Cameron for Cash

[Leeds Spur]

I have said that I agree that access and influencing policy is 100% NOT ACCEPTABLE.

But that isn't what happened with these meetings and what the bloke offered was 100% NOT what is available.

It was his first year as treasurer and he was keen to make a big splash.....he made outrageous promises and deserved to be fudged off.

 

[nw7 yid]

eh? Go to Cameron's constituency and you can see him as well for free!

But Labour take donations from corporates and unions alike, they charge for access the same way. Please don't mug yourself off mate and try and make this party poltical.

I was actually poking fun at how nobody would bother paying money to spend time with Ed Miliband!

 

[Leeds Spur]

I was actually poking fun at how nobody would bother paying money to spend time with Ed Miliband!

=;

Dont be doing humour in a serious political thread!!

 

[Dorothy]

This thread is embarrassing. Do some people even know what they are arguing ? or what the issue is ?

David Cameron said Mr Cruddas's claims of access in return for donations were "completely unacceptable" and "shouldn't have happened" <-- So he is quite clearly saying its wrong. Why are some people in support of him saying it isnt wrong. You may think that, but it goes against the opinion of the person you are defending.

So what is the issue ? The most damaging suggestion was that rich donors were able to buy influence over government policy.

The debate in here should be whether the tory boy is telling the truth, or was he making up a complete load of rubbish that Cameron had no knowledge of. The debate should not be whether its right or wrong, of course its wrong and you wont hear Cameron saying different.

Please don't be offended but you appear to be the one being a little naive. This happens week in week out, regardless of party and has been since politics began in this country. This is just a non news event. The parties are funded by donation. Businesses and individuals donate to protect their own interests. There is nothing new, no big surprise. The chap caught out just happens to be charged with raising funds. He is doing what all politicians do, courting commerce and industry to ensure support and financing. When people hear about this for the first time, as many are, they cry outrage, shock and horror oblivious to the fact it is part and parcel of the system. NL have nothing whatsoever to offer as they have run this country down through greed, blind personal ambition and that magical world of 'spin'. There job right now is to oppose the coalition. They choose to do it simply by looking to malign them, while someone like Ed Milliband is there to use up the time they have in opposition. They are not exactly trying to convince the intelligent are they ?? Just more tabloid spin. No one wants to speakk to the bloody opposition other than the trade unions. Nobody cares about the leader of the opposition and at these times they crow the loudest about donations. While they crow they fan the flames of industrial dispute and look to drag down the country even further. Remember they do not want 'good' for Britain under an opposing Government. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with British politics.

 

[NW5pur]

it probably is common place amongst all parties, however, that doesn't detract from the fact that what cruddas did was corrupt. Unfortunately us plebeians will never know if cruddas was acting above his station or whether is was tory fundraising policy and cruddas was the fall guy.

definition of corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery
Definition of a bribe: dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one’s favour by a gift of money or other inducement

therefore I applaud the article for raising awareness of the issue (despite the fact it's blatent revenge attack murdoch). I personally don't see why donors can't make a donation to a party they feel best represents their views without demanding policy influence in return, and that goes for all political parties.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

No brick the Labour Party receives donations from the unions! It is a party of the trade unions, it is meant to be the parliamentry wing of the labour movement. Some twit said not all members of unions are Labour supporters, so why should money from their subs go to labour? Well not all shareholders in business support the tories, but businesses donate to the them. What is the difference?


Gary.

 

[Crawley]

No brick the Labour Party receives donations from the unions! It is a party of the trade unions, it is meant to be the parliamentry wing of the labour movement. Some twit said not all members of unions are Labour supporters, so why should money from their subs go to labour? Well not all shareholders in business support the tories, but businesses donate to the them. What is the difference?


Gary.

I believe I was that twit?

Saying the labour party is a party of the trades unions is rubbish. They are mere puppets of the Trades Unions, reacting to their every jerk of the wire.

And your comparison is nonsense.

People in trade unions often have no choice but to join up (not the old closed-shop, but purely to protect their futures), whereas shareholders 100% choose where they invest their money.
If they don't agree with a company donating, they can sell their shares instantly.

