IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Dodgy Dave, Don't most people get sacked for back handers?
Adrian Hollister
post Mar 26 2012, 12:02 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 299
Joined: 6-January 10
Member No.: 613



In the news is Dodgy Dave who seems to be accepting back handers for access to him and his policies; so I think the government must declare all lobbying activities, any political funds associated and any personal funds that MP's may benefit from. This is something that I've asked Benyon about, but as usual I got the 'no real answer' letter back discussing the weather and how nice and thick parliamentary paper is tongue.gif .

I've also wondered why NWN never cover things like this? Dealing with corruption effects us all, so perhaps they are a little too caution to cover sensitive issues for those in 'power'.

So what do you lot think? Should we just allow the corruption to continue; or do we need reform?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jo Pepper
post Mar 26 2012, 12:10 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 12-March 12
Member No.: 8,652



QUOTE (Adrian Hollister @ Mar 26 2012, 12:02 PM) *
In the news is Dodgy Dave who seems to be accepting back handers for access to him and his policies; so I think the government must declare all lobbying activities, any political funds associated and any personal funds that MP's may benefit from. This is something that I've asked Benyon about, but as usual I got the 'no real answer' letter back discussing the weather and how nice and thick parliamentary paper is tongue.gif .

I've also wondered why NWN never cover things like this? Dealing with corruption effects us all, so perhaps they are a little too caution to cover sensitive issues for those in 'power'.

So what do you lot think? Should we just allow the corruption to continue; or do we need reform?

It is not just conservatives that have a problem, Lib Dems have the same problem.

Why are your surprised? This problem has followed the conservatives for years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adrian Hollister
post Mar 26 2012, 12:29 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 299
Joined: 6-January 10
Member No.: 613



QUOTE (Jo Pepper @ Mar 26 2012, 12:10 PM) *
It is not just conservatives that have a problem, Lib Dems have the same problem.

Why are your surprised? This problem has followed the conservatives for years.

I hadn't spotted that, but it does seem that those in 'power' don't want change. Benyon here didn't even agree with an elected second house (House of Lords). Why on earth not? Just 'cos some people have inherited titles, should not entitle them to be in an unelected government.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vodabury
post Mar 26 2012, 12:35 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 293
Joined: 15-July 11
Member No.: 6,124



Unless there is state funding of political parties, this problem will continue. Labour are just as guilty - remember Lord Cashpoint and his scam? Not to mention peerages handed out to big party donors. The system encourages corrupt practice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Mar 26 2012, 12:38 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,923
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Adrian Hollister @ Mar 26 2012, 01:29 PM) *
I hadn't spotted that, but it does seem that those in 'power' don't want change. Benyon here didn't even agree with an elected second house (House of Lords). Why on earth not? Just 'cos some people have inherited titles, should not entitle them to be in an unelected government.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ron
post Mar 26 2012, 04:13 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 270
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 277



QUOTE (Adrian Hollister @ Mar 26 2012, 01:02 PM) *
In the news is Dodgy Dave who seems to be accepting back handers for access to him and his policies; so I think the government must declare all lobbying activities, any political funds associated and any personal funds that MP's may benefit from. This is something that I've asked Benyon about, but as usual I got the 'no real answer' letter back discussing the weather and how nice and thick parliamentary paper is tongue.gif .

I've also wondered why NWN never cover things like this? Dealing with corruption effects us all, so perhaps they are a little too caution to cover sensitive issues for those in 'power'.

So what do you lot think? Should we just allow the corruption to continue; or do we need reform?

And what makes it so clear that any of the others, including your lot, are/would be any different?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Mar 26 2012, 05:24 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,588
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



QUOTE (Adrian Hollister @ Mar 26 2012, 01:02 PM) *
I've also wondered why NWN never cover things like this? Dealing with corruption effects us all, so perhaps they are a little too caution to cover sensitive issues for those in 'power'.

What a daft question. If they covered everything that could affect us, they would just be a national newspaper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Mar 26 2012, 06:26 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



QUOTE (Ron @ Mar 26 2012, 04:13 PM) *
And what makes it so clear that any of the others, including your lot, are/would be any different?


