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

[Adrian Hollister]

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 .

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?

[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

[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]

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.

[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.’

[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.

[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.

[GMR]

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.

What you are talking about happens with all parties. Why criticise Cameron when Blair and Brown did the same. And having a private dinner party isn't proof of lobbying. I can't see anything wrong with having dinner with the PM. If there was proof of having influence then at would be another matter. Even if they did have influence they would still have to get it through the Commons. Powerful parties are allowed to talk to governments; how they react - governments - is a different matter.

[Jayjay]

What you are talking about happens with all parties. Why criticise Cameron when Blair and Brown did the same. And having a private dinner party isn't proof of lobbying. I can't see anything wrong with having dinner with the PM. If there was proof of having influence then at would be another matter. Even if they did have influence they would still have to get it through the Commons. Powerful parties are allowed to talk to governments; how they react - governments - is a different matter.

But this wasn't just having dinner with the PM was it? Peter Cruddas SOLD dinner with the PM. If any Pm wants advice we pay civil servants a vast amount of money to discover facts. On the published list there are bankers, oil companies, hedge fund managers, no sign of Pensioners Alliance, or any charities they couldn't afford the fee.

[GMR]

But this wasn't just having dinner with the PM was it? Peter Cruddas SOLD dinner with the PM. If any Pm wants advice we pay civil servants a vast amount of money to discover facts. On the published list there are bankers, oil companies, hedge fund managers, no sign of Pensioners Alliance, or any charities they couldn't afford the fee.

Peter Cruddas acted beyond his authority and for that resigned.



This wasn't about the PM asking for advice but a private dinner; as I said a common practice within politics. The PM didn't do anything illegal or anything previous PMs hadn't practiced.