Tory Cash scandal

[Westdene Seagull]

Same as Labour did as well (Bernie Ecclestone anybody! )

It doesn't matter who is in power, business/rich/poor/unions/etc. will all try to get the ear of senior politicians.

Absolutely this. Everyone seems to have forgotten Byers and co or even the cash for honours. The only way to clean this sort of thing up is for political parties to be publicly funded rather than donor funded. Obviously that raises a host of other difficulties including would we want the BNP to be publicly funded

 

[ROSM]

I love the way that people are likening this to the Labour Union funding. That would be the open, transparent funding that is then linked to an electoral college system whereby leaders are chosen. You may not like it but it is at least aligned to the founding principles of the Keir Hardy Labour Party.

Having seen a major cash for questions scandal on their last watch and seen the cash for honours fallout (although no charges were forthcoming), and then the Byers cash for access - To let this happen now is nothing short of careless. getting time in Ministers diaries is very difficult and nobody gets to be introduced a senior politician at a 'do' without having been vetted first. What we have here is a defence of 'I didnt know it was happening'. That may be true that people didn't DIRECTLY know it was happening but they would be stupid if they claim they didn't have a presumption.

 

[ROSM]

Absolutely this. Everyone seems to have forgotten Byers and co or even the cash for honours. The only way to clean this sort of thing up is for political parties to be publicly funded rather than donor funded. Obviously that raises a host of other difficulties including would we want the BNP to be publicly funded

Or shares can be issued in line with donations received and votes can be done on that basis? Lets face it, the only thing the Tories haven't privatised is the Tory party itself!

 

[The Merry Prankster]

As much as I can no longer stand the Tories, let's not forget scandals in the past with various unions brown-nosing the Labour party. They're all as bad as each other. Can't bloody stand main-stream politicians these days.

Correct-a-mundo.

 

[beorhthelm]

I love the way that people are likening this to the Labour Union funding. That would be the open, transparent funding

so is this all its about, how open it is? if its public knowledge then thats fine? turns out these meetings are all a matter of public record, only the amount of donation isnt. though it probably is somewhere in the system, dont they have to declare all donations over 50k? its the rather vulgar touting of access for money, thats been highlighted. still its quite tame compared to cash for questions, cash for honors and Bernie's cash for legisilative changes.

public funding of parties is the worse idea. forget the emotive example of BNP, why should i fund the Greens, UKIP or Socialist Workers party? if a party doesnt have sufficient support amongst the population to fund itself, then why should the state pay for it? they should cut back on the spending if its getting too expensive, especially given they have free airtime on TV, radio and press.

 

[ROSM]

so is this all its about, how open it is? if its public knowledge then thats fine? turns out these meetings are all a matter of public record, only the amount of donation isnt. though it probably is somewhere in the system, dont they have to declare all donations over 50k? its the rather vulgar touting of access for money, thats been highlighted. still its quite tame compared to cash for questions, cash for honors and Bernie's cash for legisilative changes.

I think this is as bad as cash for questions. Cash for honours was investigated and no charges brought. Cash for legislation? Well this seems to be aligned to that if not worse ('we will put your suggestions to the policy unit' is about as close as you can get to the Ecclestone scenario albeit that in Ecclestone's case he claims he was just giving the money as he supported the labour direction in totality).

Treating the role of Prime Minister as some kind of cheap escort service that can be pimped to help party coffers is hardly reinforcing the public confidence in politicians that Camerom was championing in the 2010 election campaign.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I'm just surprised that anybody is surprised. They all seem to be as bad as each other. With they never learn. You get the impression that they are either on the take, and if they're not, it's because they don't want to get caught - not because it's wrong.

Get me someone like Richard Branson to run the country any day.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Now trending on twitter "Cam Dine With Me" !!!

 

[JetsetJimbo]

I love the way that people are likening this to the Labour Union funding. That would be the open, transparent funding that is then linked to an electoral college system whereby leaders are chosen. You may not like it but it is at least aligned to the founding principles of the Keir Hardy Labour Party.

This. So many times, this. Except you've missed out one key thing, that I (and other members of affiliated unions) each got INDIVIDUAL votes for the Labour leadership. My union leader didn't vote on my behalf. I knew my union was affiliated to Labour when I joined, as did every other member. I chose to pay the political levy. All union involvement represents in voting terms is an extension of the franchise, which is something we're generally meant to welcome (and something I should have got used to right-wingers being against, I guess).

Unite's contribution to Labour is a voluntary contribution from 2m people. If someone can honestly claim that the way the Tories is funded is somehow fairer, that a rich bloke rocking up with £250k to demand a change in policy is more legitimate, let's hear it.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

We've had this before from the Tory Party haven't we?

