Dodgy Dave, Don't most people get sacked for back handers? Options

[GMR]

Personally I have never been asked to a private dinner party and been asked to pay. Could it be Cameron didn't know what Peter Cruddas was doing? He didn't know where donation money was coming from? It was pure coincidence that the diners were hedge fund managers, bankers, property developers just when the 50p tax rate went down, planning law was changed in developers favour and bankers bonus' wasn't halted. It was pure coincidence that no charities, childrens grroups, pensioners groups were invited to dinner?

I quite agree this is normal practice for the Tory party, Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith did the same when John Major was in power.

You forgot to add that every Government before Cameron (Labour and Liberals) did the same. So it wasn't just normal practice of JUST the Tory party.

[Andy Capp]

Some forces are outside ones controls. Not everything is in black and white. There won't be a party now or in the future (including the past) who won't have a rogue party member/ politician. It's life, even though not as us ordinary people know it.

There should be policies regards this sort of thing. Was he working against policy?

I think you are being naive here. Read above. The problem with politicians (Blair being another good example) promise things that aren't realistic.

So therefore, when it is spotted, none can be surprised when it is exposed. And none can be surprised that people resent them for doing it.

I agree he was slow

You said he was quick a while ago. Which is it?

[GMR]

There should be policies regards this sort of thing. Was he working against policy?

He was new to the job and he was probably trying to impress and overreached himself. A human failing. All politicians live on different worlds to us poor sods.

So therefore, when it is spotted, none can be surprised when it is exposed. And none can be surprised that people resent them for doing it.

Agreed.

You said he was quick a while ago. Which is it?

I can't remember what I said awhile back but I'll allow it to be whatever you want it to be.

[Cognosco]

He was new to the job and he was probably trying to impress and overreached himself. A human failing. All politicians live on different worlds to us poor sods.




Agreed.





I can't remember what I said awhile back but I'll allow it to be whatever you want it to be.

spoken like a true Blue at election time!

[Berkshirelad]

Hereditary entitlement went some years ago - a few selected Lords were allowed to stay on but they will go soon. The main political parties want reform of the Lords to give them control over its membership - they definitely don't trust the electorate to decide. It will be interesting to see of they can get rid of the Bishops.

What they should do (in my opinion) is elect the Lords by proportional representation based on the votes cast for MPs in each general election. There would be no need for any additional election, the political balance of the 'upper' house would reflect that of the country, and government would no longer be able to simply appoint a bunch of peers to ensure they have a majority.

The problem is that currently, the Commons has the right to produce legislation and can force it through against Lords opposition.

If the upper house were to be elected (by whatever method) then they could rightly claim that they too have a popular mandate and the primacy of the Commons would have to give; potentially causing a constitutional crisis

[GMR]

spoken like a true Blue at election time!

I haven't voted for the Tories for at least 20 years and the wink ( ) at the end of my sentence should have been self explanatory. However, I do accept that humour passes some people by. Don't worry though as it probably is a genetic fault within some people.

[Squelchy]

Cameron dealt with the problem immediately

I agree he was slow

*sigh*

If Labour were to win a general election tomorrow, then not only would we have a governing party funded by unions, but also the fact that they would have chosen our Prime Minister as well!

Labour leaders are voted for by party members, affiliated organisations, Labour M.P's and affiliated Trade Unions. As a union member you even have the right to opt-out of the political fund if you want. Seems far more democratic than the way Tory leaders just seem to emerge.

I haven't voted for the Tories for at least 20 years... I do accept that humour passes some people by.

Cheer up, there are those who find the idea of voting for U.K.I.P quite comical. You continue to entertain.

[Cognosco]

I haven't voted for the Tories for at least 20 years and the wink ( ) at the end of my sentence should have been self explanatory. However, I do accept that humour passes some people by. Don't worry though as it probably is a genetic fault within some people.

