Bloo Loo Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 they should bar access to any government officials if you have more than £10K net wealth. Speaking to the people rather than the 4 City Donors mentioned by Cameron would be much more productive and bring them down to earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Payback by the BBC for the fact that the only PM to be collared by plod ever was The Liar no less for "cash for honours" or rather "loans" for honours. The Tories should have nuetered the BBC while they had the chance, plus now we wll have endless shows about Lord Cashcroft, another BBC obsession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmarks Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 they should bar access to any government officials if you have more than £10K net wealth. That nicely flips the problem on its head! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Very bad idea. The US system has unlimited donations but is also much more open about who is donating. The much greater disclosure does zero to stop the corruption there. Indeed the amount of law-buying there is significantly more than the UK. I think you may be being a little quick to dismiss. I understood that most money in the US was donated by corporations.. which I disagree with because corporations can only have a VI in politics. For private individuals who wish to spend money to support a political party they like, and who are prepared to be seen openly with no "backroom discussions", I don't see the same issue. If it is open the public (and press) can decide for themselves if somebody is trying to influence politics through bribery. Incidentally, I'm not sure that in the US all such presidential meetings are recorded for public viewing. Far from it in fact.. I expect they are far more secretive than our own (even if their names are all disclosed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of Taeper Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 No. It is all part of a game. Every now and again this mundane kind of corruption is revealed, and the politicians and journalists get to play their games, each pretending to be the most shocked by the corruption, promising some kind of fix, always acting as if corruption was a rare occurrence with just 'a few bad apples', cheating the system. The reality is that the entire system is corrupt, it runs on corruption. I think you hit the nail. Cameron was all too quick to come clean which makes me think has the dirty on Milliband. If not Milliband, I'm sure questions will be asked about Blair. Can't see anyone wanting to pay 250k to sit at a table with brown though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 So- you as you walk into the football stadium you happen to notice that the opposing team's manager is handing a large sum of money to the referee. Upon asking you are told that the money is a gift and has no strings attached. Now the question is: Which team do you place a large bet on to win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) I think you hit the nail. Cameron was all too quick to come clean which makes me think has the dirty on Milliband. It is far more likely they have discovered that the information is already in the hands of the press. Therefore trying to keep the details of those who paid for privileged access 'private' is not going to work. In addition the media never play all their hand in one go when reporting such events. You can be sure that Murdoch press have a few cards held back to lay on the table later. The other non Murdoch papers will not want to miss out on any further scoops and are bound to be on the lookout for similar stories. Scandal sells papers particularly when a government is unpopular. After last weeks Budget there are fair few members of the public that are now actively looking for reasons to hate this administration. so any hint of sleaze will stick. Blair got away with it because most of his problems like the Ecclestone affair occurred before the shine had completely worn off the Nu Lab con trick. Cameron I am afraid is not going to be as lucky as Teflon Tony. Edited March 26, 2012 by stormymonday_2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 1332787301[/url]' post='909000447']Can't see anyone wanting to pay 250k to sit at a table with brown though. How about paying 250k to not have brown on or near your table? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 How much for tea with Grant Shapps? Should we have an HPC whip round? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I wonder how many big builders, private health providers and other corporate disinterests have played Come Dine With Me, marking Dave’s hospitality out of ten?! This could seriously compromise the coalition’s recent budget, never mind their integrity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmarks Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I note the scandal has now dropped off the news radar. That didn't last long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I see that one of the people who allegedly bought access to the PM is the boss of an oil company that did deals with the Libyan rebels during the so-called 'people's revolution' over there. Telegraph.co.uk David Cameron invited Ian Taylor, the boss of the oil company Vitol, weeks after it emerged that a secret “Libyan oil cell” run from the Foreign Office had brokered a lucrative deal for Vitol to supply oil to rebel forces in the north African country. When the controversy blew up last September, No 10 had to fend off accusations that Vitol, which has close links to the international development minister, Alan Duncan, was given preferential treatment. Weeks later, on Nov 2, Mr Taylor, who has donated £466,100 to the Conservative Party since Mr Cameron became leader, was one of six guests at an intimate dinner party with the prime minister in Downing Street. Last night Opposition MPs demanded to know whether Vitol’s deal with the National Transitional Council in Libya was discussed at the dinner, which was also attended by Mr Taylor’s wife, Christine. Labour said the dinner added to “the perception that policy is purchased by donors”. Downing Street said Mr Taylor, 55, was invited to “the social dinner for strong and long-term supporters of the party”. Which rather backs up the extremely strong suspicions that we have just been involved in yet another war designed to make money for powerful individuals but waged under the false flag of bringing 'freedom and democracy' to some oil-rich foreign country. :angry: Amazing that there were fools posting here on HPC who actually swallowed the official line at the time that we were helping a bunch of courageous oppressed people out of a desire to bring freedom to their country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I see that one of the people who allegedly bought access to the PM is the boss of an oil company that did deals with the Libyan rebels during the so-called 'people's revolution' over there. Telegraph.co.uk Which rather backs up the extremely strong suspicions that we have just been involved in yet another war designed to make money for powerful individuals but waged under the false flag of bringing 'freedom and democracy' to some oil-rich foreign country. :angry: Amazing that there were fools posting here on HPC who actually swallowed the official line at the time that we were helping a bunch of courageous oppressed people out of a desire to bring freedom to their country. It's amazing that one set of courageous oppressed people are more deserving of 'freedom' than other sets of courageous but oppressed people. The inaction against the Syrian or Sudanese genocides in the background to the Libyan conflict was enough to expose it as an outright sham. Bob Stewart amongst others are always quick to shoo away awkward questions regarding us picking and choosing who to liberate and who gets left to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 It's amazing that one set of courageous oppressed people are more deserving of 'freedom' than other sets of courageous but oppressed people. The inaction against the Syrian or Sudanese genocides in the background to the Libyan conflict was enough to expose it as an outright sham. Bob Stewart amongst others are always quick to shoo away awkward questions regarding us picking and choosing who to liberate and who gets left to die. I'm with you on this one I think we should leave everyone to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.