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.

Whilst I agree the fact they are going to great lengths to deny this is what they were doing shows exactly why it is a story.

Hes lost my vote. What an absolute berk.

Brilliant Nick Clegg cant wait for your support

This ontop of the ‘war on motorists’.

Nope missed that one – did we sens our brave boys in there ? ..I don’t know how to tell you this but I think Oil is scarce and running out. As worldwide demand is increasing then this can mean only one think re the price of oil.

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.

So you did not realise this was his goal before when you voted for him..I am not sure which one of you is the bigger berk tbh

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

What labour deregulated the banks, caused the sub prime market [ encouraged global oil demand ? made oil finite? I dont even know what your point is here tbh do you?] in America to crash and the ensuing global economic crisis.

I fyou mean fuel prices I dont know ho to break it to you but
The fuel price escalator was introduced by the Conservative government in 1993 ]
you are a noble prize winning economist/historian and I claim my £5 🙄

Increasing duty on fuel is madness.

Yes it will never end lets make it cheap as chips and run out sooner…good idea

*The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of valuation and liquidity problems in the United States banking system in 2008.[3][4] The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[5][6] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[7] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.[8][9][10]
Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[11] The United States Senate issued the Levin–Coburn Report, which found “that the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.”[12]
Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[13] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks.[14] In response to the financial crisis, both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration.[15]

@ FarmerJohn

I love a bit of whataboutery, especially when presented as a precis of the facts. Have a slow clap from me.

*Slow clap*

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.

and yet his chief party fundraiser was caught pimping out access to the pm and chancellor and offering influence on policy committee in exchange for cash from a foreign hedge fund, which is ilegal.

cameron then refused to publish those he had dined with at no10 and then refused to disclose whod been to chequers

and you really think he has nothing to hide?

The Tory apologists trying to compare this to the unions is really quite pathetic. So democratic organisations representing the interests of a broad base of ordinary working people are just the same as a tiny unaccountable group of millionaires secretly influencing policy for their own narrow benefit?

grum more daily mail hyteria needed

😀

Do you think any of Call-me-Dave’s dinner guests might have recently benefited from the reduction in the top rate of tax?

Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder……

Do you think any of Call-me-Dave’s dinner guests might have recently benefited from the reduction in the top rate of tax?

They are obviously very charitable folk giving money and not expecting anything back…

The Oil refinery fella was obviously just their to moan that Dave was putting the fuel prices up too much 😆

Do you think any of Call-me-Dave’s dinner guests might have recently benefited from the reduction in the top rate of tax?

Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder……

Don’t be ridiculous binners.

I doubt they payed much tax anyway.

This whole thing has the fingerprints of that cuddly, lovable non-domiciled, non-tax paying, Lord Ashcroft all over it?

Is this a new cocktail BTW?

What was that Tony Benn was telling us about the influence of evil bankers

I’m sure that who her great grandad was, her grandad was, and who her uncle is, has had nothing whatsoever to do with her gettign a job at a global financial services company, of course 🙄

I’ve learnt a new ‘word’ today: “Whataboutery”. See also the post above. 😀

Top stalking there!

Steve Bell nails it once again

The Tory apologists trying to compare this to the unions is really quite pathetic. So democratic organisations representing the interests of a broad base of ordinary working people are just the same as a tiny unaccountable group of millionaires secretly influencing policy for their own narrow benefit?

Sorry grum, disagree there. I’m not in love with the tories and certainly not an apologist but party funding by unions is not in the interest of the UK as a whole. It needs to go, along with the personal contributions.

The unions still represents the interest of millions of workers

Guests of Call-me-Dave include Anthony Bamford of JCB

Bamford has donated more than £4m personally to the Tories over the last decade. In February, weeks before the budget, Bamford wrote and sent a report directly to the prime minister saying that corporate and personal taxes should be lowered.

How many peoples interests do you think Dave was representing? I’ll tell you how many, shall I? One. Dave ****ing Bamford. Full stop!

To equate this to the unions is just bloody stupid!

Sorry grum, disagree there. I’m not in love with the tories and certainly not an apologist but party funding by unions is not in the interest of the UK as a whole. It needs to go, along with the personal contributions.

You might have issues with union party funding, some of them might be legitimate, but equating it with unaccountable millionaires getting secret (until now) private meetings/dinners with the PM is ludicrous.

The unions are democratically organised, transparent, accountable and represent the interests of thousands of ordinary people. They are one of the few forces left in society looking out for the interests of ordinary working people – strangely the oligarchs who run most of our press are quite good at persuading people how evil unions are.