 

[Yossarian]

I believe I was that twit?

Saying the labour party is a party of the trades unions is rubbish. They are mere puppets of the Trades Unions, reacting to their every jerk of the wire.

And your comparison is nonsense.

People in trade unions often have no choice but to join up (not the old closed-shop, but purely to protect their futures), whereas shareholders 100% choose where they invest their money.
If they don't agree with a company donating, they can sell their shares instantly.

How did the interview go squire?

 

[southstand1882]

The second person to ask without reading his blow by blow account

 

[parklane1]

I believe I was that twit?

Saying the labour party is a party of the trades unions is rubbish. They are mere puppets of the Trades Unions, reacting to their every jerk of the wire.

And your comparison is nonsense.

People in trade unions often have no choice but to join up (not the old closed-shop, but purely to protect their futures), whereas shareholders 100% choose where they invest their money.
If they don't agree with a company donating, they can sell their shares instantly.

Have to agree that Labour are the puppets of the trade unions, but then the Tories are the puppets of big business concerns. It really amazes me that there are some who think that politicians are there for the good of the country, most of them are just there for what they can get out of for themselves and friends ( whoever they may be)

 

[P.D.]

People saying that labour used to do the same when labour were in power are forgetting they still do it now. Was in the news the other day that they set up some union modernisation scheme bill where they passed gov't money to unions to help improve their systems etc. Total was 7m, they even paid for mr crows union to get a completely new system and website.

 

[scaramanga]

People saying that labour used to do the same when labour were in power are forgetting they still do it now. Was in the news the other day that they set up some union modernisation scheme bill where they passed gov't money to unions to help improve their systems etc. Total was 7m, they even paid for mr crows union to get a completely new system and website.

That's the worst thing about Labour/union involvement - the cycle of cash. Unions give Labour cash to campaign, Labour give our taxes straight back to them.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

I believe I was that twit?

Saying the labour party is a party of the trades unions is rubbish. They are mere puppets of the Trades Unions, reacting to their every jerk of the wire.

And your comparison is nonsense.

People in trade unions often have no choice but to join up (not the old closed-shop, but purely to protect their futures), whereas shareholders 100% choose where they invest their money.
If they don't agree with a company donating, they can sell their shares instantly.

Err, can't those in unions simply resign too... now that there are no closed shops. I'm afraid you are the one not making sense. I guess you arent a twit... just misguided.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

That's the worst thing about Labour/union involvement - the cycle of cash. Unions give Labour cash to campaign, Labour give our taxes straight back to them.

What and the tories dont subsidise business with our taxes?

 

[Yossarian]

What and the tories dont subsidise business with our taxes?

Speaking of subsidies...

Jane Pilgrim is a nurse, and is employed by the NHS, however she doesn’t spend her day tending the sick. She spends her day working full-time for her union.

Last week, Liam Billington wrote on how union funding at Tameside Council has risen by 48% and I highlighted how in Hull UNISON had a ‘countdown to power’ before the recent local elections.

In our report on union funding last year, we showed how much YOU PAY for union activities in your local council, NHS Trust, and other public bodies. Here are some figures from 2009/10:

Ofsted are charged with inspecting schools, but we also contribute around ?ú175K to union representatives.
Over ?ú600K of our money assists unions in the Valuation Office Agency.
The next time you pay your taxes, remember over ?ú6 million of our money pays for union activities in HMRC.
Union activities in councils cost over ?ú22 million, and this is a conservative estimate, as many councils (like many Quangos, NHS Trusts and government departments) do not record the amount of time spent on union business when they should be working for us.
In a written answer to a question in parliament, DCLG minister Bob Neil said:

“I am aware of the public and parliamentary concern expressed in recent weeks over trade union officials paid for from the public purse. The coalition Government’s transparency agenda will help ensure that cash payments to trade unions and the titles of staff posts in local government are open to public scrutiny. At a time when all local authorities need to make sensible savings to help pay off the budget deficit, councillors will rightly wish to review the merits of (full-time) union officials funded by the taxpayer and the provision of the office facilities to trade unions.”

