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

[Vodabury]

All that is required is transparency.

And people have been saying that for at least 100 years, following Lloyd George being involved in the selling of peerages and the Marconi share scandal.

[Andy Capp]

The Tories came in promising a new sort of politics, yet we seem to see the same practice from this lot too. I read somewhere on Sunday about expenses being kept secret as well

[Vodabury]

The Tories came in promising a new sort of politics, yet we seem to see the same practice from this lot too. I read somewhere on Sunday about expenses being kept secret as well

Don't all parties promise that? There is nothing new or old about politics, it is just "politics". Stealth and deception predates scripture.

[GMR]

The Tories came in promising a new sort of politics, yet we seem to see the same practice from this lot too. I read somewhere on Sunday about expenses being kept secret as well

you will never ever get no mistakes or corruption. What is the issue is when it does pop up how the parties deal with it. In the case of the Tories they acted quickly and swiftly. Shouldn't we be giving them credit? Under labour's donation scandals they dithered and didn't act straight away.

[Squelchy]

you will never ever get no mistakes or corruption. What is the issue is when it does pop up how the parties deal with it. In the case of the Tories they acted quickly and swiftly. Shouldn't we be giving them credit? Under labour's donation scandals they dithered and didn't act straight away.

Actually they (Labour) had to do nothing. The Police received three complaints and that meant they (the Police) had to act. They then found no evidence of wrong-doing.

So far Dave has refused to give a list, then he agreed to give a list, then only a list of the 17 who had given the largest sums. He's still refusing to name those who only gave slightly lesser amounts. Although I expect it will be dragged out of him eventually. Remember, the press has been waiting for a chance to give them all a good kicking ever since the Leverson and Police enqiuries into press conduct started.

You cannot expect Murdoch to keep seeing his staff being arrested and carted off to chokey on a regular basis and do nothing. Two of his journos have already attempted suicide. Sure enough, here comes The Sunday Times (prop R.Murdoch) to start the hatchet work.

[Jayjay]

Actually they (Labour) had to do nothing. The Police received three complaints and that meant they (the Police) had to act. They then found no evidence of wrong-doing.

So far Dave has refused to give a list, then he agreed to give a list, then only a list of the 17 who had given the largest sums. He's still refusing to name those who only gave slightly lesser amounts. Although I expect it will be dragged out of him eventually. Remember, the press has been waiting for a chance to give them all a good kicking ever since the Leverson and Police enqiuries into press conduct started.

You cannot expect Murdoch to keep seeing his staff being arrested and carted off to chokey on a regular basis and do nothing. Two of his journos have already attempted suicide. Sure enough, here comes The Sunday Times (prop R.Murdoch) to start the hatchet work.

The Labour party was investigated by the Police, the Tories are being investigated by a Tory peer. How very cinvenient.

[GMR]

Actually they (Labour) had to do nothing. The Police received three complaints and that meant they (the Police) had to act. They then found no evidence of wrong-doing.

They "found no evidence" doesn't mean they were honest. And there is no evidence that the Tories have done wrong.

So far Dave has refused to give a list, then he agreed to give a list, then only a list of the 17 who had given the largest sums. He's still refusing to name those who only gave slightly lesser amounts. Although I expect it will be dragged out of him eventually. Remember, the press has been waiting for a chance to give them all a good kicking ever since the Leverson and Police enqiuries into press conduct started.

No party is required to give over any list. The labour have been asked and they've declined and so have the LDs.


We also must remember that the Unions fund the labour party and actually elected Ed as leader; the Tory sponsors can't elect a Tory leader.

You cannot expect Murdoch to keep seeing his staff being arrested and carted off to chokey on a regular basis and do nothing. Two of his journos have already attempted suicide. Sure enough, here comes The Sunday Times (prop R.Murdoch) to start the hatchet work.

So we should feel sorry for Murdoch? And are you saying this was revenge on behalf of the Murdoch empire?

[GMR]

The Labour party was investigated by the Police, the Tories are being investigated by a Tory peer. How very cinvenient.

Because the Labour party broke the law (allegedly) but no law was broken in the case of the Tories. All parties investigate themselves if there is such a problem. Cameron dealt with the problem immediately and now is holding an investigation.

[Cognosco]

Because the Labour party broke the law (allegedly) but no law was broken in the case of the Tories. All parties investigate themselves if there is such a problem. Cameron dealt with the problem immediately and now is holding an investigation.