Millions of ordinary union members disagree with you on what they should do with their money.

Unison for example

UNISON’s Affiliated Political Fund
(APF) is used to campaign for and
promote UNISON policy and the need
for quality public services within the
Labour Party, locally and nationally, in
Parliament and Europe. UNISON APF
affiliates to the Labour Party.
UNISON’s General Political Fund
(GPF) is used to pay for campaigning
at branch, regional and national levels
of the union and for research and
lobbying in Parliament and Europe. It is
independent of support for any
political party.

you pick one

I dont know how other unions do it but I have no issue with choice

You might have issues with union party funding, some of them might be legitimate, but equating it with unaccountable millionaires getting secret (until now) private meetings/dinners with the PM is ludicrous.

I haven’t equated one with the other, merely stated that neither should be allowed to have political parties in their pocket.
I don’t see why I should support the rights of teachers or any other profession to have a louder voice than any other. Hence, labour will not get my vote either.

I don’t see why I should support the rights of teachers or any other profession to have a louder voice than any other. Hence, labour will not get my vote either.

But anyone can join a union, and unions have campaigned for (and achieved) better rights for all workers, not just union members.

I don’t see why I should support the rights of teachers or any other profession to have a louder voice than any other.

Then club together with your friends to have a louder voice

This is far more democratic than just being rich enough to exert influence alone due to teh funding you give a party.

But anyone can join a union, and unions have campaigned for (and achieved) better rights for all workers, not just union members.

Fine – why not allow members to choose which party their political levy is paid to then?

Individual union members should be required to take an active personal choice to send their affiliation fee to the Labour Party if it is to be treated as an individual donation, rather than just presumed that “oh well, you’ll want to give some money to our mates then” If affiliation fees also benefitted other parties, then their good work and influence could apply to all parties, this would also encourage political engagement by all trade union members.

At the heart of the matter is the fact that , like you said – anyone can join a union, these days many union members vote for parties other than Labour – they should be allowed to select which party their levy goes to.

Can the tory party members choose which party their membership fees go to 😉

I dont disagree overall though
There are plenty of unions who dont affiliate to any /either party and plenty who give you choice over whether to pay to labour or general campaigns

I wish the tories well in setting up a workers union to protect the masess from the excesses of the markets and free enterprise…i cant see why it wont work personally 😉

not just a Tory/Labour issue though is it

There are loads of minority parties that would benefit from Union members having a choice of where their levy went to.

Greens, BNP, SWP, and the even smaller parties like whats left of the Lib Dems at the next election 😀

Then club together with your friends to have a louder voice

It’s about more than myself. Plenty of people couldn’t afford union fees and even those who can would not get as good value from them as the public sector enjoy (striking etc).

This is far more democratic than just being rich enough to exert influence alone due to teh funding you give a party.

I’m not comparing! Why is it one or the other? It should be NEITHER!

Unions political funds are only allowed if voted on and anyone can contract out of it and still remain a union member and [if they wish] send the money to the loony party
There’s no problem at all with unions affiliating with other parties if that’s what the members want, likewise members of non affiliated unions can send donations to whoever they want

Like the company charity we have at work, we expect that our monthly contribution goes to them and just them until such time as we vote not to

My levy via Unison has always gone into the general political fund, both in the times I voted labour and the times I didn’t. IIRC with Unison it is an active choice to send it to the GPF or the APF ie neither is a ‘default’ if you don’t tick the box for one or the other.

Zulu, I am sure you are aware that the Greens, UKIP and BNP have election manifestoes that are usually of less interest to the downtrodden below-national-average wage worker, at least in terms of their own working conditions (racists in most professions and trades IME). Do you think having a few extra bob in the kitty would make them more interested in the little man? Given the rather small proportion of my union fees that make it into the Unison GPF, and the small numbers of voters that these minority parties have, divided by the number of them that are actually in trade unions and wish to send their political levy their way, I can’t imagine that it would actually amount to very much money for them. 🙁

Slightly back on topic, how much do we reckon you’d need to donate to have dinner next to Nick Griffin?

More than half of the Tories funding comes from the City
So that’ll be yours and mine – but not TJs 🙂 – pension fund helping them then?

It’s about more than myself. Plenty of people couldn’t afford union fees and even those who can would not get as good value from them as the public sector enjoy (striking etc).

wrecker, union fees are sliding scale according to what you earn. My fees are more than my colleagues who earn less than me for the same service and support.

