Quarter million : nice house or meeting with PM?

[pap]

How would you spend £250,000?

 

That sort of sum could net you a decent family home in most parts of the country. However, according to former party treasurer Peter Cruddas, such a sum guarantees you "premier league" access to David Cameron and George Osborne.

 

The revelations, uncovered when undercover reporters posed as cash-rich lobbyists from Liechenstein (an ineligible source for party donations), have created a lot of waves over the weekend. The aforementioned Cruddas, at the centre of the storm, has already resigned from his post. The opposition have now asked for an independent enquiry to determine the extent of the cash for access problem within the current Government.

 

Not really that surprising, imo. Governments of all colours tend to be especially susceptible to sterling-backed specific interest. However, it is a little surprising that Cruddas felt comfortable doing this with the feet only just under the table, and the political timing is terrible for the Conservatives, another piece of bad news rising up in the aftermath of last weeks' budget.

 

David Cameron faces rising pressure over Cruddas' cash-for-access-boast

[trousers]

Bring back Blair, Campbell and Mandleson say I.

[dubai_phil]

Bring back Blair, Campbell and Mandleson say I.

 

Yeah, it was only about 100k to meet them allegedly

[saintbletch]

Bring back Blair, Campbell and Mandleson say I.

 

You've won me over with the power of your argument trousers...

 

I'll attempt to avoid trousers' own brand of political parody and share my views - for what it's worth.

 

Until we sort out the way parties are funded this will continue to happen. It's naive to think that someone who gives £250K to a party wants nothing in return. I guess a few might be dyed-in-the-wool party members who are looking for nothing more than 5 minutes of altruistic 'fame'. But the majority will want the party's ear, will be looking to buy influence and will be looking for politicians to look out for their interests.

 

As you say pap, our political funding model means this will happen with parties of every hue and tone and let's not forget the special influence of the Union in Labour's policy making. Whilst it's quite transparent it's still open to abuse.

 

But if you're going to use a public office to do this and then you're going to use public funds to entertain them privately in a state-owned residence, then I think we should be able to know who has been entertained. David Cameron is merely a custodian of the office - these trappings are not his. If he wants to entertain people privately then he should take his friends to a restaurant. By all means entertain your friends at Downing Street, but tell them that their visit will be recorded and published because it will have been paid for by us - the tax payer.

 

Not wanting to hijack the threat but I'd pose a supplemental...should we be able to find out who David Cameron has entertained in Downing Street at tax payer's expense?

 

Personally I'd say that we should.

[Thedelldays]

like with everything else...it will all be forgotten next week and no one will care

[pap]

It's a murky area. Just listening to the Today Programme in the car on way back from school run.

 

Personally, I don't agree with cash for access at all - irrespective of which political party is filling its coffers. It's especially bad when it happens when a party is in power or looks like they are going to sweep to power, because donors are giving money to a party to get access to a government. Call me cynical, but I wouldn't expect someone to throw down a quarter mil without expecting something in return. If we hold that to be true, it puts us in a position where branches of government policy are effectively up for sale to serve special interests.

 

Doesn't matter which party is doing it. Happens to be the Conservatives right now.

[trousers]

You've won me over with the power of your argument trousers...

 

I'll attempt to avoid trousers' own brand of political parody and share my views - for what it's worth.

 

Until we sort out the way parties are funded this will continue to happen. It's naive to think that someone who gives £250K to a party wants nothing in return. I guess a few might be dyed-in-the-wool party members who are looking for nothing more than 5 minutes of altruistic 'fame'. But the majority will want the party's ear, will be looking to buy influence and will be looking for politicians to look out for their interests.

 

As you say pap, our political funding model means this will happen with parties of every hue and tone and let's not forget the special influence of the Union in Labour's policy making. Whilst it's quite transparent it's still open to abuse.

 

But if you're going to use a public office to do this and then you're going to use public funds to entertain them privately in a state-owned residence, then I think we should be able to know who has been entertained. David Cameron is merely a custodian of the office - these trappings are not his. If he wants to entertain people privately then he should take his friends to a restaurant. By all means entertain your friends at Downing Street, but tell them that their visit will be recorded and published because it will have been paid for by us - the tax payer.

 

Not wanting to hijack the threat but I'd pose a supplemental...should we be able to find out who David Cameron has entertained in Downing Street at tax payer's expense?

 

Personally I'd say that we should.

 

Yep, agree with the disclosure. How far back do you think we should go? 1 year? 5 years? 50 years?

[saintbletch]

Yep, agree with the disclosure. How far back do you think we should go? 1 year? 5 years? 50 years?

 

Good point.