Dr. Liam Fox
Jonathan Aitken
David Wilshire
Neil Hamilton
Jeffrey Archer

That's not to say that Labour have been entirely innocent in the matter of accepting the odd 'bung' here and there .......

Peter Mandelsson
John Prescot (especially if a pork pie is involved)
David Chaytor

And for the LibDems we have the following roll call........

David Laws

I seem to remeber after the expenses scandal that all the Politicians came out pledging that they would be 'whiter than white' from now on ......... plus ca change.

I'll leave you with this story from 2010.

David Cameron warns lobbying is next political scandal.

David Cameron will introduce measures to curb the lobbying industry to ensure that attempts by business to seek influence on Government policy does not become the next big political scandal.

He promised a Conservative government would stop the lobbying industry’s attempts through former ministers to access and influence policy.

His attack on “crony capitalism” came in a speech in which he attempted to tackle Britain’s “broken politics.”

He said: “Now we all know that expenses has dominated politics for the last year. But if anyone thinks that cleaning up politics means dealing with this alone and then forgetting about it, they are wrong. Because there is another big issue that we can no longer ignore.

“It is the next big scandal waiting to happen. It’s an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.”

The Conservative leader said that the “£2 billion industry” has a big presence at Westminster and take in some cases MPs are approached more than 100 times a week by lobbyists.”

 

[Westdene Seagull]

This. So many times, this. Except you've missed out one key thing, that I (and other members of affiliated unions) each got INDIVIDUAL votes for the Labour leadership. My union leader didn't vote on my behalf. I knew my union was affiliated to Labour when I joined, as did every other member. I chose to pay the political levy. All union involvement represents in voting terms is an extension of the franchise, which is something we're generally meant to welcome (and something I should have got used to right-wingers being against, I guess).

Unite's contribution to Labour is a voluntary contribution from 2m people. If someone can honestly claim that the way the Tories is funded is somehow fairer, that a rich bloke rocking up with £250k to demand a change in policy is more legitimate, let's hear it.

It's a bit of a distortion to imply that all Labours funding comes from the Unions and it's members. Like the Tory party it also gets donations from private individuals and companies.

 

[Dirk Gently]

As always, everyone's view of this depends on their own political allegiance, and no-one is going to be swayed from where they're entrenched, so for that reason I'm out.

 

[beorhthelm]

Unite's contribution to Labour is a voluntary contribution from 2m people. If someone can honestly claim that the way the Tories is funded is somehow fairer, that a rich bloke rocking up with £250k to demand a change in policy is more legitimate, let's hear it.

i dont see its fair or unfair either way. though different, neither is dissimilar when you get down to brass tacks - pay money for political influence. on the one hand you have large organisations make massive donations to a party (which they formed, so fair enough) and selects leadership and determines policy (again, fair enough). on the other you have wealthy individuals making large donations to a party and they have dinner to discuss policy (which may have no influence - i'd question the value for money). maybe a group like the CBI should pool all their members cash and then go in one bloc and vote on Tory policy. (not sure what the Liberals would do, do they have a single bloc backer?)

 

[aolstudios]

Do we need any MORE evidence to demonstrate that the Tories look after their own?

What I think is more interesting is that the British business class used to believe that the way to keep rich was to manufacture goods for (or supply services to) the mass of the population, who would happily hand over whatever surplus cash they had. These days, the way to riches seems to have shifted towards a wish on the part of the capitalist class to be given lucrative contracts by their friends in government to provide services to the public. The potential for corruption in this new arrangement is much greater.

this, this, this

 

[ROSM]

I'm surprised that more hasnt been made that the sting surrounded a false Lichtenstein based company. This wasnt a rich UK businessman trying to meet the PM, this was ostensibly a foreign body corporate, based in a tax haven, being offered access to the PM and the opportunity to provide its view on Government policy that would be considered by the polciy committee.

Whoever set the sting up was clearly looking to ensure this has legs and would get them on a number of fronts.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Indeed. People seem to forget that the Labour Party was established by the Trade Unions to pursue the political interests of the millions of Trade Union members and their families. Nothing wrong with that, of course (apart from the fact that New Labour and the Miliband party isn't interested in delivering). But equating trade union funding for the Labour Party with the activities of individual businessmen on the make who want to buy personal favours from this government is fundamentally mistaken.

Absolutely this. On the BBC News tonight they were talking about individual donors who give 7 figure sums. The only way to avoid this and the Unions financing the labour party apparently is for the taxpayer to finance politics - us to finance electioneering. I personally would not object to that within reason...... but I don't think it would stop this sort of stuff.