What's to investigate? Are you implying he did not know it was happening? Or are you implying he wants to invesitgate how it was exposed to the public?

[Jayjay]

What's to investigate? Are you implying he did not know it was happening? Or are you implying he wants to invesitgate how it was exposed to the public?

Obvious he didn't know it was happening as he 'forgot' to mention on the original list the three who gave £2M.

[GMR]

What's to investigate?

The comments that were made against party policy; i.e. that is why he went.

Are you implying he did not know it was happening?

Who? Cameron? Not what his financial man had said (without authorisation and actually got it wrong; i.e. it was all bluster).

Or are you implying he wants to invesitgate how it was exposed to the public?

No; what was said - and wasn't true - that will be investigated. Anything that was said without permission or against party policy has to be investigated; this happens in all parties.

[Squelchy]

Cameron dealt with the problem immediately.

Really?

Who said this then? (2 YEARS AGO)

‘It’s an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long... an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money. I’m talking about lobbying — and we all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism. We believe in market economics, not crony capitalism. So we must be the party that sorts all this out.’

[Turin Machine]

Really?

Who said this then? (2 YEARS AGO)

‘It’s an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long... an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money. I’m talking about lobbying — and we all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism. We believe in market economics, not crony capitalism. So we must be the party that sorts all this out.’

Gotcha !

[GMR]

Really?

Who said this then? (2 YEARS AGO)

'It's an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long... an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money. I'm talking about lobbying — and we all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism. We believe in market economics, not crony capitalism. So we must be the party that sorts all this out.'

That quote was about lobbying; the dinner hadn't anything to do with lobbying. It was about donors meeting Cameron; which happens in all parties. If you are talking about changing donations then it will have to be taxed and there is no enthusiasm for that amongst the public.

[Andy Capp]

That quote was about lobbying; the dinner hadn't anything to do with lobbying. It was about donors meeting Cameron; which happens in all parties.

In my view, this is even more insidious. Big business don't pay £250k to get a photo and an autograph from the PM.

[Sherlock]

"We believe in market economics", "we believe in competition". That's the problem.

To my mind 'believing' is what you fall back on when you don't have any evidence. The religious 'believe' in whichever god their religion's founders decided should be their deity (Jehova, Allah, Thor, Zeus, whoever) because belief is all they have: it's not possible to prove the existence of any particular god using, you know, facts. If it was possible to prove categorically that a particular god existed we'd all accept him, her or it as our creator/redeemer/whatever because the facts would be indisputable, right?

Similarly, politicians tend to 'believe' in a specific route to salvation, usually represented by their versions of gods: economists.

Cameron believes in Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. He's about to transfer the whole of the NHS to the private sector based purely on his 'belief' that competition and markets will make it more efficient and effective. Seems a bit dangerous to me - I'd like to see some evidence, or at least well thought through arguments which go beyond the 'private sector good, public sector bad' chants of Cameron and his little helper Clegg.

Poor old Ed, on the other hand, has no idea what he believes. Right now I'd vote for a party which said 'You know what? We don't believe anything'.

[Sherlock]

Good points GMR. What's your feeling about Clegg? I'm not a violent man but whenever I see him on the box these days I want to punch him in the face. Hard. Is that wrong?

[Squelchy]

That quote was about lobbying; the dinner hadn't anything to do with lobbying. It was about donors meeting Cameron

Really? They weren't lobbying on their own behalf then? These major players became heads of huge bank accounts by paying a quarter of a million pounds for just a picture of them with Sam 'n' Dave? Think on.

[Jo Pepper]

Really? They weren't lobbying on their own behalf then? These major players became heads of huge bank accounts by paying a quarter of a million pounds for just a picture of them with Sam 'n' Dave? Think on.

Various papers are carrying stories of private health comapnies lobbying dodgy Dave to 'privatise' the NHS. No conflict of interests there then....

Russia Today carried the story as 'corruption' - you can't blame them. If the shoe was on the other foot for this issue, we would be describing the Russian state as riddled with corruption.

I can't see this as any different than countries who's power brokers give key contracts and assets to companies becuase they have been paid. It's just a 'western' version of corruption.

[GMR]

In my view, this is even more insidious. Big business don't pay £250k to get a photo and an autograph from the PM.

They did with Brown and Blair.


Big Business has always communicated at top level. It is done throughout the world and by all parties.