Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
So says tomorrow's Sunday Times
but the headline reads like something from The Day Today
It was baffling.
Sorry my appreciation was lagging.
obviously a single rogue element
isn't that some kind of fraud?
he's a shark, not a sheep
(see the Leader's Club at the bottom)
btw I love that Triumvirate of bright young political commentators at the end. I wanna hang out with them on a Sunday.
so Cameron won't publish details of his visitors because they're 'private' apparently
Isn't Prime Minister a public office? Isn't no.10 part of the State apparatus?
Obviously that doesn't work in practice though - Cameron just looks like he's hiding something.
people are going to assume a Brooks/Murdoch pow-wow
I'm not even going to type the rest of that post now.
i've started singing "ad hominem" to tune of "mana-mana, doo doo do doo doo".
i recommend it.
ad hominem, doo doo do doo doo. ad hominem, doo doo doo doo. etc
because I fear Gordo and Tony probably ran things a very similar way. :-/
because I've long believed it to be Conservative Party policy. That Leader's club's been around for quite some time. It was even reported on by the press in 2010 and it's been in place since at least 2008; http://web.archive.org/web/20081006051419/http://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx
Doesn't make any of it right, but some muppet from one of the parties is still going to stop any reform of the way our political parties are funded and this is an easy way for the political parties to make a quick buck or three.
surely nobody would pump vast sums of money into a political party unless they expected their views to be listened to as a result?
which is why reform's been so necessary for so long.
No one, wheter it be a corporation or a trade union, would give large amounts of money in return for no access at all. I'm sure there are some old boys who donate money in the same way they would give to a charity, but even they probably expect a dinner or access from time-to-time with the PM/party leader even if they had no interest in influencing them.
Personally, I don't really have much of a problem with it, and it seems the only 'real' solution is State funding for political parties which is far worse (and, strangely, more democratically unaccountable) to my mind.
I'm assuming that in such a system political parties wouldn't all be given the same amount of money. It would seem silly to limit Labour and Conservatives to the same level of funding as Greens/UKIP/BNP given the differing sizes of their current operations. But to pay them differently based on their current sizes would unfairly entrench this set-up, ensuring that the smaller partiers remaing ever so.
Similarly, if it was the case that all political parties got state-sanctioned funding of equal amounts, you'd have no end of joke parties set up which would be a waste of money. Or indeed 'serious' but very very niche parties, which would also be a waste of money.
The thing about the current set-up is that it goves political parties the ability to raise money based on the size of their appeal, which to me actually seems quite democratic. It's why niche parties like UKIP have a relatively bouyant bank account despite their size and having no MPs.
Who would be the final arbiter of which political parties were worthy of state funding and which aren't? An unelected quango? A select committee? Assuming you couldn't fund everyone that wanted to set up a party or stand as an independent, it would undermine the idea of equal representation or equal ability to represent your views to the electorate at the ballot box. And to enshrine this concept in law or through funding would be wholly undemocratic.
The current system allows everyone an equal opportunity to represent their views. The more popular ones will attract more money, and that's far more democratic.
But obviously it means in reality that the party that can attract the wealthiest donors, not the biggest volume of donors gets the investment. And that clearly isn't democratic- it simply means it's in every party's interest to attract the richest voters over the general mass of voters.
The question is how to solve that? Perhaps capping donations is the only fair route? If no individual could donate more than, say, £10, 000 (and really it should be far less than that but the pragmatist in me knows that's a step too far at this stage) in a single year then parties would be under pressure to attract as many donors as possible and something democratic might emerge.
1) Cap individual donations at 25% of the national median salary.
2) Provide all parties with more than (0.2%) share with a small amount of base funding (e.g. £10k)
3) Allow voters to mark what party they'd like their share of party funding to be allocated to at General Election time (include all parties nationally who achieved over the cut-off and all parties standing locally).
4) Allocate the remaining pool based on 0.8x + 0.2y where x is the split given in part 3 and y is the share of votes cast in the general election.