The more pressure that can be exerted on these pilgrims, the better. If you feel that the taxpayer funding of union officials has to stop, here’s what you can do:

Read our report to find out how many union representatives there are in your local council, NHS trust and fire service.
Write to your MP to insist that the taxpayer funding of union activists has to stop.
Any responses you get, please forward them on to us. We pay our taxes for legitimate government services, not for officials union members should be paying for themselves.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2011/06/pilgrims-cost.html

 

[southstand1882]

What and the tories dont subsidise business with our taxes?

Private business are net contributors to the economy

As are their employees

This is a good thing and fairly simple to understand

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Speaking of subsidies...

Jane Pilgrim is a nurse, and is employed by the NHS, however she doesn’t spend her day tending the sick. She spends her day working full-time for her union.

Last week, Liam Billington wrote on how union funding at Tameside Council has risen by 48% and I highlighted how in Hull UNISON had a ‘countdown to power’ before the recent local elections.

In our report on union funding last year, we showed how much YOU PAY for union activities in your local council, NHS Trust, and other public bodies. Here are some figures from 2009/10:

Ofsted are charged with inspecting schools, but we also contribute around ?ú175K to union representatives.
Over ?ú600K of our money assists unions in the Valuation Office Agency.
The next time you pay your taxes, remember over ?ú6 million of our money pays for union activities in HMRC.
Union activities in councils cost over ?ú22 million, and this is a conservative estimate, as many councils (like many Quangos, NHS Trusts and government departments) do not record the amount of time spent on union business when they should be working for us.
In a written answer to a question in parliament, DCLG minister Bob Neil said:

“I am aware of the public and parliamentary concern expressed in recent weeks over trade union officials paid for from the public purse. The coalition Government’s transparency agenda will help ensure that cash payments to trade unions and the titles of staff posts in local government are open to public scrutiny. At a time when all local authorities need to make sensible savings to help pay off the budget deficit, councillors will rightly wish to review the merits of (full-time) union officials funded by the taxpayer and the provision of the office facilities to trade unions.”

The more pressure that can be exerted on these pilgrims, the better. If you feel that the taxpayer funding of union officials has to stop, here’s what you can do:

Read our report to find out how many union representatives there are in your local council, NHS trust and fire service.
Write to your MP to insist that the taxpayer funding of union activists has to stop.
Any responses you get, please forward them on to us. We pay our taxes for legitimate government services, not for officials union members should be paying for themselves.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2011/06/pilgrims-cost.html

Of course this a completely independent organisation, with no right wing bias and it has no anti-union axe to grind. Ha, ha.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Private business are net contributors to the economy

As are their employees

This is a good thing and fairly simple to understand

This is not the point and you know it! Gee you lot must have been deeply traumatised by the unions in your deep past. One day you will have to vent. I know, lets have a system where workers are not organised and lets allow employers to pay whatever they want and provide any conditions they want. YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Yossarian]

Of course this a completely independent organisation, with no right wing bias and it has no anti-union axe to grind. Ha, ha.

So what they have written isn't true? Weak mate, weak.

 

[DanishWhite]

This is not the point and you know it! Gee you lot must have been deeply traumatised by the unions in your deep past. One day you will have to vent. I know, lets have a system where workers are not organised and lets allow employers to pay whatever they want and provide any conditions they want. YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Straw man.

But since you ask, yes, Unions are pure mobster scum, yes Unions litterally fund (buy, you know) then entire red section of parlaiments across Europe and yes I just don like them.

This very week, the red unions are "blocking" over 15 restaurants in my town because same restaurants have made collective agreements with other, non-political, unions who pay BETTER than ed unions agreements.

But since you have so much personal flak for people who don't like them, go on, answer me this:

What is the exact, defining difference between companies funding and gaining influince with the Tories AND the unions funding and gaining influince with Labour ?

What is the exact difference, which makes one rather than the other just bang ok ?