# £250,000 to buy influence with Cameron



## twentythreedom (Mar 24, 2012)

Watch the 10 o'clock news on BBC iplayer.

Absolutely sickening.

Sunday Times have Cruddace (tory treasurer) offering this on film.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 24, 2012)

influence over policy meetings at Downing Street can be yours for a mere six-figure sum.

These fucking sick freaks continue to plumb deeper, darker depths.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 24, 2012)

Perhaps some sort of summary?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 24, 2012)

In other news a bear was spotted taking a dump in a...


----------



## Mephitic (Mar 24, 2012)

i am unable to watch iplayer, can you please explain in more detail?


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 24, 2012)

Cruddace on film offering undercover journos influence on cabinet policy for £250k. Would link to it but still getting used to this android tablet thing! (((windows))) 

Suffice to say 'Tories in "we are utter cunts, for sale to the highest bidding lobbyists" shocker'


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 24, 2012)

This, perhaps? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17501618


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 24, 2012)

Cash for questions is back. Kind of. Excellent.


----------



## Mephitic (Mar 24, 2012)

Nice, what a bunch of cunts, it'll be interesting watching them squirm out of this one.


----------



## Zabo (Mar 24, 2012)

Murdoch - News International Bites Back

Interesting times ahead. The Sun, FT and Times gave the government some stick over the pensions tax.

Pay back time.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 24, 2012)

Tory sleaze. It never really went away.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 24, 2012)

Cruddarse is Treasurer of the Tory party btw. A 'total cunt', if you will.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 24, 2012)

cheers FM, That's the one.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 24, 2012)

So OK, £1/4m buys you a dinner date with Cameron and Osbourne. How much for 'extras' ?

You have to figure that as tories, they're capable of acts that would leave Caligua helplessly disgusted and puking vigorously.

How much would they charge for jointly buggering and disembowelling an orphan?

Or the opportunity to bond with the PM and Chancellor while kicking a disabled person to death? Or an old age pensioner?

Would any of those be more or less than the cost of an attractive opportunity to get rich wrecking the NHS?

The public wants to know ...


----------



## teqniq (Mar 24, 2012)

For all all your sleaze needs, when nothing else will suffice get:​ 
TOTAL CUNT​


Subject to bribability, normal terms and conditions apply.​Your consumer rights don't mean a fuck to us.​


----------



## laptop (Mar 24, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Interesting times ahead. The Sun, FT and Times gave the government some stick over the pensions tax.
> 
> Pay back time.


 
Hey, the _Times_ was the least government-hostile of all* the Budget headlines, and it wasn't exactly a pean of praise. The _Express_ and _Mail_ and _Telegraph_ went with slagging off Osborne's "granny tax" - and the _Mail_ had another go the following day.

Interesting times indeed...


* I didn't see the _Daily Sport_.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 24, 2012)

The Guardian had the most positive editorial line iirc.


----------



## Zabo (Mar 24, 2012)




----------



## laptop (Mar 24, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The Guardian had the most positive editorial line iirc.


 
Aye, saw the heading on that and threw it away.

It was the universally hostile front-page line - the more so from the most Tory papers - that struck me.


----------



## Libertad (Mar 24, 2012)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 24, 2012)

Tory spokesthing  saying that 'no payment was ever actually accepted' - that statement sounds like a hostage to fortune if ever their was one. Finger crossed for some digrunteled former donor to come out and flatly contracdict that rather obvious lie.


----------



## OneStrike (Mar 25, 2012)

Didn't dishface predict lobbying would be the next big scandal when the expenses stuff was front page? 
My only surprise is that people are surprised about it all, even though I agree it stinks. Corrupt, Corrupt, from the bottom to the top.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Mar 25, 2012)

Cruddas has now quit, as if that wasn't coming.
Seems a bit quick though i'm sure the cunts are still flapping like fuck, as they should be.

Another nail in the coalition coffin .


----------



## OneStrike (Mar 25, 2012)

Crudass is worth something like £750million?  He probably doesn't give a shit about saving his arse politically. There must be more to this to come out imo.  

I'm sad this has come out after the nhs bill was forced through, that was clearly, in my mind anyway, riddled with backdoor transactions.


----------



## treelover (Mar 25, 2012)

If we had a decent opposition and an effective Left, like say in Germany, this would be dynamite..


I still think the skeletons will come out with NL and A4E and PFI...


----------



## pogofish (Mar 25, 2012)

Did anyone really, actually believe this had ever gone away?


----------



## OneStrike (Mar 25, 2012)

The Labour reaction will be very telling!  The PFI schemes were surely riddled with corruption, A4E i wasn't really aware of until this lot took over.


----------



## Nylock (Mar 25, 2012)

The labour reaction will be ineffectual, as usual =/

Seems like the tories took on board mervyn king's comment about whoever getting into power this time around being unelectable for a generation after their first term and are trying to squeeze the last 18-year tory term into this 5 years they have. Concentrated evil and sleaze.... it's only going to get worse =/


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 25, 2012)

Something tells me his resignation won't end this...


----------



## elbows (Mar 25, 2012)

Some random background apparent facts for added anger and lols.

Working class East Ender who done well for himself via heavily leveraged trading, and when searching for info on him his charity work is prominent. But there is also this article from an unknown date:

http://www.contracts-for-difference.com/CMCMarkets-Cruddas.html

​


> His idea has been so successful that, in April, the Sunday Times of London ranked Cruddas as the richest man in what is called "The City" - London's financial district - with a net worth of more than a billion pounds (about $2.12 billion Canadian).​Lord Rothschild was in second place.​And Cruddas, 53, looks the part. Dressed in a dark navy blue pin-striped Brioni custom-made suit and a Louis Vuitton tie, he looks every bit the CEO. He also lives the lifestyle, with five homes, including a mansion in Monaco, and two Bentleys and a Porsche in the driveway. On his last shopping trip, he bought 17 pairs of shoes at the same store, so he could put identical shoes in each of his five homes. The toys are the spoils of a certain stubbornness, he says, of never giving up on his vision.​


​​I wonder how his fortunes have fared since the financial crisis, bit late at night to investigate. Anyway I know its mostly besides the point but I like to know who we are dealing with here.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 25, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In other news a bear was spotted taking a dump in a...


 
..Pope?


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 25, 2012)

I see Cruddas has dismissed his offers of what amounts to bribery as 'bluster'. The slimy, duplicitous, tory cunt.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Mar 25, 2012)

scifisam said:


> ..Pope?


 
Actually the Pope was spotted _talking _shit in Mexico.
Not saying he didn't have a private moment with a grizzly's hermano, so to speak.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Mar 25, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> I see Cruddas has dismissed his offers of what amounts to bribery as 'bluster'. The slimy, duplicitous, tory cunt.



So he's admitting that he was going to obtain £250k under false pretences.


----------



## Mr Smin (Mar 25, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Tory sleaze. It never really went away.


 
The term is "corruption" - sleaze is what the british media say because they don't have the bottle to use the C work when referring to people they are likely to meet in person. They sometimes use 'corruption' when referring to the same sort of behaviour when the politician is foreign.


----------



## newbie (Mar 25, 2012)

didn't the fake sheik go the Sunday Times after the NoTW shut?


----------



## mauvais (Mar 25, 2012)

How many Urbanites are there, and how much is rifle hire?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 25, 2012)

Ha! totally shocking but totally unsuprising & totally obvious. Just grist for the media mill really.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Mar 25, 2012)

the public should stop raising money for Sports Relief and instead raise it for Tory Relief. If we can get £20m we could buy back all sorts of favourable policy decisions.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 25, 2012)

I think I'm more worried about the gullibility than the corruption. Don't these people have google? Why are they so bad at checking out the credentials of randoms who rock up with brown envelopes?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 25, 2012)

A meal with Dave and Sam upstairs in the flat at Number 10 .... for all sides it's just so wonderfully brazen.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 25, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> the public should stop raising money for Sports Relief and instead raise it for Tory Relief. If we can get £20m we could buy back all sorts of favourable policy decisions.


 
Put me in for 5p.

Political sleaze exposed again. Who would have thought it? I suppose they have to raise funds somehow now they can't fiddle their expenses.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2012)

This is now going to be turned around and used by the lib-dems and tories to allow them to legally thief money from the public under the rubric of 'reform of party funding' and modernisation. The lib-dems have been banging away at it already.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is now going to be turned around and used by the lib-dems and tories to allow them to legally thief money from the public under the rubric of 'reform of party funding' and modernisation. The lib-dems have been banging away at it already.