 

I hadn't really thought about it historically, but if we kept records and with the usual caveats (state secrets, lives of citizens overseas, armed forces not unduly put in harms way) - all the way for me.

 

I mean, it's not going to lower our opinion of any of our politicians is it?

 

What would be interesting would be looking for a correlation between the non-exec roles our retired politicians take up and the 'visitors' they might have entertained while in office.

 

If would hopefully serve as a reminder for our current, as well as future office holders.

[pap]

like with everything else...it will all be forgotten next week and no one will care

 

Like the Poll Tax, then?

[trousers]

Like the Poll Tax, then?

 

Another good idea badly executed... ;-)

[pap]

I'll attempt to avoid trousers' own brand of political parody and share my views - for what it's worth.

 

I love trousers' brand of political parody! Whether you agree or disagree, it's always blessed with brevity and frequently features proper LOL moments.

 

No disrespect intended trousers. Seriously.

 

Not wanting to hijack the threat but I'd pose a supplemental...should we be able to find out who David Cameron has entertained in Downing Street at tax payer's expense?

 

Personally I'd say that we should.

 

I think that, as a bare minimum, would be acceptable. And referring to trousers' question, as far back as possible. I'd like to think that one of the benefits of living in a literate civilised society is that we citizens get to know what the feck goes/went on with our politicians.

[pap]

Another good idea badly executed... ;-)

 

Well, sorta.

 

They probably should have looked at turnout figures before implementing a policy that was effectively "pay £xxx pounds to vote!".

 

A lot of people disappeared off the electoral register during that time.

[Thedelldays]

Like the Poll Tax, then?

 

 

but this is not going to cost anyone any money...so no one cares

[pap]

but this is not going to cost anyone any money...so no one cares

 

So would you like to revise your original statement to:-

 

"like with everything else that doesn't cost anyone any money...it will all be forgotten next week and no one will care"

 

Don't really agree that this doesn't cost any money either. The PM gets paid a decent whack to run the country. It'd be nice if he spent his time doing that, rather than meeting Tory party donors. Surely every time he spends meeting these people and accommodating their opinions takes time away from the stated mission of trying to save the country's finances.

[Thedelldays]

So would you like to revise your original statement to:-

 

"like with everything else that doesn't cost anyone any money...it will all be forgotten next week and no one will care"

 

Don't really agree that this doesn't cost any money either. The PM gets paid a decent whack to run the country. It'd be nice if he spent his time doing that, rather than meeting Tory party donors. Surely every time he spends meeting these people and accommodating their opinions takes time away from the stated mission of trying to save the country's finances.

so, is he not allowed his own time.....these were dinners..? does he have to eat alone..?

 

like I said, no one really cares and by next week, people will care even less...it will only be that funny speaking labour chap that will keep bringing it up....im sure he has had various "dinners" with bob crowe types...and that would continue should the freak result happen and he runs the country..

 

if I gave the labour party £250k, I will at least want to have chat with milliband and find out what he intends doing with it

[buctootim]

so, is he not allowed his own time.....these were dinners..? does he have to eat alone..?

 

like I said, no one really cares and by next week, people will care even less...it will only be that funny speaking labour chap that will keep bringing it up....im sure he has had various "dinners" with bob crowe types...and that would continue should the freak result happen and he runs the country..

 

if I gave the labour party £250k, I will at least want to have chat with milliband and find out what he intends doing with it

 

 

People do care DD - but its not just a Tory party thing, it applies to all parties equally. What Cruddas said is true, and all parties know it. The really worrying thing is Cameron lied, saying it wasnt party policy to let people buy access. Thats not true and everyone knows it not true. People buy knighthoods and honours and access and contribute to policy development, either with money or 'loyal party service' in some other way. Business people pay for access. Indeed if a company didnt get something in return for its donation the CEO would be under fire by shareholders.

 

The whole issue of honours, access and party funding stinks. The electorate should bite the bullet and introduce state funding.

Edited 26 March, 2012 by buctootim

[pap]

so, is he not allowed his own time.....these were dinners..? does he have to eat alone..?

 

like I said, no one really cares and by next week, people will care even less...it will only be that funny speaking labour chap that will keep bringing it up....im sure he has had various "dinners" with bob crowe types...and that would continue should the freak result happen and he runs the country..

 

if I gave the labour party £250k, I will at least want to have chat with milliband and find out what he intends doing with it

 

Well, as buctootim points out - some people care, including myself. Sure, I might not have a quarter million to give to a political party, but does that mean that my concerns are any less valid than someone who has?

