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?

[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?

[GMR]

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?

I think the LDs have too much power (considering they came third with reduced support). This a good example why PR isn't a good idea.

[Andy Capp]

I think the LDs have too much power (considering they came third with reduced support). This a good example why PR isn't a good idea.

What do you think the government would have done if it were not in a coalition? What examples do you have of differences we might have seen?

What you are talking about happens with all parties. Why criticise Cameron when Blair and Brown did the same.

Because Cameron is the PM (Blair and Brown are not) and we got rid of Brown and Blair for these reasons (amongst others), yet he and his party seems not to have learned the lesson.

[GMR]

What do you think the government would have done if it were not in a coalition? What examples do you have of differences we might have seen?

The government could have carried out what was in their manifesto rather than bartering.

Because Cameron is the PM (Blair and Brown are not) and we got rid of Brown and Blair for these reasons (amongst others), yet he and his party seems not to have learned the lesson.

We didn't get rid of Blair; Brown and his people forced Blair out.



To your second point; I disagree. You will never get perfection with anything; therefore the question is how swift do they deal with any problems that come up and the Tories acted quickly.

[Andy Capp]

The government could have carried out what was in their manifesto rather than bartering.

Do you have an example of where the Tories had to give-in?

We didn't get rid of Blair; Brown and his people forced Blair out.

Blair and Brown was a euphemism for New Labour.

To your second point; I disagree. You will never get perfection with anything; therefore the question is how swift do they deal with any problems that come up and the Tories acted quickly.

I don't see it a case of perfection; that isn't what we have here. We have rank stupidity in the Tory party. Did these highly paid professionals not think that it might look a bit dodgy if they allow a party sponsor to gain access to the lodger at No 10. Not only that, but to blurt it to any old soul in a candid interview that their money could be an investment.


"Meet the new boss ... same as the old boss" - P Townsend.

[GMR]

Do you have an example of where the Tories had to give-in?

One example is over inheritance tax. Another was that they wanted to reduce the 50p tax to 40p when they came into power.

Blair and Brown was a euphemism for New Labour.

And?

I don't see it a case of perfection; that isn't what we have here. We have rank stupidity in the Tory party. Did these highly paid professionals not think that it might look a bit dodgy if they allow a party sponsor to gain access to the lodger at No 10. Not only that, but to blurt it to any old soul in a candid interview that their money could be an investment.


"Meet the new boss ... same as the old boss" - P Townsend.

This is about one individual overstepping his mark, not the rank stupidity of the Tory party.


Party sponsors have always had access to high ranking ministers; in all parties. As for stupidity; that goes across all political parties.

[Andy Capp]

One example is over inheritance tax. Another was that they wanted to reduce the 50p tax to 40p when they came into power.

What profound effect has this had on the country that has made the coalition inept?

And?

"And?" what? ... we didn't vote New Labour back for another term, and one reason was because of the 'cash for...' system.

This is about one individual overstepping his mark, not the rank stupidity of the Tory party.

I don't think it is. Even if it is, he was a part of the Tory Party and presumably was being 'managed'?

Party sponsors have always had access to high ranking ministers; in all parties. As for stupidity; that goes across all political parties.

Including the present government. We were promised a 'new kind' of politics.

[GMR]

What profound effect has this had on the country that has made the coalition inept?

That isn't what you asked.

"And?" what? ... we didn't vote New Labour back for another term, and one reason was because of the 'cash for...' system.

We did when Blair was leader. As for "cash for..." all parties were involved and wasn't the reason why Labour didn't get back in (or just the reason).

I don't think it is. Even if it is, he was a part of the Tory Party and presumably was being 'managed'?

"Presumably" isn't a fact; just your assumption. As for you "thinking"; with biased overtones which helps you draw your conclusions.

According to the Tories he wasn't managed; I am not defending them but saying you need more than just your prejudices to convict somebody.

Including the present government. We were promised a 'new kind' of politics.

No government or person can promise purity; what he meant by that is a quick and swift response to wrong doings; which the previous government failed to do.

[Andy Capp]

That isn't what you asked.

The question was to understand why you thought the Tories would have produced a better outcome if they had not been in a coalition.

We did when Blair was leader. As for "cash for..." all parties were involved and wasn't the reason why Labour didn't get back in (or just the reason).

I know, hence why I said one of the reasons.

"Presumably" isn't a fact; just your assumption. As for you "thinking"; with biased overtones which helps you draw your conclusions.

He was either managed or not. If he was, it was poor management; if he wasn't, why not and he should have been. Either way, it doesn't show the Tories in good light.

According to the Tories he wasn't managed; I am not defending them but saying you need more than just your prejudices to convict somebody.

I repeat; if he was, it was poor management; if he wasn't, why not and he should have been. Cameron made this a promise of government.

No government or person can promise purity; what he meant by that is a quick and swift response to wrong doings; which the previous government failed to do.

Cameron's first response was to refuse to release details. It was only after an avalanche of protest that he had to capitulate. He has since ducked and weaved on the subject.

A slippery slimy Tory.

[GMR]

The question was to understand why you thought the Tories would have produced a better outcome if they had not been in a coalition.

No, that wasn't the question.

I know, hence why I said one of the reasons.

Excellent.

He was either managed or not. If he was, it was poor management; if he wasn't, why not and he should have been. Either way, it doesn't show the Tories in good light.

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.

I repeat; if he was, it was poor management; if he wasn't, why not and he should have been. Cameron made this a promise of government.

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

Cameron's first response was to refuse to release details. It was only after an avalanche of protest that he had to capitulate. He has since ducked and weaved on the subject.

A slippery slimy Tory.

I agree he was slow but that doesn't mean he was "A slippery slimy Tory" putting it another way; he was no different than other politicians.

[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!

[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.

[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!