Daggers Posted 26 March 2012 Author Posted 26 March 2012 Funnily enough it never got an attention from the rest of the media but I don't see how it's any different. Really? You seriously can not see how it is in anyway different at all? 1. The story originated from The Mail. 2. It was such a non-story that it didn't get picked up by any other media sources. 3. The man involved is not the Prime Minister. 4. The donation to the party would be logged with the electoral commission. 5. No one said Cameron was not allowed to have friends over for a pizza, Milliband is allowed to go to shit football matches. 6. A chat at a football match is not quite as private as a chat in a private flat. Nor quite as secretive. I could go on but the idea that these are similar events is totally nonsensical.
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Because it was being done in secret. Obviously. 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. Evidence? None. Quality of joke? See 'Evidence'. 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. Accept the point on the unions, no problem. I dont think I have denied it being an invitation for influence have I? Ive said I know it goes on and it always has done, is it wrong? Probably, has it always happened? Almost certainly. I'm honestly not that bothered. No evidence against Blair? Come on, Alan Sugar, Bernie Eccelstone, Mittal's 2million donation? These were all cash for influence donations. At least Brown's lot paid it back when they got caught. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7114327.stm
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 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? Yes you are right, as I believe political donations for influence has always gone on I also believe rape is fine. A big round of applause for you Neilyboy.
NeilyBoy Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 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. In absolute terms it doesn't seem to be. But I will point out that Milliband's not in a position to enforce any of the Hull Chairman's special interests - unlike Cameron.
Webbo Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 3. The man involved is not the Prime Minister. He'd like to be 4. The donation to the party would be logged with the electoral commission. So will any donation to the Tory party. 6. A chat at a football match is not quite as private as a chat in a private flat. Nor quite as secretive. Why is a conversation in a football boardroom less private than in a flat?
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 In absolute terms it doesn't seem to be. But I will point out that Milliband's not in a position to enforce any of the Hull Chairman's special interests - unlike Cameron. So you are ok with political donations for influence as long as it's the opposition then? Sure you felt exactly the same 3-4 years ago.....
Gold Coast Fox Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 More bad publicity... that's all they need. They will still get my vote
21st Century Fox Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 He'd like to be So will any donation to the Tory party. Why is a conversation in a football boardroom less private than in a flat? Routing foreign money through a British dummy company wouldn't, which what was proposed.
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 This thread reminds me I've got a book upstairs I have never read about the "cash for honours" scandal that happened under Tony Blair, will probably give it a start tonight.
NeilyBoy Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Yes you are right, as I believe political donations for influence has always gone on I also believe rape is fine. A big round of applause for you Neilyboy. I'm glad we've cleared that up! But seriously, all I'm saying (in the form of an admittedly hyperbolic comparison) is that it's a bit silly of you to be so apathetic about this story just because "it's been going on for years". Did you understand that point? I get the impression that you didn't from your post hence this one.
NeilyBoy Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 So you are ok with political donations for influence as long as it's the opposition then? Sure you felt exactly the same 3-4 years ago..... Stop making my hand fuse with my face! I said they're the same (so anyone should have figured I feel it to be equally wrong) and pointed out that Milliband can't do jack about the special interests as an explanation of less media pressure.
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 I'm glad we've cleared that up! But seriously, all I'm saying (in the form of an admittedly hyperbolic comparison) is that it's a bit silly of you to be so apathetic about this story just because "it's been going on for years". Did you understand that point? I get the impression that you didn't from your post hence this one. Because no matter what we say or do this will never change unfortunately, it's been part of political life for as long as anyone can remember and always will be. Without it the parties wouldnt be able to fund themselves anyway.
