whats the difference between 1 bloke stumping up 250k for lunch and 250 blokes stumping up a quid each and thier representative going round for beer and sandwiches?

the day the unions decide that thier money can go to the party that offers what they want rather than the one chosen because of historical reasons is the day the unions will actually have some power..

It was ridiculously arrogant of dave to assume he could get away with not publishing a list

can anyone trust the list of donors now that hes had time to redact any damaging names

ultimately it MIGHT lead to a cap on donation sizes, personally id like to see an end to them entirely that way the shady investment funds/private interest companies/unions/ecclestones of this world would just get a vote like the rest of us…………..i know im a dreamer

whats the difference between 1 bloke stumping up 250k for lunch and 250 blokes stumping up a quid each and thier representative going round for beer and sandwiches?

Well, the maths don’t work for a start.

whats the difference between 1 bloke stumping up 250k for lunch and 250 blokes stumping up a quid each and thier representative going round for beer and sandwiches?

The second example would be representing the interests of 250 times the people. Or if its a quid each, then 250,000. Are you familiar with the concept of democracy?

Are you familiar with the concept of democracy?

It originated in Ancient Greece, a slavekeeping society

the principles the same.. using the donation as a means to achieving a lunch with a policy maker.

i have to put my hand up i ve had lunch with mrs kinnock and very nice it was too and only 45p but i’m fairly sure she got extra portions cos there normally fairly puny at work. i was also on a plane once sat two rows behind haigh and fionn cant remeber if they had the inflight meal but would that count if only for balance?

No ice with my Cameron please, just a drop of water to release the natural oils!

No ice with my Cameron please, just a drop of water to release the natural oils!

I was thinking the same. Should it have been “Cameron on the ropes”?

Well, the maths don’t work for a start.

I don’t think DC would change his Tie for £250 let alone highway laws!

ooohhh its like scientology ….

The Conservative party openly offers donors the opportunity to attend dinners and other events with David Cameron and senior Tory figures.

Its website invites supporters to join one of its “donor clubs”, each with different benefits.

They include:

• The Leader’s Group (annual membership £50,000), described as the “premier supporter group” of the Conservative party, with members “invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches”.

• The Treasurers’ Group (£25,000), whose members are “invited to join senior figures from the Conservative party at dinners, lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches”.

• The Renaissance Forum (£10,000), pitched at the party’s “closest supporters to enjoy dinners and political debate with eminent speakers from the world of business and politics”.

• The Front Bench Club (£5,000), whose members are given “the opportunity to meet and debate with MPs at a series of political lunches and receptions held throughout the year”.

• The City and Entrepreneurs Forum (£2,500), aimed at professionals, executives and entrepreneurs to hold “discussions with leading industrialists, parliamentarians and prominent City figures”.

• Team 2000 (£2,000): “The principal group of donors who support and market the party’s policies in government, by hearing them first hand from the leader and key Conservative politicians through a lively programme of drinks receptions, dinner and discussion groups”.

• Fastrack (£250), for young professionals under 40 to attend networking and social events, with events hosted by “key figures in politics, business, industry, the arts and beyond”.

• Party Patrons (£50 a month), for “committed Conservative supporters” who are prepared to support campaigning.

“Team 2000” 😆 , 😆 and indeed 😆

Do/did nuLab have a similarly enticing sounding ‘menu’?
I’ll have a “Rising star royale with cheese at 75 quid please Alistair”. 😀

http://www.cash4access.com/

Arf.

thats ace mrstoast

the daily mash take

Mr Cameron last night defended his job, insisting he gave his clients something they could not get at home such as an implicit veto on tax policy and swallowing.

😀

boriselbrus – Member

Again I’m surprised that anyone is surprised.

And of course Labour policies are completely unaffected by the money they get from the trade unions,

What a truly ridiculous comment.

This scandal is not about a political party receiving donations. All political parties receive donations, it’s their life line, and without it they wouldn’t exist.

This is about a wholly unacceptable practice which involved secret deals and secret meetings whereby extremely large amounts of money would guarantee favours which it was claimed, quote, “It will be awesome for your business”. Presumably these favours would not be forthcoming if large amounts of money were not coughed up.

The person who made the offer has now publicly announced that his offer was in fact totally unacceptable, and is attempting to suggest that he was actually misleading the undercover reporters with “bluster” and that he had no intention of honouring this commitment.

The leader of the political party involved has also very publicly announced that the offer was totally unacceptable. How anyone can suggest that it is in fact no big deal and a lot of fuss about nothing, is quite frankly bizarre. Unless of course you are a supporter of the party which has been caught out, in which case it is totally understandable that you might want to play down the significance of this scandal. Although even David Cameron clearly recognises the futility of that.