And what do you suggest? Union funding for all parties?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2012)

I suggest that the public not be forced to fund political parties. As if there's not enough money hanging around the lib-dems and tories to fund them if push came to shove anyway. What do you suggest? 

Oh i see you've added in a stupid bit about union funding for all parties after i'd replied. Well done london_calling, well done indeed.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> And what do you suggest? Union funding for all parties?


 
Maybe perhaps if we had a functioning democracy, where bribery and fundraising were not needed in order to get your interests represented politically, it wouldn't be necessary for trade unions to have to fund political parties in the first place?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I suggest that the public not be forced to fund political parties.


How should parties be funded?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2012)

By their members and supporters. Are you going to offer your suggestion now?

(remember to edit in a snide dig to your post after i replied)


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 25, 2012)

Somehow Delroy Booth managed to quote the whole post.



butchersapron said:


> By their members and supporters.


"and supporters" - that just means any individual and/or legal entity, doesn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2012)

Yes because he quoted it after your edit - are you saying that you didn't edit in the crap about unions funding all parties?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 25, 2012)

Bit ugly all this squirming around: "and supporters"?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2012)

Squirming? Let me see how you've done thus far, firstly, you've refused to say what your own suggestions are then secondly, went halfway down the route of telling a whopping great lie before realising where it was leading you and shamefacedly retreating.

Supporters = registered supporters -_ oh no_ are you going to say this would make parties beholden to private interests? That's exactly what they are though - private interests. Are you really so naive as to imagine that they're anything else? That maybe they're in for the public service? For the good of the people? And you think public funding would somehow stop this state of affairs, place them on a footing where they could really get on with their true motivations - public service and helping the little bunnies? Or you might if you actually answered the questions that i ask you about what you would suggest.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 25, 2012)

It's all useful stuff politically, and that's great, but the people who are getting screwed here are gullible businesspeople. There would be many good reasons for businesses to want to lobby DBIS, HMRC or HMT, and there's something to be said for nudging the policy agenda by engaging with favoured consiglieres or think tanks - especially when they are domain-specific. But the no10 policy unit is probably the least useful or relevant group of wonks in existence: it's inconceivable that anything significantly advantageous to any particular company would be best gained through their intervention. And for anything related to corporate concerns, five minutes with Osborne would obviously be far more helpful than a weekend with Dave and Sam.

So, all we have here are starstruck businessmen being parted from their cash by a forex barrow boy in return for brief contact with people who aren't actually relevant to their interests. Changing party funding in response would be a ridiculous course of action, as the spartist wurzel rightly says.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 25, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Bit ugly all this squirming around: "and supporters"?


 
Why always so anxious to line up to defend the Liberals?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 25, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's all useful stuff politically, and that's great, but the people who are getting screwed here are gullible businesspeople. There would be many good reasons for businesses to want to lobby DBIS, HMRC or HMT, and there's something to be said for nudging the policy agenda by engaging with favoured consiglieres or think tanks - especially when they are domain-specific. But the no10 policy unit is probably the least useful or relevant group of wonks in existence: it's inconceivable that anything significantly advantageous to any particular company would be best gained through their intervention. And for anything related to corporate concerns, five minutes with Osborne would obviously be far more helpful than a weekend with Dave and Sam.
> 
> So, all we have here are starstruck businessmen being parted from their cash by a forex barrow boy in return for brief contact with people who aren't actually relevant to their interests. Changing party funding in response would be a ridiculous course of action, as the spartist wurzel rightly says.


 
It makes you wonder how British business people would fare in Russia or Africa...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2012)

Clegg openly set up a meetings for cash thing with him and his ministers in the middle of last year - £25 000 per year for privileged access. What's the difference from this story?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg openly set up a meetings for cash thing with him and his ministers in the middle of last year - £25 000 per year for privileged access. What's the difference from this story?


 
An extra zero?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg openly set up a meetings for cash thing with him and his ministers in the middle of last year - £25 000 per year for privileged access. What's the difference from this story?


 
Clegg isn't worth accessing - if £100k is bottom of the premier league, Clegg is the Conference


----------



## two sheds (Mar 25, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> An extra zero?


 
Yes, the lib dems are open to much more democratic bribery  - not just from large multinationals and the rich.

I've always preferred the idea of central funding of parties - they should get money from taxpayers and that is all they should be allowed to spend on electioneering.

That would be a lot cheaper than now, which builds bribery into the whole system. If a property developer 'donates' a few million quid you're not going to get anything except property-developer-friendly legislation.

Making the funding proportional to the number of votes gathered at the last election would surely be fairer than making it proprtional to the wealth of the individual supporters who expect favours in return for their funding.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 25, 2012)

Anyway, when are the LDs going to pay back the money they took from criminal con-man Michael Brown?


----------



## Wilf (Mar 25, 2012)

Ya see Jazzz, this is how it works - not vaccines and lizards.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 25, 2012)

two sheds said:


> I've always preferred the idea of central funding of parties - they should get money from taxpayers and that is all they should be allowed to spend on electioneering.


 
Fuck that shit, they should live within their means and if they break the law through corruption go to jail, just like ordinary folk.

Like we couldn't survive without political parties.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 25, 2012)

Personally I'm not overly keen on the idea of public funding, they waste enough of our money as it is. Better to have funding through donations by free choice but set a limit to how much funding is allowed so that there's a level playing field.

Actually a can of petrol and a rope and a few lamposts will do, the current political landscape is irredeemably corrupt.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2012)

Everyone else should live within their means and not rely on state handouts - apart from the lib-dems and tories.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 25, 2012)

A ban on donations by individuals above a certain amount. Ditto for organisations unless it is supported by its members/employess. Businesses - just like the unions do already - should have to ask their employees wether they agree the organsaition donating x amount to a particualr party.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Everyone else should live within their means and not rely on state handouts - apart from the lib-dems and tories.


 
and Richard Branston ... didn't we all buy him a bank recently?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> A ban on donations by individuals above a certain amount. Ditto for organisations unless it is supported by its members/employess. Businesses - just like the unions do already - should have to ask their employees wether they agree the organsaition donating x amount to a particualr party.


 
I think a reasonable upper limit would be whatever 10% of the average wage is these days, basically a couple of grand, including not just cash bungs but any other considerations whatsoever.

Really serious penalties for trying to get around it would also be necessary along with an effective enforcement body.

Obviously the current receipients of corruption wouldn't be willing to enact legislation to make any of this happen, so other means would have to be found ...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 25, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> and Richard Branston ... didn't we all buy him a bank recently?


Only the good bit, we got to keep the depts.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Only the good bit, we got to keep the debts.


 
Well of course, that's what the public is for after all.

As any Tory shitebag would no doubt tell us, it's all about risk vs reward.

They get all the rewards while the public underwrites their risks and bails them out when it all goes horribly wrong.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 25, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think a reasonable upper limit would be whatever 10% of the average wage is these days, basically a couple of grand, including not just cash bungs but any other considerations whatsoever.
> 
> Really serious penalties for trying to get around it would also be necessary along with an effective enforcement body.


 
Which means that the money would go to astroturf groups and campaigns like the Taxpayer's Alliance or the NHS Support Federation, just as it does for TV funding in the States. Pointless.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 25, 2012)

If campaigning was restricted to constituencies there would be no need to be flying around the country in private jets & helicopters. Maybe allow politicians only a wooden box to stand on at election time.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Which means that the money would go to astroturf groups and campaigns like the Taxpayer's Alliance or the NHS Support Federation, just as it does for TV funding in the States. Pointless.


 
Hence the comment about 'any other considerations' and the need for effective enforcement.

Do try to keep up.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 25, 2012)

Why on earth does anyone think that state funding would stop this sort of shite?

Love to see the LibDems try and sell that proposal to the people.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 25, 2012)

Political parties need us, we don't need them.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 25, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Hence the comment about 'any other considerations' and the need for effective enforcement.
> 
> Do try to keep up.


 
How on earth would you stop Michael Ashcroft and his chums from giving the TPA cash to research helpful stories and promote them to the press?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 25, 2012)

teqniq said:


> Better to have funding through donations by free choice but set a limit to how much funding is allowed so that there's a level playing field.


