Cash For Camerons

[Daggers]

A storm in a tea cup.

You could buy a lot of panda-shit tea for £250,000

[UpTheLeagueFox]

I'd at least want to sleep with Samantha Cameron for £250,000

[Saxondale]

You could buy a lot of panda-shit tea for £250,000

With free limited edition mug.

[Guest MattP]

Better than selling off Knighthoods I suppose....

[21st Century Fox]

[Bellend Sebastian]

He can enjoy himself for a few hours, or at least until tonight's Panorama airs, anyway.

Murdoch vs Tories...clearly it's impossible to take sides, so the best we can really hope for is that some sort of massive fireball or explosion results that consumes them all

[Houdini Logic]

This is sadly no different from the way Labour or Lib Dems are funded.

It is completely different, but only because noone would pay £25 for a photo with this muppet...

[davieG]

Hell hath no fury like a media mogul scorned.

Witness Rupert Murdoch's tweet: "@rupertmurdoch: Of course there must be a full independent inquiry on both sides. In great detail, and with consequences. Trust must be established."

And the Sun's editorial which says: "Millions will wonder if Osborne scrapped the 50p rate after a few cosy lunches with millionaire backers."

Could it be that Rupert Murdoch wishes to see the man who set up the Leveson Inquiry go through the same agonisingly painful scrutiny as he has?

And why not, many will ask, after the extraordinary video of the Tory co-treasurer offering to sell access to the prime minister's private dinner table and his policy unit. Shouldn't we be told which donors the PM has meetings and dinners with?

Number 10 are for now sticking to the line that what happens in David Cameron's private flat is, well, private. However, they must know that it is very hard to explain the distinction between what happens downstairs on official business and upstairs on private business. So, the pressure will mount, particularly as Mr Cameron himself has said that transparency "is the best disinfectant".

We are already told who gives money to political parties, but what access they get in return is not published. On the Today programme this morning Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude confirmed what the Conservative website advertises - that you can pay to have dinner with the PM by spending £50,000 to join the Leader's Group.

Labour has a rather more modest "Thousand Club", but Tony Blair's former fundraiser Lord Levy made clear that he invited the PM to dinners for big donors held "at private homes". These events are not and were not listed in the list of the prime minister's official engagements.

Some will assume that the only reason the Tories will not publish a full list of who their leader has met is because they have something to hide. We shall see.

Downing Street already publishes the once secret, via the backdoor, meetings with Mr Murdoch and other senior media folk. If they now add donors David Cameron may worry that the list could be extended to people with other interests to lobby for - after all, don't doctors and teachers have interests which they argue for, or people with foreign passports, or cheerleaders for particular causes?There is, though, one other reason - a worry about where transparency will stop.

Should the names of family members and friends be published too in case they are privately arguing for this or that policy?

When the public loses trust in institutions they tend to demand a revelation of all the facts.

MPs found that to their cost after the expenses scandal. Rupert Murdoch is living with the consequences of the phone hacking scandal.

David Cameron may wish to protect his privacy, but I suspect that the lasting legacy of the "bluster" of the former co-treasurer, Peter Cruddas, will be that we will end up being told who the prime minister has dinner with - perhaps even in his own flat.

[hairy]

http://www.cash4access.com/

[hairy]

It appears he is listing them now:-

14 July 2010 – No 10

Attendees:

Anthony & Carole Bamford

Michael & Dorothy Hintze

Murdoch & Elsa Maclennan

Lord John & Lady Sainsbury

Andrew Feldman

Jill and Paul Ruddock

Mike and Jenny Farmer

Michael and Clara Freeman

28 February 2011 - flat

David Rowland and his wife. Andrew Feldman also attended.

2 November 2011 - flat

Attendees:

Henry and Dorothy Angest

Michael Farmer and wife

Ian Taylor and wife

27 February 2012 - flat

Michael Spencer and partner

[davieG]

LARGEST DONATIONS TO CONSERVATIVES IN 2010

• £1,999,967 - David Rowland
  
• £553,000 - Michael Farmer
  
• £500,000 - Jonathan Wood
  
• £335,000 - Michael Bishop
  
• £300,000 - May Makhzoumi
  
• £250,000 - Paul Beecroft
  
• £250,000 - Mark Bamford
  
• £250,000 - Chris Rokos
  
• £250,000 - Lord Sainsbury
  

Source: Electoral Commission

LARGEST DONATIONS TO CONSERVATIVES IN 2011

• £382,451 - Peter Cruddas
  
• £150,000 - Mark Bamford
  
• £150,000 - Jean Parmer
  
• £111,000 - Mary Cross
  
• £109,200 - Edwin Healey
  
• £100,000 - Nicholas Jenkins
  
• £100,000 - Alexander Knaster
  

Source: Electoral Commission

Donations - 23 Nov 2011

Seven political parties reported donations totalling £10,033,981 (excluding public funds) accepted between 1 July and 30 September.

The three political parties to accept the most in donations were:

• Labour Party - £3,529,270
  
• Conservative and Unionist Party - £2,744,618
  
• Scottish National Party (SNP) - £1,988,657
  

[Daggers]

Better than selling off Knighthoods I suppose....

Is it?

One is at least in the open and therefore open to question - the other is underhand and done in secret to undermine public representation or protest.

I'm not justifying KBEs for sale, but I fail to see how this is better.

[Houdini Logic]

I agree that none of this is good, but the truth of the matter is that it's deflecting from their suicidal policies and bills.

Wouldn't even suprise me if the Tories leaked this themselves...

[Guest MattP]

Is it?

One is at least in the open and therefore open to question - the other is underhand and done in secret to undermine public representation or protest.

I'm not justifying KBEs for sale, but I fail to see how this is better.