Zingari Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Because no matter what we say or do this will never change unfortunately, it's been part of political life for as long as anyone can remember and always will be. Without it the parties wouldnt be able to fund themselves anyway. I don’t think the point of just knowing that big companies are funding the Tories is really the issue . Yes, we have always known that and yes it isn’t a surprise or particularly unreasonable . The main problem is which companies and how much and when and why and if any decisions are influenced by these donations . It’s all about openness and making everyone aware if there maybe conflicts of interest because of a donation . For instance if a group of clubs all have a whip round for the referees benevolent fund and give it to them above board ,then it’s open and unlikely to be seen as bribery, but if you see a club chairman giving a brown envelope to one of the match day officials it becomes a different matter entirely . In a nutshell , it’s all about openness and scrutiny
l444ry Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 If there is no question of donors being able to influence policy, how does Eton Boy explain how Adrian Beecroft, who had given more than half a million pounds to the Tories, was put in charge of a major policy review on employment law whose proposals were then imposed on Vince Cable against his wishes.
Webbo Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 If there is no question of donors being able to influence policy, how does Eton Boy explain how Adrian Beecroft, who had given more than half a million pounds to the Tories, was put in charge of a major policy review on employment law whose proposals were then imposed on Vince Cable against his wishes. Don't you mean Vince Fable?
l444ry Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Don't you mean Vince Fable? Haha. You've got a good memory Webbo!
Rincewind Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Only one way to express my thoughts about politicians Pay Rise Three-fold pay rise. Two Faced politicians, One Way thought. Me , me, me. MP's MP's kissing babies Crosses on ballot papers Voting time again. Just heard a great statement on Newsnight. "We have a lot of policies that help the working class, the only problem is not enough people know about them."
Jon the Hat Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Just heard a great statement on Newsnight. "We have a lot of policies that help the working class, the only problem is not enough people know about them." Such policies are of course ignored because they don't fit the story.
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 26 March 2012 Posted 26 March 2012 Unions represent the interests of large groups of workers and work in their best interests to better the conditions and remuneration. And there was me thinking they were just a bunch of trouble-making coonts doing all they can to start a fight with the Tories. I was put under a lot of pressure to join a union when I worked at the BBC but I was never going to do that. Always happy to cross a picket line - you want your right to strike accepted, the right of people who wish to work should be accepted too. But it never is. Union leaders are coonts of the highest order IMHO.
Rincewind Posted 27 March 2012 Posted 27 March 2012 Of course everyone have the right to cross the picket line. The same right as they have to refuse the pay rise and better conditions that is negotiated as a result of a strike.
Daggers Posted 28 March 2012 Author Posted 28 March 2012 And there was me thinking they were just a bunch of trouble-making coonts doing all they can to start a fight with the Tories. I was put under a lot of pressure to join a union when I worked at the BBC but I was never going to do that. Always happy to cross a picket line - you want your right to strike accepted, the right of people who wish to work should be accepted too. But it never is. Union leaders are coonts of the highest order IMHO. I am beginning to appreciate why everyone on TB took the piss out of you so much that you left the forum to live here instead.
Daggers Posted 28 March 2012 Author Posted 28 March 2012 No evidence against Blair? Come on You never mentioned him, you were talking about Miliband and Brown. And 'no evidence' refers to the lack of evidence presented in support of your argument. I was being a pedantic cvnt.
Daggers Posted 28 March 2012 Author Posted 28 March 2012 He'd like to be So will any donation to the Tory party. Why is a conversation in a football boardroom less private than in a flat? Your are a decent bloke Webbo, you aren't stupid . Have you seen the video? I'm not going down these cul-de-sacs - do you accept that the conversation and promises for this money are acceptable from a government in office, regardless of party?
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 I am beginning to appreciate why everyone on TB took the piss out of you so much that you left the forum to live here instead. TB ? You've lost me on that one. And I'm quite happy for people to take the piss if they wish. Fair banter is good. No problem with that whatsoever, my leftie friend.
Webbo Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Your are a decent bloke Webbo, you aren't stupid . Have you seen the video? I'm not going down these cul-de-sacs - do you accept that the conversation and promises for this money are acceptable from a government in office, regardless of party? On the clip I saw on the news the chap said your ideas would be put before the policy committee, no definite commitment to implement anything.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.