Diverting attention away by attempting to blame the trade unions for somehow being involved is equally absurd. If the trade unions were responsible for simular scandals then you can be sure that our rather anti-trade union press would have unearth them by now – I certainly would be interested in hearing about them.

And it smacks of breathtaking hypocrisy that those who have been caught up in this latest sleaze, and are up to their necks in yet another cash-for-access scandal, should attack the open and democratic finances of the trade unions. Every single aspect of the finances of trade unions, including political donations, is above board, open, and transparent.

Apart from their own internal democratic structures, trade unions have a statutory obligation to receive a democratic mandate through an Electoral Reform Society organised ballot with respect to their political funds. And everything must then be submitted for detailed inspection by the government’s Certification Officer.

Can you imagine multimillionaire donors to the Tory Party having to do all that ?

To suggest that trade unions can or would want to do anything underhand with regards to their finances is plainly idiotic. And it certainly would have been uncovered, if not by the press, then by the Certification Officer, and it would have led to legal actions against the trade unions concerned.

As a general rule British politicians are not corrupt. Those who are found to be can expect to be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. However our parliamentary democracy in many ways is, as this quote nicely illustrates :

“As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum”.
Tony Ben

Tony Benn was not a corrupt politician, but the parliamentary democracy which he describes in many ways clearly is. I’m sure it serves the special interests of some to equate the role of the Tory Party’s (and New Labour’s) wealthy supporters with Labour’s traditional relationship with the trade unions. But such an equation is inaccurate, and it is comparing the arrogance of wealth and power with the open and democratically accountable provisions of funds to a party which the trade unions established to counter precisely such arrogance.

according to the Times’ twitter, Cameron is to miss the next three PMQs. This after he didn’t turn up to answer questions in Parliament today.

What a coward, cant even face the music. Hope the media really push this.

It is indeed pretty shameful and embarrassing but not half as bad as cash for honours. That was really the pits I thought but New Labour had the press so well covered and the Tories were so engaged in naval gazing that Labour got away with it.

Even with public funding lobbying is still permitted for the rich and corporates who get direct access and all we can do is write emails and do the odd e-petition.

Money counts in the Tory party, shock and horror, who would have thought it?
Total non story IMO, anyone with a brain knows the tories are money and status obsessed fuds, I don’t really see anything newsworthy in this and it’s pretty much exactly how I would expect the tories to raise money.

Even with public funding lobbying is still permitted for the rich and corporates who get direct access and all we can do is write emails and do the odd e-petition.

Well the solution is quite simple really – don’t vote for candidates who represent parties that are prepared to the bidding of wealthy donors and corporations, ie, the Tories, New Labour, and the Libdems.

And if everyone did that, then the problem wouldn’t exist.

No one forces you to vote for them, and the present government didn’t seize power through a coup d’etat – people willingly voted for them in their millions.

If you can’t imagine voting for any candidate other than those from Tory, New Labour, and LibDem parties, or you think doing so is just plain silly, then put up with status quo and try not to let it get you down/complain.

according to the Times’ twitter, Cameron is to miss the next three PMQs. This after he didn’t turn up to answer questions in Parliament today.

Because no one else is turning up either- parliament is in recess from today until April 16 for the Easter holidays.

binners – Member

The worst thing about this whole thing situation is that this presents Ed Milliband with an open goal. I look forward to watching him, once again, spoon it into row Z 😥

He doesn’t appear to have done too badly with the last open goal offered to him by the Tories and their jumped-up LibDem lackeys, ie, the budget :

Labour take 10% lead in ComRes poll

“This is the biggest lead for Labour in a ComRes poll since the election, and indeed since March 2005.”

How does a 10 point lead grab ya ?

Ernie lynch – what a brilliant post, (the long one).
Bravo.

Hes lost my vote. What an absolute berk.

Its blatant that the people who were present actually donated £10m to the Conservatives but he went on camera to deny..

This ontop of the ‘war on motorists’.

Along with ‘lets privatise roads. **** idiot.

What an absolute berk. When everything is privatised, run for a profit we all know that when you have a captive audience prices go one way.

mefty – Member
according to the Times’ twitter, Cameron is to miss the next three PMQs. This after he didn’t turn up to answer questions in Parliament today.
Because no one else is turning up either- parliament is in recess from today until April 16 for the Easter holidays.

I knew that, but figured The Times did too and i might have been incorrect.

Notice how there was a sudden ‘RBS in talks to sell off a share’ plastered over the news.