 

It isn't hard to make the link between "cash for access" and "cash for policy", which many people are - and quite rightly in my opinion. What other reason would most of these people have for meeting a Prime Minister? To say hello? To enquire after the missus and kids?

 

Then there is the issue of paying money to a party to get preferential treatment from a government. My business interests, status as a tax payer, and length of working life mean that I've probably paid close to or more than a quarter million into the tax system, the vast majority in the past six years. That money has gone to the Government, not a political party. I've never met any PM, so I do wonder why it is right that someone else can pay the same amount of money to a political party and get access to the PM and Chancellor.

 

You seem to have forgotten what the government is there for. They work for us, remember - not the interests of anyone who happens to have a spare £250K.

[dronskisaint]

I suspect this will become Teflon Cam's John Major moment...it's not back to basics this time but having ridden the 'Transparency' in government bandwagon in to (shared) power this will bite him hard on the a*se.

 

I listened to Francis Maude on the radio on the way to work trying to explain why Cameron should not reveal his guest list...TDD your dinner party argument would wash if all his guests paid multi thousands for their dinners but they don't....he now has to practice what he's preached re transparency or step down - it's a credibility on the line issue and he very firmly made it so.

[Saintandy666]

State funding is the only way we can free our political parties from the grips of donors and equal the field a bit more in elections.

[pap]

There are a number of problems with state funding.

 

First, how do you stop any old Tom, **** or Harry from starting a political party and claiming cash for it?

 

Second (and assuming that someone has already piped in with the "ah, you give parties money based on their popularity" ), wouldn't any scheme based on vote share simply serve to perpetuate the current set of political parties?

 

What about fringe parties? Should we be giving money to the likes of the BNP so that they can broadcast their message?

 

State funding comes with its own problems.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Firstly, well done to the Murdoch press for exposing this.

 

Secondly, donations have bought influence in the past, Bernie Ecclestone will tell you that. But, perhaps in this case cameron is a "pretty stright kind of guy" and it was just a meal.

 

Thirdly, They're all at it, whether it's cash for Questions during Major's time, cash for honours during New Labours or now this. Because all political parties get greedy and cant seem to behave themselves why does that mean the taxpayer has to fund them even more ( I believe they get some funding now)?

[buctootim]

Because all political parties get greedy and cant seem to behave themselves why does that mean the taxpayer has to fund them even more ( I believe they get some funding now)?

 

Because the alternative is worse imo. Better that the taxpayer pays a relatively small amount (a few 10s of millions pa) than having a government which is in hock to special interests, trade unions, businesses with an agenda or rich people after a knighthood.

[pap]

Because the alternative is worse imo. Better that the taxpayer pays a relatively small amount (a few 10s of millions pa) than having a government which is in hock to special interests, trade unions, businesses with an agenda or rich people after a knighthood.

 

Which we have probably had for a very long time now, unfortunately.

 

If I had to provide an example of this, I'd say look no further than our membership of the EU. Whether you agree or disagree with membership, no-one can deny that it is an issue which divides the country, yet it is not up for debate. Every time it has come up, the politicians have managed to slime their way out of it with astonishing literalism ( Lib Dems + Tories - "it's a treaty - not a constitution" ) or vague portents of unspecified doom if we left at this time ( Conservative ministers who got votes for Brussels-bashing and blamed the financial crisis for abandoning their convictions).

 

The EU is the prime example of how special interests affect our democracy. Business leaders love it, and why wouldn't they? Access to a labour market of 500m, free movement of goods, etc. However, it must be an absolute nightmare for anyone trying to provision public services. I'm fairly sure that if the issue went to a referendum this year, we'd be on the way out soon after. In my mind, a democracy is only as good as the opportunity for renewal it provides. Sure, we get to elect a new government every five years if we want, but each election seems to be nothing but drum-beating for burning public problems, while each Parliament unfailingly keeps the big questions off the table.

 

It is, in short, a f**king farce.

[dune]

like with everything else...it will all be forgotten next week and no one will care

 

Not necessarily. Their achilies heel is the old "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer with the Tories" tagline. Stories like this and reducing the 50p rate of tax (put up by labour purely so the tories inheriited the policy) can accumulate in peoples perceptions.

 

That said the next election will ultimately be decided on the economy and feel good factor in 2014/15.

[Saintandy666]

There are a number of problems with state funding.

 

First, how do you stop any old Tom, **** or Harry from starting a political party and claiming cash for it?

 

Second (and assuming that someone has already piped in with the "ah, you give parties money based on their popularity" ), wouldn't any scheme based on vote share simply serve to perpetuate the current set of political parties?

 

What about fringe parties? Should we be giving money to the likes of the BNP so that they can broadcast their message?