 
Yep, that's fair enough. Anything rather than the present system, though, which is the most costly of all. Bad legislation costs billions.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> How on earth would you stop Michael Ashcroft and his chums from giving the TPA cash to research helpful stories and promote them to the press?


 
Hence the final line of the post in question.



> Obviously the current receipients of corruption wouldn't be willing to enact legislation to make any of this happen, so other means would have to be found ...


----------



## treelover (Mar 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is now going to be turned around and used by the lib-dems and tories to allow them to legally thief money from the public under the rubric of 'reform of party funding' and modernisation. The lib-dems have been banging away at it already.


 
Yes, all the media talk is now about public funding of parties, and of course bringing in the unions, even though they have played no part in the scandal.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)

@ Maurice.

In other words, money will always find a way to corrupt the system we have now, but we don't need to tolerate it or accept it.

What we can do though is make a clear statement about where the line is to be drawn, past which giving to a political party is to be seen as corruption.

I think 10% of the average annual income is more than generous towards the rich as a standard of fairness. Most households couldn't dream of giving so much to a party.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 25, 2012)

Surely this one is an example of criminal corruption which should be prosecuted. And he was either doing it with Cameron's consent or not - a police trawl of e-mails and phone calls should say which.

Shame the tories don't do business in the US, or they'd take it over for us. On second thoughts Cruddas must have interests there, I wonder whether whether if we asked pretty please 

Eta: and i like the defence of 'no money actually changed hands', as in the defence of a burglar caught red handed before he could escape 'well I never actually took anything'.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 25, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why always so anxious to line up to defend the Liberals?


Not sure how you got there from me asking butchers to flesh out his position on party funding ...


----------



## treelover (Mar 25, 2012)

Melanie Phillips just been on the radio arguing benefit fraud is worse than these cash for influence scandals, what a cheek...


----------



## treelover (Mar 25, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Surely this one is an example of criminal corruption which should be prosecuted. And he was either doing it with Cameron's consent or not - a police trawl of e-mails and phone calls should say which.
> 
> Shame the tories don't do business in the US, or they'd take it over for us. On second thoughts Cruddas must have interests there, I wonder whether whether if we asked pretty please
> 
> Eta: and i like the defence of 'no money actually changed hands', as in the defence of a burglar caught red handed before he could escape 'well I never actually took anything'.


 

'No Ifs No Buts' clearly doesn't apply to Gov't fraud only little people...I


----------



## Wilf (Mar 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> Melanie Phillips just been on the radio arguing benefit fraud is worse than these cash for influence scandals_*, what a cheek*_...


 Sir I commend your indefatigable  understatement.


----------



## treelover (Mar 25, 2012)

Sky coverage is much more robust than that of the BBC which seems to be channeling it down the road of reform of party funding


----------



## socialist (Mar 25, 2012)




----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 25, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Businesses - just like the unions do already - should have to ask their employees wether they agree the organsaition donating x amount to a particualr party.


 
And allow customers to opt out of the political levy on all purchases.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Cruddarse is Treasurer of the Tory party btw. A 'total cunt', if you will.


 
A true "Cunt's cunt".


----------



## Quartz (Mar 25, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> A ban on donations by individuals above a certain amount. Ditto for organisations unless it is supported by its members/employess. Businesses - just like the unions do already - should have to ask their employees wether they agree the organsaition donating x amount to a particualr party.


 
I disagree. I'd like to see all political donations above a certain amount (say £50 per week) be restricted to UK passport holders. No businesses, no unions, no charities allowed.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 25, 2012)

Apparently, Cameron is angry. Of course he's angry: he's been caught out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why always so anxious to line up to defend the Liberals?


 
Masochism?


----------



## flutterbye (Mar 25, 2012)

surprise! u mad bro?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I disagree. I'd like to see all political donations above a certain amount (say £50 per week) be restricted to UK passport holders. No businesses, no unions, no charities allowed.


 
yes = becasue big business and trade unions are  the same thing


----------



## Gingerman (Mar 25, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17504798
Nothing to do with me guv


----------



## binka (Mar 25, 2012)

david cameron says he had no idea why he was having so many dinners with peple he didnt know


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 25, 2012)

binka said:


> david cameron says he had no idea why he was having so many dinners with peple he didnt know


Every time I see him on telly his stupid overfed fat shiny face has gotten fatter. He really has piled on the pounds, not surprisingly if he's being effectively paid to eat!
They should be paying him to do those slimfast shake things, not banquets every night.


----------



## agricola (Mar 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I disagree. I'd like to see all political donations above a certain amount (say £50 per week) be restricted to UK passport holders. No businesses, no unions, no charities allowed.


 
I would ban everything at the national level, from whatever source, and allow people (and businesses, unions etc) only to donate to a local candidate / candidates and only their own (ie: they would have to reside in the constituency), with all donations / "loans" of money, services and anything else being recorded and published online within at most a week of the donation being made. 

As has been said by many people already, its the party system, the increase in the cost of political activity, and its lack of any alternative revenue streams (now that mass membership of parties is a thing of the distant past) that is the problem here.  Indeed, it is probably the key problem in modern British politics, because the dependence the parties have on sources of funding leads to almost every other problem (privatization, the widespread use of PFI, tax avoidance, budget "overspending", pubcos, the lack of accountability at banks and the Big Four accountancy firms, the tolerance of public and private corruption etc etc) you can think of.


----------



## agricola (Mar 25, 2012)

binka said:


> david cameron says he had no idea why he was having so many dinners with peple he didnt know


 
He should check his parties website for those answers.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> Sky coverage is much more robust than that of the BBC which seems to be channeling it down the road of reform of party funding


Not overly surprising given the common ownership - Murdoch not happy with his erstwhile client Tories.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 25, 2012)

binka said:


> david cameron says he had no idea why he was having so many dinners with peple he didnt know


 
'those slap-up feasts were bally good though, burp', he later conceded, as his belt tightened around his ever more rotund waistline.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 25, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> yes = becasue big business and trade unions are the same thing


 
There's nothing stopping Trades Unionists donating money directly.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> There's nothing stopping Trades Unionists donating money directly.


 
To whom might they usefully donate? I don't see any plausibly electable party that in any way represents working-class interests, or for that matter the vast majority of middle-class interests.


----------



## Libertad (Mar 25, 2012)

If Trades Unions were to properly represent working-class interests then there wouldn't be any need for them to fund any political party.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 25, 2012)

Why can't we just line up all the MPs and their cronies against a wall and shoot the fucking lot of them?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 25, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Why can't we just line up all the MPs and their cronies against a wall and shoot the fucking lot of them?


 
Too expensive, bullets cost money and the psychological damage that might be wrought on the executioners must be born into account. Previous mass eliminations have alighted on zyclon B.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 25, 2012)

I dunno given the disenchantment with the political class at present there may well be a queue, may even have to divvy out places via the national lottery.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> There's nothing stopping Trades Unionists donating money directly.


 
Why are you so opposed to working class people forming democratic associations that can organise support (including financial) for the party of their choice?

Personally I don't have any problem with peope giving as much money as they like to the party or organisation of their choice - as long as we have a robust media that is prepared to tell us who gives what to whom and why.

The real problem is far more systemic than a simple reform of party funding rules, and indeed any reform of funding will be used to steal more money off the taxpayer and hamstring the unions - it will also as Maurice pointed out above lead to proliferation of arms length front campaigns; unless people want to ban thinktanks and campaign groups?


----------



## Libertad (Mar 25, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Too expensive, bullets cost money and the psychological damage that might be wrought on the executioners must be born into account. Previous mass eliminations have alighted on zyclon B.


 
We could outsource the work to Siemens, again.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Mar 25, 2012)

The PM said:
			
		

> [there would be...] a ""party inquiry" into the claims that £250,000 would get donors a private dinner with him."


 



			
				[SIZE=14px said:
			
		

> Labour Leader Ed Miliband [/SIZE]]
> [we need a] "proper independent investigation".


 
Thank fuck we have such a strong left oposition, willing to challenge Tory sleaze in a robust fashion, because they have no vested interests at all in not making _too_ much of such allegations.  Because there is no way in future they (or, more likely, someone better) could ever get caught doing the same and not want the other side making too much of it...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2012)

Did london_ calling ever answer?