You sadly missed the point GMR.... I was implying that like a politician you were trying to infer that you would say or do anything to get a vote. Not a dig at your politics at all!

[blackdog]

The problem is that currently, the Commons has the right to produce legislation and can force it through against Lords opposition.

If the upper house were to be elected (by whatever method) then they could rightly claim that they too have a popular mandate and the primacy of the Commons would have to give; potentially causing a constitutional crisis

At least they would have a mandate - an appointed house is no more democratic than a hereditary one.

However, I don't see it as a problem - it would be easy enough to set up the 'upper' house to continue to be below the 'lower' house in the pecking order. As the 'Lords' would, if elected by PR, inevitably reflect the popular vote, it would rarely have a clear majority of any party - so it makes some sense for the lower house to be able to override it. Let's face it there must be some way for the Executive to get things done.

I also think that it would be good for the Executive to come primarily from the Lords - leaving the members of the commons to represent their constituents, rather than run government departments.

[Vodabury]

Labour leaders are voted for by party members, affiliated organisations, Labour M.P's and affiliated Trade Unions.

Yes, and so some individuals get to vote several times!

[NWNREADER]

The problem is that currently, the Commons has the right to produce legislation and can force it through against Lords opposition. That has been the case for many, many years - apart from Finance Bills which The Lords may not alter.Before the party system started to fiddle the balance of the Upper House, even as unelected Members they put the Government to the test regularly and applied a valuable moderating role. Filling the second chamber with party acolytes will not make the system better, IMHO

If the upper house were to be elected (by whatever method) then they could rightly claim that they too have a popular mandate and the primacy of the Commons would have to give; potentially causing a constitutional crisis
Good point

[Squelchy]

Yes, and so some individuals get to vote several times!

Individuals? SEVERAL times? Do go on.

[NWNREADER]

Individuals? SEVERAL times? Do go on.

I suspect that refers to a party member who is also a trade union member and maybe also a member of an affiliated organisation. Not really 3 votes, but the TU and associate block votes are based on the directions by the members to the relevant managing committees.

[Squelchy]

You know it's not really three votes, as do I , but the statement was "individuals" "several times".

As opposed to a Tory, with a vote, who is also shareholder in a company which donates to a Tory Candidates Leadership expenses , with an M.P. on the board. (There are loads, let's face it). If that Tory also selects the local M.P. through the LCP then they get 'several' votes as well don't they?.

I don't think Vodabury has thought it through.

[Vodabury]

You know it's not really three votes, as do I , but the statement was "individuals" "several times".

I don't think Vodabury has thought it through.

OK, so just to clarify, you are sure it is "one person, one vote" in a Labour leadership election?

[Jayjay]

OK, so just to clarify, you are sure it is "one person, one vote" in a Labour leadership election?

It is possible to have multiple votes by joining the Labour party and different union bodies.

[Vodabury]

It is possible to have multiple votes by joining the Labour party and different union bodies.

Yes, and the voting patterns are available on The Labour Party website (links at the bottom of their home page). Not sure if <Squelchy> spotted this.

[Adrian Hollister]

Michael Bishop donated £2k a year 2001-2010 on average to Conservatives. In 2010 he donated £730k. Within months he was given a peerage. Now as Lord Glendenbrook, he has only voted in the Lords 55% of the time and has never rebelled.

Tory democracy in action

[Ron]

Michael Bishop donated £2k a year 2001-2010 on average to Conservatives. In 2010 he donated £730k. Within months he was given a peerage. Now as Lord Glendenbrook, he has only voted in the Lords 55% of the time and has never rebelled.

Tory democracy in action

And as I said before, would your lot be any better?

[Cognosco]

Michael Bishop donated £2k a year 2001-2010 on average to Conservatives. In 2010 he donated £730k. Within months he was given a peerage. Now as Lord Glendenbrook, he has only voted in the Lords 55% of the time and has never rebelled.

Tory democracy in action

You have to speculate to accumulate you know! Not a bad return on his investment really?