 

State funding comes with its own problems.

 

I would have some sort of system based on how many seats you are fielding candidates in and the number of votes/seats gained at the previous election.

[Saintandy666]

Labour 10 points ahead in latest comres poll.

[pap]

I would have some sort of system based on how many seats you are fielding candidates in and the number of votes/seats gained at the previous election.

 

The only equitable way to do this would be as a share of the national public vote.

 

Measuring by seats under the current electoral system would just allow present parties to dominate the funding without having the popular mandate to do so.

[dune]

Labour 10 points ahead in latest comres poll.

 

I'm comfortable with Labour being ahead (that poll is a bit generous to Labour mind compared to other polls) for the time being. The last thing we want is Ed Milliband forced out. Like I say people will judge the Tories on the state of the economy through 2014 until the election. What people will want to see is a significant rebound AND some significant tax cuts. Oh and a little skirmish with the Argentinians wouldn't go amiss either.

[dune]

edit

[Saintandy666]

The only equitable way to do this would be as a share of the national public vote.

 

Measuring by seats under the current electoral system would just allow present parties to dominate the funding without having the popular mandate to do so.

 

Yes, I retract the seats and say just number of votes because FPTP is ****ed up.

[supersonic]

I would have a meeting with Cameron and tell him exactly what I think of his ridiculous policies and his party. Would bring much more satisfaction to me than buying a house.

 

I'm unfortunate enough to live in an area where our MP is Conservative, and she came round my house the other day to "see if she was representing her constituency properly". I only aksed her one question, which was "Why are you using a taxi to go from area to area in your constituency and getting the tax payer to fit the bill when you have a bus pass and 95% of area's you need to go to are accessibly by public transport, something you keep saying we should use to help cut pollution"

 

Like most politicians, she refused to answer

[trousers]

Labour 10 points ahead in latest comres poll.

 

Polls....those things that people quote with glee when they say what you want to see and dismiss with ambivalence when they don't...

[pap]

Well, this story has certainly moved on.

 

Only yesterday, the likes of Francis Maude were insisting that Downing Street is a private residence, and that no disclosure of the identities of dinnering donors was necessary.

 

Cameron performed a massive u-turn on this decision by publishing a list of Tory Party donors who have had dinner at Downing Street or Chequers. ( Cash for access - Cameron's Dinners for Donors revealed ).

 

I would expect to hear more on this as the donors' full interests come to light.

[trousers]

"Mr Miliband received unlikely backing from the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, who said Mr Cameron’s integrity is in question."

 

Carlsberg don't do Tuesday morning ironic chuckles, but if they did...

;-)

[saintbletch]

Firstly, well done to the Murdoch press for exposing this.

 

Good point Lord Duckhunter.

 

Murdoch illustrating both the power of proper investigative journalism and that revenge is a dish best served cold.

[saintbletch]

Well, this story has certainly moved on.

 

Only yesterday, the likes of Francis Maude were insisting that Downing Street is a private residence, and that no disclosure of the identities of dinnering donors was necessary.

 

Cameron performed a massive u-turn on this decision by publishing a list of Tory Party donors who have had dinner at Downing Street or Chequers. ( Cash for access - Cameron's Dinners for Donors revealed ).

 

I would expect to hear more on this as the donors' full interests come to light.

 

The turnaround certainly shows that the Tories are worried about the public reaction to this. I wonder how those donors named feel about it? I guess they must have realised that it might have come out but for many I guess that showing they have access to power and influence can only be positive.

 

As to the names, well nothing we didn't already expect. But if I were a Labour (or Lib-Dem for that matter) spin doctor come the next election, I think I'd be pointing out that in the list...

• most, if not all were 50% tax rate payers
  
• none was reliant on a state pension
  
• one company represented was given a controversial oil deal in Libya
  
• one diner had claimed that he'd been given assurances that a financial transaction tax would be vetoed
  

Again, no real news in any of that, and I'm sure the Tories can point to ways in which these donors have been negatively impacted by coalition policy, but it is fuel to the campaigns of the Tories' enemies.

 

Lastly, with the Tories falling over themselves to disclose all this information, experience and massive cynicism suggests to me that there must be more that they want to keep quiet.

[bridge too far]

I would be very interested to know how many large construction developers / companies have been to one of those dinners.

[pap]

Lastly, with the Tories falling over themselves to disclose all this information, experience and massive cynicism suggests to me that there must be more that they want to keep quiet.

 

The Conservative Party was around £28M in debt before the General Election, so all that most of these donations have achieved is to chip away at that sum.

 

Quite amusing really - the party in charge of the country's finances was seemingly unable to look after its own. Gotta wonder why, really. Lack of support/belief from party members?