----------



## jakethesnake (Mar 25, 2012)

David Cameron on the radio news this evening: "This isn't how the Conservative Party raises funds"... er, it clearly fucking is.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Did london_ calling ever answer?


 
no he continued to distract and dissemble.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 25, 2012)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)

Good summary of some of the salient points here:


> Cruddas told undercover reporters: "If you are unhappy about something … we'll listen to you and put it into the policy committee at No 10." The implication of being able to buy influence over policy was clear.
> 
> Nor was that all. It is illegal for foreign companies to give to British political parties, because of past abuse. Yet when the reporters said their money came from Liechtenstein, Cruddas proffered his "compliance unit" to disguise the source of the donations by routing them through a UK company or "registered" UK citizens. A device was being openly canvassed to get money illegally into Tory coffers.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2012/mar/25/cash-for-policy-deep-offence


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 25, 2012)

Was discussing this with a Tory councillor friend this afternoon. He said that the £250k cost of a private Cam session is well known, widely quoted and mentioned in party literature; the scale on which donations are rewarded is reasonably transparent within the party.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Was discussing this with a Tory councillor friend this afternoon. He said that the £250k cost of a private Cam session is well known, widely quoted and mentioned in party literature; the scale on which donations are rewarded is reasonably transparent within the party.


 
How much does he charge for 'extras' ?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 25, 2012)

Is this more rotten than New Labour was or is it more hyprocritical because they said they would banish it?


----------



## newharper (Mar 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> Melanie Phillips just been on the radio arguing benefit fraud is worse than these cash for influence scandals, what a cheek...


Well she not known as "Mad Mel" for nothing.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 25, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> How much does he charge for 'extras' ?




Steve Hilton was working on a felicific calculus which would assess not only the wellbeing of the nation but also the happiness of a donor's finish. But he went off with all the notes on it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)




----------



## newbie (Mar 25, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Was discussing this with a Tory councillor friend this afternoon. He said that the £250k cost of a private Cam session is well known, widely quoted and mentioned in party literature; the scale on which donations are rewarded is reasonably transparent within the party.


link?  Entry to the leaders group costs £50,000 but there's nothing mentioned above that.


They're very cheap, politicians, aren't they?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 25, 2012)

Absolutely disgraceful. NL did the same of course, but that does not excuse this despicable behaviour.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2012)

Sasaferrato said:


> Absolutely disgraceful. NL did the same of course, but that does not excuse this despicable behaviour.


What should happen?


----------



## teqniq (Mar 25, 2012)




----------



## Belushi (Mar 25, 2012)

The older I get the more like my Grandfather I get. These cunts have been having us over for centuries and there's only one way it's ever going to stop. The entire ruling class, in a cellar, in Ekaterinberg.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2012)

Certainly, the moment you think about what a fair system for political donations would look like, and the impossibility of realising it in the face of entrenched bribery and corruption, solutions involving a rope and a lamp-post start to seem like the only realistic way forward.


----------



## newharper (Mar 25, 2012)

Indeed 

eta. was @ Maurice


----------



## newharper (Mar 25, 2012)

Belushi said:


> The older I get the more like my Grandfather I get. These cunts have been having us over for centuries and there's only one way it's ever going to stop. The entire ruling class, in a cellar, in Ekaterinberg.


 
We still have lamp posts  don't we?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 25, 2012)

Murdoch has proper stiched him Cameron up  thats for sure - they must have known this was going on, esp given their level of access. Interesting how the murdoch press reacted to the budget as well.

Whats in it for rupe though? Just revenge? Are they going to try and get cameron out before an Election?  

Sunday Times saying there's more to come. Defeinite potential for disco dave to be scewered by this.


----------



## OneStrike (Mar 26, 2012)

newharper said:


> We still have lamp posts  don't we?



I believe so, though in my street they vanish at midnight.


Just watched the paper reviews on sky for tomorrow, Cameron is taking another battering


----------



## treelover (Mar 26, 2012)

The Assistant Editor of the Sunday Times just been on Sky News noting that when she was at the Tory Confernce she was amazed at how many party advisers, apparatchiks, etc had now become lobbyists now they(the Tories) were in Government, this is part of a much bigger picture and which would also feature New Labour...


----------



## Quartz (Mar 26, 2012)

Belushi said:


> The older I get the more like my Grandfather I get. These cunts have been having us over for centuries and there's only one way it's ever going to stop. The entire ruling class, in a cellar, in Ekaterinberg.


 
I was thinking more along the lines of all those politicians, advisors, and apparatchiks being strung up round the M25.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

Has anyone else seen Murdoch's tweets from this morning? 

"Great Sunday Times scoop. What was Cameron thinking? Noone, rightly or wrongly, will believe his story"

"Cameron should have just followed history and flogged some seats in the Lords, if they still have value! precedents of centuries"

"Of course there must be a full a independent inquiry of both sides. In great detail and with consequences. Trust must be established"

"Without trust, democracy and order will go"

Schadenfreude o' clock at Murdoch mansions


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 26, 2012)

Frances Maude was on Radio 4 this morning sounding very annoyed that the people were asking these pesky questions about issues that were frankly none of their business. He called the whole fuss 'nonsense'.
Shades of Liam Fox.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

Cameron refusing to reveal the dinner guests as its "not in the public interest".


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 26, 2012)

I never listened to it but the tweets on Francis Maude's performance on the Today programme this morning are quite funny:




> Simon Blackwell ‏ @simonblackwell
> Francis Maude talking on Today about having a "kitchen supper" really couldn't have sounded more posh if he'd blown a hunting horn.
> 
> Iain Martin ‏ @iainmartin1
> ...


----------



## editor (Mar 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Cameron refusing to reveal the dinner guests as its "not in the public interest".


This one's going to run and run.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

where can i listen to the today programme, is it on iplayer?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

Murdoch must be enjoying himself lmao


----------



## weepiper (Mar 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Cameron refusing to reveal the dinner guests as its "not in the public interest".


 
Oh I think he'll find it _is._


----------



## teqniq (Mar 26, 2012)

What complete arseholes. How much longer are they going to get away with treating everybody with contempt?


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> where can i listen to the today programme, is it on iplayer?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/stations/radio4 it's available now


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

http://www.cash4access.com


----------



## two sheds (Mar 26, 2012)

Balbi said:


> http://www.cash4access.com


 
Hehe 'Comes with free Clegg'.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

£25. He's not a Tory, but seriously, we can't get rid of him out of Parliament. Anyone? Please?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

The creator's apparently not politically active either - he just thinks it's hilarious. Otherwise i'd have had this one straight out of the Labour media team's stable


----------



## treelover (Mar 26, 2012)

teqniq said:


> What a complete arseholes. How much longer are they going to get away with treating everybody with contempt?


 
like i said and others on here, hubris will be their downfall..


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

I suspect another Cameron will be heading for the Mariana Trench if this keeps up


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Their record is now under one significant resignation every 6 months - we've had thievery, greed, lying (four times), god knows what you'd classify fox's thing as...


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

Lust? Pride?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Bit of both...

The bloke who resigned - worth 3/4 of a billion - is state funding going to stop him and the interests he represents acting in what they see as their interests? How naive can you get?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

I do admire the Tories' approach to sleaze. They really gun their engines and then deliver them straight into a wall for our pleasure.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Their record is now under one significant resignation every 6 months - we've had thievery, greed, lying (four times), god knows what you'd classify fox's thing as...


 
I'm sure if there are any more resignations they'll issue a frank apology.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

> A so-called “Premier League” Conservative Party donor *was put in charge of a major policy review.* Adrian Beecroft, who has given more than half a million pounds to the Tories, developed proposals on employment law *which were then imposed on Vince Cable against his wishes.*
> Such clear links between money and the policy making process *sink one of the Tories main defence lines.* In his resignation statement — undoubtedly drafter for him by Number 10 spinners — disgraced fundraiser Peter Cruddas wrote
> _“Clearly there is no question of donors being able to influence policy”_​A former chief investment officer at Apax Partners, Beecroft *has donated a whopping £573,076 with the last transfer in October 2011.*
> _One wonders why the private equity mogul was selected for this role?_


 
Here. (Very much in line with Cable's wishes btw)

I do expect journos to be going through the records as we speak..


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Here. (Very much in line with Cable's wishes btw)
> 
> I do expect journos to be going through the records as we speak..