Striking is hardly ‘value for money’: you do realise you don’t get paid if you go on strike don’t you?

wrecker – Member

Nobody to vote for now so I need advice on creative methods of spoiling my ballot paper.

I wouldn’t waste too much trying to think of something “clever”. It will very likely only be seen by some bored council employee who won’t give a monkeys that some herbert has gone through all the bother of trundling down to the polling station just to do something “creative” with their ballot paper.

It will just be counted with all the other divvies who find putting a cross on a ballot paper a tad too complicated, and put too many crosses, forget to put a cross, or change their mind and cross out crosses and make a mess of their ballot paper.

And as a rule the media tends not to mention spoilt ballot papers when announcing election results, so the total significance of your carefully thought out “creative” cock a snoot at the system, will be zero.

Farmer_John – Member

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.

Blah, blah, blah,

Blah, blah, blah,

Blah, blah, blah,

So when we actually compare the current Labour position with what they did, there’s a gap

Why are you comparing it with the “current Labour position” ? All very interesting stuff I’m sure, but this scandal isn’t about the Labour Party – it’s about the Tory Party.

Are you suggesting that this scandal which has left Cameron reeling is a lot of fuss about nothing, because the Tory Party is no worse than the Labour Party ? You certainly seem to be.

So you think David Cameron should be allowed to do special secret favours worth millions to wealthy businessmen if they secretly bung him a quarter of a million quid, and all because according to you, the Labour Party is a thoroughly disreputable organisation ? How bizarre 😕

I have to say Farmer John, I’m somewhat taken aback that a dyed-in-the-wool Tory such as yourself should argue that the Tories are simply just as bad as Labour.

By urging people to support the Tories as you constantly do, you clearly haven’t been expecting them to set the bar very high. Apparently about the same appalling low height as Labour, according to you now.

Striking is hardly ‘value for money’: you do realise you don’t get paid if you go on strike don’t you?

Apologies; I didn’t put that very well.
A member of the NUT will get a lot of sway from their union. The members have the same interests (those of teachers) and it is quite simple for the union to act in their interests. ALL of their interests. A general union cannot do this as their members are diverse; there is not likely to be a common approach which the union could take which would benefit ALL of the members. That is less value. The varied professions would not also make a very co-ordinated strike if they were pissed off.
Regardless; the common theme is that the two mail political parties are acting in the best interests of two minorities. I do not compare one with the other and make no comment as to the righteousness of either. It’s not right.

And btw Zulu-Eleven, congratulations on your excellent deviation tactics on this thread. I know you are a master of such things, but your ability to turn a hugely damaging and embarrassing scandal involving David Cameron into a debate about trade unions is truly impressive.

I haven’t actually bothered reading the details of the posts concerning trade unions, I generally don’t bother with such things, but I hope you’re having fun ! You certainly deserve to – your tactic was a stroke of genius. Although your audience is admittedly probably a tad gullible.

What are donations spent on? Campaigning, election deposits, staff, anything else?

bubbly & caviar

…..Osbournes nanny?

camerons been caught out soliciting money from a foreign hedge fund in exchange for access to ministers and influence in policy making

hes been completely useless in grasping how bad this makes him look,…….
£49,999 is too small a bribe to bother about,
he wont publish lists of those he met at no.10,
he wont publish lists of those he met at chequers,
huuuge donnations from builders and oil companies and a budget that saw tax breaks for north sea drilling not to mention lowering corporation tax and the 50p top rate………..and a now a relaxtion of planning laws announced today,

unions? (at least they’re based in the uk!) the stench of corruption at no10 has a very old-etonian flavour right now castirondaves been forced to pull more u-turns in the last 48hours than a driving instructor

and still the die hard toryboys are blindly defending shinyface?

and still the die hard toryboys are blindly defending shinyface?

kimbers, they say that the ‘spectrum’ of political fanaticism is like a horseshoe shape. A little more trouble in Cameronland and we could just see zulu-eleven jumping right across the gap (rather than edging back ‘leftwards’ round the curve) and selling the Daily Worker in Lewes high street. 😀

I’m not comparing! Why is it one or the other? It should be NEITHER!

So who do you trust to look after ordinary workers rights? Who else has their interests at heart? Your happy for it to be no-one with any kind of power?

So who do you trust to look after ordinary workers rights?

None of the above. I trust each party to look after whoever gives them money. Neither the ultra rich nor the unions look after the interests of the workers of this country.

Your happy for it to be no-one with any kind of power

Maybe I’m not fully understanding the question? I currently do not feel that there is a “good” choice in who to vote for.