5) Make donations from membership organisations opt-in rather than opt-out.
Note, all figures are plucked completely out of the air, jut for an example, and clearly the mechanics would need more thought. Electoral Commission would naturally have to handle it all.
Can't imagine that's too far away from the Kelly proposals anyway.
Like £5 a pop plus GiftAid.
I mean as it stands it's utterly democratically unaccountable. It can't really get less so in my view.
was trying to huff the whole thing off, and then threw the old 'in the pay of the Unions' thing at Labour. Desperate stuff, but I do wonder why union subs are so often used as a stick to beat Labour. The Labour Party was set up partly as a political body to represent the unions. And the unions are multi-million (possibly) member organisations, they're hardly anti-democratic! Not compared to media moguls/millionaire businessmen etc.
."You're in the pay of democratically run organisations representing the views of millions of working people!!!"
For a PR bloke, Cameron is incredibly inept. Even the unlikely event that there was nothing sinister about this, this defensive "It's no-one's business" stance just makes him look like Bart Simpson going "It wasn't me."
The Tories were mired in sleaze last time they were in power and this just appears as if they are up to their necks in it once again. They never ever learn.
Except if you think of the amount of u-turns, gaffes, sleazey things that have gone on since this government came to power, and yet Dave remains relatively popular. For some reason even things like Horsegate have some difficulty sticking to him. Personally I think he uses Gove, Lansley, Pickles and the other goblins to draw fire away from himself, but maybe that's just GREAT PR.
The person you're thinking of is Shaggy.
is actually comparing DC to Shaggy?
It wasn't me
just to see his feeble attempts to explain why this is not a problem and anyway Ken's Tax.
than millionaires influencing government policy by paying to meet the Prime Minister
to fund political parties than tax revenues being used for that purpose.
we tax them heavily at source, they then don't have to emit GHGs from their towncars to go to all these dinners AND they get their evening's free to catch up on Mad Men or Downton.
More because state intervention / cost, which is at least an argument one can understand
seems a bit desperate, mentioned Unions.
ooh that felt good.
Everyone try it.
Sleaze is hardly the preserve of Conservative MPs, I think we can all agree.
However, when Labour or Lib Dem gets caught it is not only wrong but also shaming and letting the side down. With the Tories you just automatically expect it.
(a) send their children to private school;
(b) structure their affairs to as to minimise the amount of tax they pay;
(c) pay for private health insurance;
THIS is sleaze
I was referring to the shaming/letting the side down/automatically expect it bits.
is that the Tories have conventionally set themselves up as appealing to a strict old-fashioned code of morality and traditional values. So it's much sleazier and more hypocritical when, say, Major fucked Edwina Currie whilst calling for a return to family values... Similarly the various sexual kinks and paraphilias that trickled out in news stories about the Tories in the early 90s didn't matter in themselves - it was more the combination of those with attempts to regulate against homosexuality that made them sleazy...
Admittedly this has little to do with the matter in hand. Which I'd call corruption more than sleaze. And, due to the need to attract funding from large individual donors, that's more likely (though of course not at all unique - cash for questions anyone?) with the Tory party too.
champagne socialists are post-hypocrisy
they're the worst
he's apparently changed his mind and now decided that he WILL publish a list of Donor-Diners
whatever that means
£49,950 is clearly insignificant and private
he's listing Doner-Diners, it's a new name-and-shame approach to takeaways as part of the obesity strategy
as long as their members are happy that that's how they operate and the public is aware it happens. I don't know.
And for £2500 he will let you kick him in the nuts.
so crass these Tories
"THE MPs expenses scandal proved politicians cannot be trusted to be honest and open about money.
So the revelation that Tory treasurer Peter Cruddas offered rich potential donors access to David Cameron will only confirm the public's belief that Westminster is awash with charlatans and shysters.
This is not some paltry wrangle over party funding. Allowing wealthy individuals or groups to lobby our leading politicians by waving a chequebook undermines democracy."
Yeah, waving a vague threat of career blackmail is FAR more democratic