Why is it underhand? It's dinner with the PM as far as we know (so far), wouldnt you invite someone to dinner who was helping your cause? I certainly would, if people actually think people make these rather large donations with no questions asked I'd be surprised. I'm sure all parties have done it, no doubt Blair did, I can't say the same for Miliband or Brown as you would probably donate £250,000 not to be in the same room as those two.

Tories do it with large businessmen, Labour do it accepting huge donations from Unions, that's probably worse considering not everyone who is subscribed to those unions even support the Labour Party. I'm not getting my knickers in a twist over either party doing it. It's politics, always has been and always will be in some way shape or form.

[breadandcheese]

My political opinions are clearly more inline with the Conservatives, but I have no hesitation in saying this thing stinks. The fact that Conservative HQ keeps changing their stance and approach to how they manage this expose shows it stinks.

It's interesting that it's the media doing the running on this and very few politicians have come out attacking, so you can only assume that all parties have similar skeletons.

I've always been against state funding of parties as it's another drain on the taxpayer, but maybe we have no choice.

[davieG]

Why is it underhand? It's dinner with the PM as far as we know (so far), wouldnt you invite someone to dinner who was helping your cause? I certainly would, if people actually think people make these rather large donations with no questions asked I'd be surprised. I'm sure all parties have done it, no doubt Blair did, I can't say the same for Miliband or Brown as you would probably donate £250,000 not to be in the same room as those two.

Tories do it with large businessmen, Labour do it accepting huge donations from Unions, that's probably worse considering not everyone who is subscribed to those unions even support the Labour Party. I'm not getting my knickers in a twist over either party doing it. It's politics, always has been and always will be in some way shape or form.

Money donated by unions comes from their certified and voted for Political Fund and is separate from union subs, any member can opt out if they do not want to contribute.

[NeilyBoy]

Why is it underhand? It's dinner with the PM as far as we know (so far), wouldnt you invite someone to dinner who was helping your cause? I certainly would, if people actually think people make these rather large donations with no questions asked I'd be surprised. I'm sure all parties have done it, no doubt Blair did, I can't say the same for Miliband or Brown as you would probably donate £250,000 not to be in the same room as those two.

Tories do it with large businessmen, Labour do it accepting huge donations from Unions, that's probably worse considering not everyone who is subscribed to those unions even support the Labour Party. I'm not getting my knickers in a twist over either party doing it. It's politics, always has been and always will be in some way shape or form.

Do you need somebody to explain the word "donation" to you? The fact that there's a certain, unadvertised point where one's donation becomes a purchase of intimacy with the PM is pretty much the definition of underhand. Not to mention the obvious lack of fairness in the fact that people who don't have that kind of cash, but make similar donations as a percentage of their income, don't get anything like those privileges.

[z-layrex]

Dont see what the big deal is tbh.

[Zingari]

Dont see what the big deal is tbh.

In a nutshell , my understanding is that the most damaging suggestion is rich donors are able to buy influence over government policy, the public are quite rightly suspicious of big donors and the idea that they are able to buy influence.

[Guest MattP]

Do you need somebody to explain the word "donation" to you? The fact that there's a certain, unadvertised point where one's donation becomes a purchase of intimacy with the PM is pretty much the definition of underhand. Not to mention the obvious lack of fairness in the fact that people who don't have that kind of cash, but make similar donations as a percentage of their income, don't get anything like those privileges.

I know exactly what donation means, however I also live in the real world.

Of course these people are buying influence, it's been going on for years and continues to do so, do you really think when Alan Sugar was making his large donations to the Labour party he wasn't buying his peerage?

I actually can't believe how big a story people are trying to make this, if you didnt know it was happening you must live under a rock.

[21st Century Fox]

It's a big story because a certain Aussie is out for blood over the Leveson Enquiry and because of Cameron's previous rhetoric on anti-sleaze and transparency.

[Daggers]

Why is it underhand?

Because it was being done in secret. Obviously.

It's dinner with the PM as far as we know (so far), wouldnt you invite someone to dinner who was helping your cause?

No it isn't an invitation, and you've never struck me as being stupid enough to believe it is. It is buying access to influence policy in secret for the benefit of a few.

I'm sure all parties have done it, no doubt Blair did, I can't say the same for Miliband or Brown as you would probably donate £250,000 not to be in the same room as those two.

Evidence? None.

Quality of joke? See 'Evidence'.

Tories do it with large businessmen, Labour do it accepting huge donations from Unions, that's probably worse considering not everyone who is subscribed to those unions even support the Labour Party.

See davieG's post. Unions represent the interests of large groups of workers and work in their best interests to better the conditions and remuneration. The Union donations are clear, up-front and members of unions have the option to opt-out, that you fail to appreciate this clearly demonstrates your understanding of the situation. Given the documented division between Labour and the Unions over the last five years clearly demonstrates that they certainly have not been buying power and influencing policy direction. All this runs totally contrary to the previously explained ramifications and motivation of businessmen courting Cameron in private, in secret.

[Daggers]

[NeilyBoy]

I know exactly what donation means, however I also live in the real world.

Of course these people are buying influence, it's been going on for years and continues to do so, do you really think when Alan Sugar was making his large donations to the Labour party he wasn't buying his peerage?

I actually can't believe how big a story people are trying to make this, if you didnt know it was happening you must live under a rock.

Just give me a second to find something strong enough to peel my other hand off from my face...

Rape has been going on for years and continues to do so - I guess you're fine with that too?

[Webbo]

There was a similar story in the previous weeks Mail on Sunday. Ed Milliband travelled to Hull apparently for an NHS rally, although there is no record of any rally or Milliband attending, he then spent the afternoon with the chairman of Hull city watching their match in return for a donation of £100k. Funnily enough it never got an attention from the rest of the media but I don't see how it's any different.