 
Murdoch's probably been onto all his publications. The biter bit back.


----------



## TitanSound (Mar 26, 2012)

Looks like Cameron has relented and will publish details.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17508271


----------



## Quartz (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What should happen?


 
Red-hot pokers, endless sessions of Teletubbies and Eastenders, the usual stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Right, so the list of people invited to dinner reveals donors of more than £10 million last year - roughly 50% of the tory party funding.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

Who are these? 


Michael and Dorothy Hintze (£1,453,280)


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

David Rowland and his wife. (£4,420,515.52)

Who are they? And how the fuck does anyone have enough money to give £4.4 million to a party in a year.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hintze


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Hedge funders


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> David Rowland and his wife. (£4,420,515.52)
> 
> Who are they? And how the fuck does anyone have enough money to give £4.4 million to a party in a year.


Convicted thief, property developer and tax-avoider.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

So how does this work? They come round to dinner and then write him a cheque?


----------



## Santino (Mar 26, 2012)

I like how the Tories have appointed Lord Gold to lead an inquiry. The writers of this episode are a bit obvious, aren't they? I hope the character actually turns out to be made of gold.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

I also thought that laws were being introduced on how big party donations were allowed to be?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 26, 2012)

> A multimillionaire property tycoon who persuaded Prince Andrew to unveil a bronze statue of him at his palatial home in Guernsey might not be considered a shy man. But David Rowland, the Tory donor who was due to take up the post of treasurer of the Conservative party within six weeks, has led a remarkably guarded life.
> Notoriously camera shy, Rowland is said to have refused to give the Conservatives a photograph of himself. The only publicly available image of Rowland, a man whose business interests have spanned the globe, is a black and white photograph of him smoking a cigar, printed in the Observer in 1971.


 
from here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/20/david-rowland-controversy-conservatives

Meet your real government.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

Who is Michael Farmer who gave the tories 1 million in 2010 and 2 million this year?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I also thought that laws were being introduced on how big party donations were allowed to be?


It was on anon donations - above a certain amount you have to be unmasked.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 26, 2012)

I know I've attempted this derail earlier in the thread, but conspiraloons _really_ should take note - this is how 'conspiracies' work, you pay, you get your feet under the table and you get what you (finance capital) want. No need for manipulation through 'bloodlines', barcodes and the like - _you just write a fucking cheque_.  It's not even a conspiracy, something much more banal.

This is perhaps the (Ralph!) Miliband version of power (State in Capitalist Society), the personal interactions of the elites.  Of course, as always, the impersonal structural imperatives that drive the whole thing are more powerful (though in reality they are two sides of the same coin).  Anyroad, derail over.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Who is Michael Farmer who gave the tories 1 million in 2010 and 2 million this year?


Would it surprise you to learn that he's a hedge-funder?


----------



## Wilf (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Would it surprise you to learn that he's a hedge-funder?


After a bit of 'set-aside'?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

Why the fuck are they giving "personal donations" to cameron and co (presumably not to the party)? Havent they got enough fucking money?


----------



## Santino (Mar 26, 2012)

Guido Fawkes has a new story about this that I can't be arsed to summarise:

http://order-order.com/2012/03/26/m...hand-from-very-very-senior-government-figure/


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Got to say that a party representing the finance component of large capital vetoing a potential tax on their transactions is not really mystic meg stuff. Nor is the tory treasurer talking to to his party leader in private at some point a big story. He's been puffing this up all day and this is it?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Right, so the list of people invited to dinner reveals donors of more than £10 million last year - roughly 50% of the tory party funding.


 
So where are they getting the other half of the funding from? god i hate the Tory party.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> So where are they getting the other half of the funding from? god i hate the Tory party.


Other people, firms etc - people who gave loads but didn't bother with the small fry meal at no 10.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

What are they doing? going to his house and writing out a cheque? Cunts!


----------



## krink (Mar 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> So where are they getting the other half of the funding from? god i hate the Tory party.


satan?


----------



## Wilf (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Other people, firms etc - people who gave loads but didn't bother with *the small fry meal at no 10*.


Yes, having to pay for scoffing a potnoodle with Sam and Dave is either a sign of relative weakness among this bit of the elite - or that you want something very specific. The really powerful don't have to grub about like this.


----------



## binka (Mar 26, 2012)

i think you're all jumping to conclusions here. maybe dave is just really great company


----------



## treelover (Mar 26, 2012)

Santino said:


> Guido Fawkes has a new story about this that I can't be arsed to summarise:
> 
> http://order-order.com/2012/03/26/m...hand-from-very-very-senior-government-figure/


 
could you try, not a fan of GF...


----------



## krink (Mar 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Yes, having to pay for scoffing a potnoodle with Sam and Dave is either a sign of relative weakness among the elite - or that you want something very specific. The really powerful don't have to grub about like this.


 
so who would be in a list of people in the uk who don't have to bother kissing cameron's arse? would it be like the people who run the banks and the like? (please note this is not a question about that conspiracy jewish bankers bollocks).


----------



## sim667 (Mar 26, 2012)

Im probably not quick enough but

http://www.cash4access.com/


----------



## Santino (Mar 26, 2012)

binka said:


> i think you're all jumping to conclusions here. maybe dave is just really great company


Cunt would never answer a straight question.

'Fancy a pint, Dave?'

'I think pints are good, and that people should not be prevented from having them.'

'Are you coming out for a pint or not?'

'Going out for a pint is a project that people should get behind.'

'Are you coming or what?'

'I'm sorry if a picture has been allowed to emerge suggesting that I would come out for a pint.'


----------



## treelover (Mar 26, 2012)

''Depardieu, 63, has admitted that his support is a case of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", saying that Sarkozy has helped him out significantly in the past. "Every time I ask Sarko to do something, he has responded straight away," Depardieu told the satirical magazine _Le Canard Enchaîné_. "When I had problems with one of my foreign businesses, he did everything he could to solve the problem straight away."

The actor added: "When I call him, he calls me back within a quarter of an hour. He's the president of the republic, I'm just an actor, and he rings me straight away. He's extraordinary."


Not just here, but in France, but perhaps more blatant..

oh, and poor show Gerard....


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> ''Depardieu, 63, has admitted that his support is a case of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", saying that Sarkozy has helped him out significantly in the past. "Every time I ask Sarko to do something, he has responded straight away," Depardieu told the satirical magazine _Le Canard Enchaîné_. "When I had problems with one of my foreign businesses, he did everything he could to solve the problem straight away."
> 
> The actor added: "When I call him, he calls me back within a quarter of an hour. He's the president of the republic, I'm just an actor, and he rings me straight away. He's extraordinary."
> 
> ...


 
He's always been a right wing cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Depardieu is a fat cunt who is about to die because he drinks 7 bottles of wine a day. State of him in recent films. That said, he was in the film Mammuth by the anarchists Gustave de Kervern and Benoît Delépine


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

Corrida lover as well.


----------



## treelover (Mar 26, 2012)

He gave the Communist Party in 2002 a fairly big donation


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Bear in mind this quote is from a piss-take mag...


----------



## treelover (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Depardieu is a fat cunt who is about to die because he drinks 7 bottles of wine a day. State of him in recent films. That said, he was in the film Mammuth by the anarchists Gustave de Kervern and Benoît Delépine


 
How can anyone drink so many bottles?


----------



## elbows (Mar 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> How can anyone drink so many bottles?


 
Andre the giant could drink more than that, but he was a giant with chronic pain issues.


----------



## extra dry (Mar 26, 2012)

the greasy of politics...mind you for that price I want a show, not just a pot noddle and look at the plans for London Olympics...I heard 50,000 grand to each district was being allocated to the local businesses/the mayor? (mind you I would not trust Brosis)  to give everything a lick of paint, shop fronts street furniture, general just give the place a clean up. Which helps everyone...and you can do the math, 250,000 from one individual to another...compared to a whole district of say 2000 people and 50.000 cash...for paint.  no wander we did not go to the euro, the bribes now would be huge.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> He gave the Communist Party in 2002 a fairly big donation


 
Really? I thought he used to be a big Chirac supporter.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What should happen?


 
He's been fired. There is nothing more that can happen. Hoon and Byers have had their parliamentary passes suspended for five and two years respectively, I would assume that Cruddas will suffer a similar fate, hopefully permanently.

