers and that sleek Mr Osborne.
On 26 Mar 2012 at 9:39pm Zebedee wrote:
The order of sleaze, back scratch and vested interests in the Conservative party is simply not comparable with Labour. Conservatives live and breath network, privilege and old boy public school network. This is the party of landed privilege, the silver spoon guys. It really is a small elite against the rest. How so many of 'the rest' can be suckered into supporting them is just incredible and a testament to the gullibility of the UK population and the power of the Tory media.
On 26 Mar 2012 at 10:49pm jrsussex wrote:
Zebedee - I do not accept that any one political party is better or worse than another with regard to corruption but you appear to believe, in your opinion, the Tory's are better and bigger than any of the others at it, which implies that the "smaller fish" are not so bad. Corruption in public life is wrong, the scale at which it is done has little to with it, it remains corruption.
On 27 Mar 2012 at 12:57am Paul Newman wrote:
As Sir Christopher Kelly said this morning in that all the political Parties advertise access for quids on their web sites this is something of a so what and if a fund raisers over eggs the pudding a little, well he would wouldnâ??t he.
The Sleaze motif dates to the Major period of cash for questions , small potatoes , but the whole game changed during the Blair Reich when Labour went to extraordinary lengths to escape from the domination of the Unions. Hence Cash for peerages , the Ecclestone affair and their none to pretty relationship with private equity companies .
It is an interesting thought that Blair felt he could not represent the centre ground whilst relying on Union gold . Ed Milliband on the other hand was personally funded by them voted for by them and relies almost 100% on their cash now . When Public spending has to be reined in that fact is somewhat important .
On 27 Mar 2012 at 1:09am Dave wrote:
What is it you are trying to do Paul?
Are your posts here some pre cursor foundations to a magical political career?
On 27 Mar 2012 at 1:19am expat two wrote:
I completely agree with you JRS, the Tories taught Labour how to scheme and lie and sleaze their way through an administration and, committed tory fans as they were, they did almost as good a job of it as their noisome little heroes.
But this is what passes as acceptable behaviour, at least by Cameron, and shows an astonishing level of hypocrisy when focusing our attention on benefit fraud.
On 27 Mar 2012 at 1:53am Dare To Be Different wrote:
I rather like the current government as I feel it is the best one I am likely to see in my lifetime
On 27 Mar 2012 at 3:18am Curious wrote:
Why the exceptionally short lifetime?
On 27 Mar 2012 at 8:36am Paul Newman wrote:
Ex Pat that is the sort of thing that people who protest in a tent say. I `d guess the worst corruption this country emanated from the local left administrations of the 70s and 80s. Islington, Liverpool and the GLA under Ken had a wiff of it, the old Unions were rank.
New Labour certainly had a quite new relationship with money ( wither Lord Cash Point? )and it always used to be proverbial that the left always had their hands in the till whilst the right had their hands in someone`s wife`s undergarment . The North East was famous for Property /planning permission scandals
Can anyone work out why it is the Liberal |Party do not have to give money Browns stolen money back? That s has always seemed to me to be the worst single piece of vile money grabbing when the ruined victims are actually there in front of you?
On 27 Mar 2012 at 4:58pm bastian wrote:
very interesting point earlier from zebedee that links up with cliffords point about critical thinking...yes we are becoming a nation of idiots if the little people keep voting the tories in blindly and follow their word even if it is to their detriment. Politics really ought to be taught in school as should social history, remember all that boring stuff about the enclosure acts and the spinning jenny? it was important because it showed us how our lives were affected by the land owning rich and industrialists. Let's remember socialism was born out of capitalism.
On 27 Mar 2012 at 9:37pm expat two wrote:
Bastian, I agree that politics should be taught in school, but what's the liklihood of a the curriculum being a balanced one? Given that 'wealth creators' (ugh! - nauseating newspeak!) are invited to input their ideas on National Curriculum development, its somewhat unlikely that critical thinking will see any great renaissance. Its more likely to extoll the virtues of worker loyalty and consumerism. What little room there is for students to develop their own concepts of right & wrong, outside the influence of media brainwashing and political interference, should probably be left alone. Maybe that's the best we can hope for.
On 28 Mar 2012 at 5:54pm bastian wrote:
you are quite right expat 2, I fear the system has already been put in place and will be forced into place soon.