That makes it all ok then does it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jo Pepper
post Mar 26 2012, 06:30 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 12-March 12
Member No.: 8,652



QUOTE (Strafin @ Mar 26 2012, 05:24 PM) *
What a daft question. If they covered everything that could affect us, they would just be a national newspaper.

Actually, I would quite like to know what our MP is saying on our behalf.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Mar 26 2012, 07:42 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,588
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ron
post Mar 26 2012, 09:56 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 270
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 277



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Mar 26 2012, 07:26 PM) *
That makes it all ok then does it?

No. But he was making a comment in such a way as if others were all better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Mar 26 2012, 10:22 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



Well, if it's wrong it's wrong. Saying "they're all the same" doesn't really help matters.

The Police were called in to investigate the Labour debacle. (no one was charged or prosecuted).

Cameron has set up an internal inquiry to be run by a chap that Cameron gave a knighthood to last year.

Bit of a difference I'd have thought.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adrian Hollister
post Mar 27 2012, 08:29 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 299
Joined: 6-January 10
Member No.: 613



QUOTE (Jo Pepper @ Mar 26 2012, 06:30 PM) *
Actually, I would quite like to know what our MP is saying on our behalf.

It's not just what they are saying, but what they are getting to say it. If the PM is so willing to form a party system giving access for money, then the whole lobbying system must be accountable. Accountable and reportable. We need to know if our MP was lobbied by 3rd parties to understand the influence they bring (financial, political or personal).

If there is no problem here, why doesn't dodgy dave just open up the information? why doesn't Benyon lobby his PM for it? and why not limit and document sources of personal and political funding?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jayjay
post Mar 27 2012, 08:37 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 22-September 09
Member No.: 357



QUOTE (Jo Pepper @ Mar 26 2012, 06:30 PM) *
Actually, I would quite like to know what our MP is saying on our behalf.


The MP for Newbury votes with the party, (those whips must sting his soft hide) so to know what he is saying just look what Cameron is saying.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 27 2012, 08:42 AM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,345
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



He is what's known as a tame MP; some might say lame! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vodabury
post Mar 27 2012, 04:25 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 293
Joined: 15-July 11
Member No.: 6,124



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!

If unions can fund political parties in return for favourable policy, then companies and individuals should be able to as well. All major party conferences are full of lobbyists trying to meet with influential people and shape policy.

Personally, I think it should be looked into to see if parties should be state-funded - I heard the figure today of £23 Million - a drop in the ocean in terms of public expenditure, and I am sure less than the cost of investigations /inquiries into the repeated scandals!

I can see the downside of state-funding, but it has to be better than what we have at present.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 27 2012, 06:00 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,345
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



All that is required is transparency.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Mar 27 2012, 06:50 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Adrian Hollister @ Mar 26 2012, 01:02 PM) *
In the news is Dodgy Dave who seems to be accepting back handers for access to him and his policies; so I think the government must declare all lobbying activities, any political funds associated and any personal funds that MP's may benefit from. This is something that I've asked Benyon about, but as usual I got the 'no real answer' letter back discussing the weather and how nice and thick parliamentary paper is tongue.gif .

I've also wondered why NWN never cover things like this? Dealing with corruption effects us all, so perhaps they are a little too caution to cover sensitive issues for those in 'power'.

So what do you lot think? Should we just allow the corruption to continue; or do we need reform?




What corruption? The Tories haven't done anything wrong. Labour took 80 million from the unions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Mar 27 2012, 06:51 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Vodabury @ Mar 26 2012, 01:35 PM) *
Unless there is state funding of political parties, this problem will continue. Labour are just as guilty - remember Lord Cashpoint and his scam? Not to mention peerages handed out to big party donors. The system encourages corrupt practice.





Exactly; look at the 1 million donations from the racing car industry that labour got.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Mar 27 2012, 06:52 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Vodabury @ Mar 27 2012, 05:25 PM) *
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!




Exactly; people forget that when attacking the Tories.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2017 - 03:59 PM