Then of course, there was the ' cash for peerages ' scandal, making Blair the first sitting PM to be interviewed by the police, interviewed three times in fact.

For Labour to howl about this is nauseating hypocrisy, their own record is not squeaky clean, far from it.

Much as I would detest my taxes from going to funding political parties, I am a at loss to see what would be better. State funding and very strict limits on donations and spending seems to be the answer. In the US donations over a certain level have to be disclosed, but this was circumvented by ' coalitions ' of donors all making donations just below the limit. Obama had no problem with taking money from Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Morgan Chase etc, donations from those three were over half a million Sterling... each.

There is certainly a task of Augean Stable proportions ahead if we want to separate cash from influence.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 26, 2012)

Santino said:


> Cunt would never answer a straight question.
> 
> 'Fancy a pint, Dave?'
> 
> ...


 
And Prime Ministers Blair and Brown ( Unelected as PM ) would?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

who said they would?


----------



## agricola (Mar 26, 2012)

Sasaferrato said:


> He's been fired. There is nothing more that can happen. Hoon and Byers have had their parliamentary passes suspended for five and two years respectively, I would assume that Cruddas will suffer a similar fate, hopefully permanently.
> 
> Then of course, there was the ' cash for peerages ' scandal, making Blair the first sitting PM to be interviewed by the police, interviewed three times in fact.
> 
> ...


 
Sass - as I said above the only way to deal with this effectively is to ban all national political fundraising and donations and allow only constituents (in this case firms based in the constituency, unions, charities etc and private individuals) to donate to any candidate, with all donations (which would include loans, gifts, services and staff provided etc) to be recorded and published. You might end up with a few corrupt MPs, but it would probably be a great deal less than we have now and they would be a lot less likely to be able to implement bad policy.

Having public funding of parties would probably be ineffective because they would be the ones deciding how much got spent, what it got spent on and they would be even less connected to the public because they didnt have to get money off them. It would also make it even more difficult for the small parties, for rebel MPs and independents to get (re)elected because the party machine would control all the money.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 26, 2012)

Sasaferrato said:


> And Prime Ministers Blair and Brown ( Unelected as PM ) would?


 Sass - this is an ant-tory thread where tories get called corrupt cunts.  When labour did this they got called corrupt _labour_ cunts.  You've simply got to hate the particular bit of the enemy that appears in front of you.  Corrupt _politician_ cunts - will that do as a temporary holding measure?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Sass - this is an ant-tory thread where tories get called corrupt cunts. When labour did this they got called corrupt _labour_ cunts. You've simply got to hate the particular bit of the enemy that appears in front of you. Corrupt _politician_ cunts - will that do as a temporary holding measure?


 
Sass is a Tory and anyone who criticises the Tories is Labour or Marxist filth in his world.

He is also very litigious and has threatened to drag this site through the courts so be careful...


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Sass is a Tory and anyone who criticises the Tories is Labour or Marxist filth in his world.


no need for the 'or'. in sass's world, they are one and the same.


----------



## binka (Mar 26, 2012)

dont worry ed milliband is on the case live in parliament now.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 26, 2012)

My confidence in ed is underwhelming.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Sasaferrato said:


> And Prime Ministers Blair and Brown ( Unelected as PM ) would?


All PMs are unelected you oaf.


----------



## binka (Mar 26, 2012)

to be fair to ed milliband i thought he was quite good. apart from that its quite predicable. tories trying to say this is all about party funding, everyone else saying it isnt and francis maude saying labour are worse because they let their donors pick their leaders


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Really? I thought he used to be a big Chirac supporter.



Chirac was a communist in the 50s.


----------



## extra dry (Mar 26, 2012)

it is all an act to keep people happy with the illusion of 'one man one vote' myth in Europe now.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

binka said:


> to be fair to ed milliband i thought he was quite good. apart from that its quite predicable. tories trying to say this is all about party funding, everyone else saying it isnt and francis maude saying labour are worse because they let their donors pick their leaders


When it's quite obvious that it's the lib-dems that are the worst - they want state-funding/theft _and_ to be able to take money from crooks/anyone they like.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Right, so the list of people invited to dinner reveals donors of more than £10 million last year - roughly 50% of the tory party funding.


Up to £20 million now.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Sasaferrato said:


> He's been fired. There is nothing more that can happen. Hoon and Byers have had their parliamentary passes suspended for five and two years respectively, I would assume that Cruddas will suffer a similar fate, hopefully permanently.
> 
> Then of course, there was the ' cash for peerages ' scandal, making Blair the first sitting PM to be interviewed by the police, interviewed three times in fact.
> 
> ...


 
Astonishing. You start off by saying that nothing else can possibly happen - then proceed to say what can possibly happen.


----------



## elbows (Mar 26, 2012)

Cruddas mentioned Cameron/Osborne dinners. Was Osborne at the dinners mentioned, or did he have his own ones?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/...edium=psbook_featt&utm_campaign=psbook_featt2


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 26, 2012)

binka said:


> dont worry ed milliband is on the case live in parliament now.


 
You might as well tell me my house is on fire but it's OK because you've sent a diabetic dwarf round to piss on it for me


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

> In December 2009 she became a senior event manager within the Conservative Party. She held the post for just under a year during which, she has boasted, she became a trusted aide to David Cameron.





> “I spent more time in the first third of [2010] with DC than I did with anybody else in my life,” she said.
> “I am friends with all the people who are now his closest advisors. I’m friends with all the people who are chiefs of staff to members of the cabinet. I’m also friends with a number of people in the cabinet.”
> In November 201o she became the operations director of No to AV, the campaign against the introduction of the alternative voting system.


 
oh my god a senior event manager within the tory party


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2012)

so we have had riots, intense corruption and all out war on the NHS. 

pretty sure we are due a fatal tory wanking accident soon, being as history is repeating itself


----------



## Wilf (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> All PMs are unelected you oaf.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> so we have had riots, intense corruption and all out war on the NHS.
> 
> pretty sure we are due a fatal tory wanking accident soon, being as history is repeating itself


 
Lets hope so - a mass wanking suicide pact would be the most fitting demise for these sick, twisted vermin.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> oh my god a senior event manager within the tory party


She's a realhotshot businesswoman her, she's managed to run her business into the ground in 5 whole weeks...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> She's a realhotshot businesswoman her, she's managed to run her business into the ground in 5 whole weeks...


Really can't see anything about that on there unless you're referring to her being made the director on the 23rd and now this ...


----------



## Wilf (Mar 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> So how does this work? They come round to dinner and then write him a cheque?


 Clegg takes the money in a booth near the door.  He's allowed to wear a hat.  At the end of the night he takes them home in a rickshaw.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Really can't see anything about that on there unless you're referring to her being made the director on the 23rd and now this ...


Company incorporated on 16th feb - dead today.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

INFOSTUFF! From the FT. (pdf)


----------



## Nylock (Mar 26, 2012)

Balbi said:


> http://www.cash4access.com


Clearly their attitude towards sleaze and the public 'forgetting about it when the next big story comes along' is firmly rooted in their last term of office in the '80s/'90s. It's a shame for them that computer and communications technology has moved on somewhat since then


----------



## Nylock (Mar 26, 2012)

Sasaferrato said:


> For Labour to howl about this is nauseating hypocrisy, their own record is not squeaky clean, far from it.


TBF All politicians are grasping mendacious cunts. The main difference though is that it took nearly a decade for the labour sleaze story to break, this shower of cunts have achieved the same in less than two years heheh


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 26, 2012)

Nylock said:


> TBF All politicians are grasping mendacious cunts. The main difference though is that it took nearly a decade for the labour sleaze story to break...


 
Bernie Ecclestone.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 26, 2012)

Rules are for the little people.


----------



## elbows (Mar 26, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Bernie Ecclestone.


 
Yep, with the scandal happening just 6 months after they got elected.

Never mind, Cameron's judgement seems to be widely perceived as much easier to attack from the get go than Blair's was.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 26, 2012)

elbows said:


> Never mind, Cameron's judgement seems to be widely perceived as much easier to attack from the get go than Blair's was.


 
True that.  Try as he might, he doesn't have the 'Teflon Tony' aura that surrounded Blair for his first few years in office.

But then, unlike Blair, Cameron has never actually managed to win an election.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

Cameron cant take off that posh boy tag. Blair didnt have nearly the problems Dave does with image.