 

However, I'm definitely with you on the probable reasons for the turbo turnaround, saintbletch. I do not think that we have heard the end of this yet, and if it transpires that Cameron hasn't been fully forthcoming on this issue, and we find out quickly, there's a good chance that such omission will finish his ailing political fortunes. As dronskisaint points out - this is something that the Conservatives have pinned their mast to.

 

Such claims of transparency are turning out to have the credibility you would assign to a bear with a history of dirty protest that is promising he'll never take a crap in the woods again.

[trousers]

As to the names, well nothing we didn't already expect. But if I were a Labour (or Lib-Dem for that matter) spin doctor come the next election, I think I'd be pointing out that in the list...

• one company represented was given a controversial oil deal in Libya
  

 

I'll see your 'secret' dinner with a Libyan company rep and raise you a public lunch with a 'former' Libyan dictator...

 

Edited 27 March, 2012 by trousers

[dubai_phil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair

 

I lose track being so far away.

 

Which cash for Government Favours are we on this time round?

[saintbletch]

I'll see your 'secret' dinner with a Libyan company rep and raise you a public lunch with a 'former' Libyan dictator...

 

 

Lol...

 

You've got it bad trousers - that hair-trigger political point scoring thing you do. Is it genetic? ;-)

 

They're all singularly as bad as each other and there is nothing worse than a politician that promises to be one thing but is found out to be another. That's why I probably have a lesser opinion of Blair and Brown than you do.

 

As these images show; time and events have damaged those two funsters through a litany of embarrassing judgements, gaffs and self-serving nest building.

 

I guess that's why you selected them to illustrate the damage that might have been done to Cameron's credibility come the next election?

 

Good point, well made Sir!

[Verbal]

Trousers, you do this often - deflect a serious Tory transgression and subversion of democratic principles with a Labour one. It gives the strong impression that you actually approve of corruption, so long as the 'other side' also do it.

 

Is that the case?

[trousers]

Trousers, you do this often - deflect a serious Tory transgression and subversion of democratic principles with a Labour one. It gives the strong impression that you actually approve of corruption, so long as the 'other side' also do it.

 

Is that the case?

 

No.

[Verbal]

No.

 

So you're appalled by Cameron, et al's corruption, right?

[CB Saint]

Verbal, are you actually saying Cameron is corrupt? Better watch our for those libel lawyers.

[trousers]

So you're appalled by Cameron, et al's corruption, right?

 

I think they're all as bad as each other FWIW. I simply provide a public service to those in this big society of ours that are under the misapprehension that the nasty Tories have a monopoly on this sort of thing. All free of charge too. Unless someone wants to take me out to dinner.

[Verbal]

Verbal, are you actually saying Cameron is corrupt? Better watch our for those libel lawyers.

 

Certainly corrupt. He's already been caught out over the expenses scandal, although in a relatively small way. The larger issue at the moment is that it is simply not remotely credible that Cruddas's corrupt behaviour occurred without Cameron's knowledge or consent.

[buctootim]

Verbal, are you actually saying Cameron is corrupt? Better watch our for those libel lawyers.

 

The current system of funding political parties encourages cash for questions, access, honours and a degree of influence in policy shaping. Its always been tacitly understood inside Westminster (and by those making the payments). The only difference now is that Murdoch has shone a light to it in revenge for the loss of his own influence and the public have decided it stinks

Edited 27 March, 2012 by buctootim

[CB Saint]

The current system of funding political parties encourages a system of cash for questions, access, honours and a degree on influence of policy shaping . Its always been tacitly understood inside westminster (and by those making the payments. The only difference now is that murdoch has shone a light to it in revenge for the loss of his own influence and the public have decided it stinks

 

Hell hath no fury like a media baron scorned.

 

Party funding is an interesting one. I am not sure how it can be done. You can't split a central pot of money three ways, because it is unfair on the smaller parties and the libs are much smaller than the cons and labs so shouldn't receive the same. You also can't do it on seats held because that favours the big two. It certainly cannot stay the way it is, as it is wide open to abuse, although this is not just restricted to the rich donors. For instance, I wonder what Ed Milliband has promised to do for the Unions in return for their backing in the leadership contest. Also the unions have used their contributions (the threat of withdrawal) as a negotiating tool when trying to get the previous government onto their agenda.

[pap]

One of the compromises that is being floated is that individual union members will have the right to withdraw themselves from funding the Labour Party, or indeed - assign it to another. This would be a positive move. No-one can then say that the funding is being provided to the Labour Party in an undemocratic way.

 

A good move, in my opinion.