Apparently its at an advanced stage. I wonder how advanced it is, I bet it wasn’t before the negative news came out about that Dinner but the info is released to try and distract….

Notice how there was a sudden ‘RBS in talks to sell off a share’ plastered over the news.

…yet the meeja seems to be reporting it with a ‘mixed to negative’ slant, ie the “loss of billions to taxpayer by selling for shares for half what public money bought them for” angle. Oh, and the rather transparent “next time these mean ol’ rbs bosses get enormo-bonuses, you can blame the other owners not the government” one too.

Apparently its at an advanced stage. I wonder how advanced it is, I bet it wasn’t before the negative news came out about that Dinner but the info is released to try and distract….

Blimey, if it is, it’s pretty desperate: “hey, here’s a slightly less miserable public interest story, please forget about the most miserable one now. Errr, can we buy you dinner?”

Government (nu Labour) have a history of counter-releasing stories to distract/take the impact of a bad new day.

On the RBS sell off. I bet there will be assurances etc etc that if there was a run on RBS (or anywhere near) we’ll step in with capital to help the Arabs…..

an early version of the NHS risk register was leaked last night too

Hes lost my vote.

Mine too, but not because of this. Nobody to vote for now so I need advice on creative methods of spoiling my ballot paper.

Lifelong tory supporter but the nhs and war on motorist are starting to make me think that there is no party worth supporting.

The ironic thing is Labour got us into the mess and now the Conversatives are meddling with everything without actually fixing anything.

Increasing duty on fuel is madness. Its the one thing you see hit your pocket starkly on a weekly basis. Its a political hot topic and its going to be at the forefront of your mind.

I guess when you are rich though its just ‘a small household bill’.

They are going to lose the aspirational voters in one fell swoop.

CaptJon – Member

an early version of the NHS risk register was leaked last night too

I bet that is pretty depressing reading too 🙁 .

The ironic thing is Labour got us into the mess and now the Conversatives are meddling with everything without actually fixing anything.

This mess has been brewing for the past 30 years, some aspects even longer.
What is shocking is that the “greed doctrine” is still being pushed as the solution to all the worlds problems.

Hora. Are we witnessing……

Are you actually beginning to realise that Dave and his friends haven’t had your best interests at heart all along?

Binners I’ve been staring at the toilet bowl and only now can I actually see the **** that was floating there.

^Pure poetry^

There’s an awful lot of Hyperbole here so maybe we could look at the facts which I think are as follows:

1. Labour accepted donations and are proven to have changed the law and circumvented whitehall procedures to reflect the interests of donors (Hinduja brothers, Eccleston etc.)

2. Labour said they would tighten up funding, but withdrew from cross party discussions when the Conservatives and LibDems asked that them to give up the Trade Union block grants in return for caps on contributions from single donors (most of the public don’t donate to political parties thus leaving Labour at a significant advantage – party donations effectively making / breaking election performance).

3. Labour said they would publish a register of who met the Prime Ministers (Brown / Blair) but didn’t get round to it.

4. Labour also said they would pass legislation to register and publish the details of lobbyists – but didn’t get round to it.

5. The most recent Tory fundraiser, Peter Cruddas was recorded making stupid, unacceptable promises that in all likelihood couldn’t have been honoured given the way legislation is scrutinised in Parliament and the Lords. He resigned on Sunday.

6. Labour called for the Prime Minister to publish the details of anyone who visited David Cameron’s flat (which is a private residence) even if the hospitality was paid for by David Cameron himself, rather than “official hospitality”. They told us it would be a long list of donors and would include the donors “promised visits to number 10 by Cruddas”. They also overlooked that the official rooms at number 10 were consistently used by Cherie Blair to offer her private business interests hospitality – she regularly hosted meetings there and used the taxpayer to pay for her furniture:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1389747/Cherie-Blair-using-No-11-to-meet-clients.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348456/Cherie-Blair-tried-use-taxpayer-cash-3-500-Swedish-bed.html

7. David Cameron created a register of visitors (note Brown and Blair did not publish such lists) last year, and has this week confirmed that a limited number of visitors were offered private hospitality at the number 10 apartment in the last 18 months. None of these visitors were donors contacted by Peter Cruddas, and some of them also received hospitality from Blair / Brown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17512814

So when we actually compare the current Labour position with what they did, there’s a gap. And if I’m not mistaken, there’s still no actual proof that David Cameron himself did anything wrong, or asked anyone to do so on his behalf.

Plausable deniabilty. It’s been going on since Richard Nixon, yet some people still fall for it.