----------



## elbows (Mar 26, 2012)

Yeah Clingfilm Cameron/Durex Dave no comparison to Teflon Tony in the image stakes. Hell he may not even have got to be tory leader if it wasn't for that dickhead advisor with his focus groups and wiggly wormometer, still remember watching that episode of Newsnight.


----------



## Nylock (Mar 26, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Bernie Ecclestone.


Yeah, i remember that affair... I was thinking more along the lines of a full-blown shitstorm equivalent to the 'cash for honours' one (i should have made that clear tbf)


----------



## binka (Mar 26, 2012)

the thing i hate most about dave is the way he sucks his lips in all the time. for thirty grand a year you'd have thought they'd have beaten that out of him at eaton


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 26, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> True that. Try as he might, he doesn't have the 'Teflon Tony' aura that surrounded Blair for his first few years in office.
> 
> But then, unlike Blair, Cameron has never actually managed to win an election.


 
Blair was a brilliant leader and master politician, surrounded by equally adept operators like Campbell and Mandelson.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2012)

It's the 'leader of the conservative party' thing that gets my goat more than his weird, thin lips


----------



## binka (Mar 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> It's the 'leader of the conservative party' thing that gets my goat more than his weird, thin lips


definitelty the lips thing


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

None of Coulson, Hilton and Osborne have a thing compared to that New Labour team in terms of machiavellian sorcery.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 26, 2012)

I assume you have seen:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17512814
Who's who: Donors who dined with David Cameron in No 10


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2012)

Balbi said:


> None of Coulson, Hilton and Osborne have a thing compared to that New Labour team in terms of machiavellian sorcery.


 

you can say many justified negative things about mandy, but 'useless at politicking' isn't one of them.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> you can say many justified negative things about mandy, but 'useless at politicking' isn't one of them.


 
Well, yes in many ways you are right, but he was fired twice and each time it was pretty much for misusing his public office for pals.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Blair was a brilliant leader and master politician, surrounded by equally adept operators like Campbell and Mandelson.


 
He was, but whatever else he might be (and he's many things, none of them good!), Cameron is a good politician as well. He's far more popular than his party or the government - or was, the last time I looked at the figures - and he did achieve quite a bit in turning the Tory party from the shambles of c2005 into a credible political force again. He's proved very adept at managing the Coalition as well, not least in backing the Lib Dems into a corner over the NHS Bill. I hate the man with a passion, but it's a mistake to underestimate him IMO.

Guardian now reporting a third U-turn of the day - they've published the list of Tory donors who've been to Chequers. The aim is to draw a line under the affair - I hope it's more akin to lifting the lid of a pressure cooker! 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/26/chequers-donor-guest-list


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> you can say many justified negative things about mandy, but 'useless at politicking' isn't one of them.



He gains my grudging respect for being such a complete and utterly brilliant master of politicking. The sith bastard.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 26, 2012)

Fallon on C4 News. What a cunt.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

Fallon and Maude, if they're the best the Tory's have got on defensive duties, then the next three years are going to be awful for the pour lambs.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 26, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Fallon and Maude, if they're the best the Tory's have got on defensive duties, then the next three years are going to be awful for the pour lambs.


 
Maude again? Even Janet Daley in the Torygraph is savaging his TV performance. If he's the best they can do, there's hope yet!


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Well, yes in many ways you are right, but he was fired twice and each time it was pretty much for misusing his public office for pals.


 

in each case, he rose again.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Maude again? Even Janet Daley in the Torygraph is savaging his TV performance. If he's the best they can do, there's hope yet!



Lib Dems arent involved, no human shields on this one. The David Davis' lot want nothing to do with Camerons ilk, Fox is out of the game. Hammond can't go out because troops got killed today. Osborne's a no goer. Mensch makes it worse, Dorries doubly so. Their A gamers aren't Premier League


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> in each case, he rose again.



And his biogs not a bad holiday read. The Brown/Blair thing, it's totally sects and the city,


----------



## weltweit (Mar 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> in each case, he rose again.


 
hmm, froth always rises to the top of the glass


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> He was, but whatever else he might be (and he's many things, none of them good!), Cameron is a good politician as well.


he isn't really though, is he? he failed to win an election that was his for the taking, and has floundered pathetically at every single crisis he's come up against in office. cameron as the master politician is a theme that's come up again and again (maybe so many times that people actually believe it?) but there's very little evidence that he's anything other than hopelessly out of his depth.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 26, 2012)

killer b said:


> he isn't really though, is he? he failed to win an election that was his for the taking, and has floundered pathetically at every single crisis he's come up against in office. cameron as the master politician is a theme that's come up again and again (maybe so many times that people actually believe it?) but there's very little evidence that he's anything other than hopelessly out of his depth.


 
I would agree with this. I think Cameron is basically PR-Boy, he has never done anything in his life, he has no experience of leadership to fall back on. His basic achievement, if it could be called one was that he gave a pretty good speech without notes or a teleprompter during the Tory leadership election and that catapulted him forward for a party that was crying out for a clean healthy looking leader.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2012)

crikey. maybe i need to think again then.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 26, 2012)

killer b said:


> he isn't really though, is he? he failed to win an election that was his for the taking, and has floundered pathetically at every single crisis he's come up against in office. cameron as the master politician is a theme that's come up again and again (maybe so many times that people actually believe it?) but there's very little evidence that he's anything other than hopelessly out of his depth.


 
'Master politician' is not a label I'd pin on him, but it's a mistake to suggest he's not skilled at political manoeuvring - certainly more so than his predecessor in No.10, for instance.


----------



## Santino (Mar 26, 2012)

As bad as he is, the Tories will be fucked without him. Who else is going to win over the electorate? Osborne? Gove?


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2012)

i'd have to disagree with you there too, sorry. brown was an incredibly skillful politician.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> 'Master politician' is not a label I'd pin on him, but it's a mistake to suggest he's not skilled at political manoeuvring - certainly more so than his predecessor in No.10, for instance.



Brown and his government were worn down, he came into a decline and hastened it - but the decline began earlier. Cameron is two years in, and already his team appear tarnished and battle weary.


----------



## elbows (Mar 26, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Guardian now reporting a third U-turn of the day - they've published the list of Tory donors who've been to Chequers. The aim is to draw a line under the affair - I hope it's more akin to lifting the lid of a pressure cooker!


 
Releasing the lists this soon interests me, since normally I wonder why politicians leave disclosure so late that it causes more of a shitstorm than if they'd just released it in the first place.

Now we get to see the drawbacks to the early release, the accusations of u-turn, the idea that it might just be the tip of the iceberg, etc.

I still want to know more about Osbornes dining arrangements.

And more of this 'powerful shits fighting each other and ending up in a death spiral' please (in this case Murdoch and Cameron, with a sprinkling of ginger females in supporting roles).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 26, 2012)

Cameron has some skills no one can deny that, but he has not put together a loyal and disciplined expert unit like Blair had, and he doesn't have enough by himself imo - having said that, there is skill and intelligence in the Tory ranks it's just not harnessed by the leadership.


----------



## elbows (Mar 26, 2012)

killer b said:


> i'd have to disagree with you there too, sorry. brown was an incredibly skillful politician.


 
Brown had his strengths but I tend to feel he would have done much better in another era, before the media stuff became quite such a huge aspect of politics. A bruiser whose fights were not so easily won under the bright lights as they would be down a dark alley.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Cameron has some skills no one can deny that, but he has not put together a loyal and disciplined expert unit like Blair had, and he doesn't have enough by himself imo - having said that, there is skill and intelligence in the Tory ranks it's just not harnessed by the leadership.


i'm denying it. he's fucking rubbish.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 26, 2012)

killer b said:


> i'd have to disagree with you there too, sorry. brown was an incredibly skillful politician.


 
... which is why his government was in a state of virtual civil war for much of its life?  Brown was a sledgehammer diplomat: good at steamrollering things through, even against Blair's wishes, when Labour were in a strong position, but not adept as holding a tired and fractious party together.  Brown was - is - far too abrasive and combative a figure to work well in a situation where he actually has to negotiate rather than enforce.



Balbi said:


> Brown and his government were worn down, he came into a decline and hastened it - but the decline began earlier. Cameron is two years in, and already his team appear tarnished and battle weary.


 
They do - and quite right too.  But let's not kid ourselves: it took a skilled operator to make the Coalition agreement - especially one so advantageous to the Tories - and it's taken a fair amount of politicking to hold it together.  I gave the example of the NHS Bill above: Cameron effectively said to the Lib dems, 'bring down the Bill, and you'll provide the next Health Secretary' - and by implication, you'll take all the flak for everything that goes wrong in the NHS from now on.  It's that kind of manoeuvring I'm referring to.

As for killer b's point about him not being able to win an election that was his for the taking, it's a fair point, but party leaders don't win elections by themselves.  In 2010 it was faintly surprising that Cameron's Tories did not manage it: contrast that with the party on Michael 'something of the night' Howard's watch, when they'd never have had an earthly.


----------



## killer b (Mar 26, 2012)

it doesn't take any politicking to hold the coalition together - half of the lib dems are fully supportive, and those that aren't know they're toast if it falls apart.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 26, 2012)

Ahab and the whale.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 26, 2012)

killer b said:


> it doesn't take any politicking to hold the coalition together - half of the lib dems are fully supportive, and those that aren't know they're toast if it falls apart.


 
Doesn't mean they don't have their own foibles and agendas that have to be accommodated and managed.  And what of the Tory right?  DC's not done such a bad job of neutralising them - so far.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Blair was a brilliant leader and master politician, surrounded by equally adept operators like Campbell and Mandelson.


 
There's something you don't hear every day.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2012)

it makes more sense when you realise spanky is on about the business of politics, the schemeing and the managing. Rather than 'good at serving the electorate who pay for their lavish houses and slap up feasts and quite probably their cocaine and sex too'


----------



## savoloysam (Mar 26, 2012)

Cameron was on the news earlier saying after the election he had dinner at his home with some of his party sponsors but they did not have to pay for the privilege. No doubt political agendas weren't on the menu either


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> it makes more sense when you realise spanky is on about the business of politics, the schemeing and the managing. Rather than 'good at serving the electorate who pay for their lavish houses and slap up feasts and quite probably their cocaine and sex too'


 
I think that's what we're all on about, aren't we?!  I certainly don't mean to imply that Cameron is good at anything other than playing the narrow little game that is modern party politics!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> it makes more sense when you realise spanky is on about the business of politics, the schemeing and the managing. Rather than 'good at serving the electorate who pay for their lavish houses and slap up feasts and quite probably their cocaine and sex too'


 
You don't say. And there was me thinking he'd outed himself as a New Labourite.


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2012)

killer b said:


> he isn't really though, is he? he failed to win an election that was his for the taking, and has floundered pathetically at every single crisis he's come up against in office. cameron as the master politician is a theme that's come up again and again (maybe so many times that people actually believe it?) but there's very little evidence that he's anything other than hopelessly out of his depth.


I think that's about right. Labour handed victory to the Tories and still he fluffed it. He might be brilliant at appointing sleazebags and schmoozing the powerful, but he's not so good at hiding it. And they are all so utterly out of touch, they can't help but fuck up.

Decent article by John Harris in the Graun on all this:





> Five days after Osborne delivered the most butterfingered budget in living memory, it's worth reflecting on its ongoing aftershocks, and how neatly they fuse with the Cruddas affair. The questionable idea that the rich would somehow end up paying five times as much tax as they did pre-budget has vanished. Instead, the cut in the top rate is the prism through which every controversial aspect of the budget is now seen, from the ubiquitous granny tax, through the prospect of an extra 1.3 million paying the 40p rate, to Labour's under-reported claim that £500m has been taken out of the NHS. Note also the unsolved question of which senior Tory politicians stand to gain from the end of 50p, talked up most frantically by those two renowned wagers of the class war, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.
> 
> Since late last week, more of the budget's failings have come to light, many of them as much cultural as economic. Wiping £30m off the share price of Greggs bakers via the loading of VAT on to hot pies and pasties was not just an attack on a successful and expanding British company, but a clear indication that the government knows nothing of either Greggs' place on the high street, or its place in millions of lunch breaks. Over the weekend, coverage was also given to a closed loophole that puts VAT on static caravans: the industry concerned employs 6,000 people in the blighted city of Hull, and the change threatens 1,500 jobs. What would Cameron and Osborne know about that?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/25/cruddas-tories-privilege-arrogance


 
I like this Orwell quote he uses at the end.


> It has all reminded me of the words of brilliant Old Etonian George Orwell, in 1941: "It is important not to misunderstand their motives, or one cannot predict their actions. What is to be expected of them is not treachery, or physical cowardice, but stupidity, unconscious sabotage, an infallible instinct for doing the wrong thing. They are not wicked, or not altogether wicked; they are merely unteachable. Only when their money and power are gone will the younger among them begin to grasp what century they are living in."


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> You don't say. And there was me thinking he'd outed himself as a New Labourite.


 
apologies, I'm in a bit of a literal frame of mind today


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 26, 2012)

Early on Cameron played a bad hand fairly well. His main disadvantage with the voters is that he his leader of the fucking horrible tory party - but he just about managed to win over enough people. The tory faliure to win the last election was not down to Cameron - it was becasue too many people see them for the utter cunts they are.

By going into coalition with the lib dems he sidelined the embarassing rabid right of the party (homosexuals! ethnics!) - and played clegg like a fucking piano in getting them top play the role of useful idiots in return for no discernable gain whatsoever for the yellow scum.

On top of that he is in government in the middle of an economic shit storm - so any 'honeymoon' was going to be very short lived.

None of the other tories would have a hope - their all come accross as incredibly arrogant, out of touch and with an over bearing sense of entitlement - they are the natural leaders etc.

However his media and party management is shit. Their polices seem to be written on fag packets and get kicked to shit before they get to be passed: localism/big society, the NHS bill, Goves education plans - and not least that utterly inept budget - aside from the vile politics of it they managed to enrage the usually loyal right wing media with their 'granny tax'. That wouldn't have happened with the old tories - and not with Labour either.
They dont really have a clue on how to manipulate the media - esp in the age of social media etc - they are all at sea.

But where Cameron has serioulsy fucked up is in thinking that his whole cosy, corrupt set up - Coulson and murdoch and blatantly whoring himself out - would go unnocticed. In fact they all seem vaugely suprised that anyone is making a fuss about it - it was the same with Liam Fox.


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In other news a bear was spotted taking a dump in a...





scifisam said:


> ..Pope?









Cameron is completing Fat Cat's mobius strip there, in case anyone was wondering about the symbolism.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 26, 2012)

Just watched Milliband in the commons - he didn't quite tear the tories a new arsehole, but he had a pretty good go - good on the detail and the key points and quitely outraged at the same time - no empty bluster and hyperbole (oh god - imagine kinnock....) , no lame jokes or cheap shots. Labour propogandor miesters should probably go with the Harry potter, clean cut, nerdy but honest thing.


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Just watched Milliband in the commons - he didn't quite tear the tories a new arsehole, but he had a pretty good go - good on the detail and the key points and quitely outraged at the same time - no empty bluster and hyperbole (oh god - imagine kinnock....) , no lame jokes or cheap shots. Labour propogandor miesters should probably go with the Harry potter, clean cut, nerdy but honest thing.





> Fortunately for party balance not even Labour could mess up this one. Kid Miliband delivered his second bravura performance in a week. Do it again and he will face calls for drug tests.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/26/cash-for-access-francis-maude


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2012)

Im sure Kunt and the gang would have something to say on this ...


----------



## elbows (Mar 26, 2012)

This story about Cameron's poor relationship with the tory press seems to fit in with the recent discussion here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/mar/26/tory-press-david-cameron-conservatives


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 27, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Just watched Milliband in the commons - he didn't quite tear the tories a new arsehole, but he had a pretty good go - good on the detail and the key points and quitely outraged at the same time - no empty bluster and hyperbole (oh god - imagine kinnock....) , no lame jokes or cheap shots. Labour propogandor miesters should probably go with the Harry potter, clean cut, nerdy but honest thing.


 

I heard Milipede ranting earlier and made me evaluate how effective the coalition is based on the fact that _even ed milliband is capable of cunting them off effectively. _Sure he didn't tear the multiple new arseholes he could have but ffs, when adnoid man can do you over you know you are shit


----------



## elbows (Mar 28, 2012)

At this stage the decision to release the info fairly quickly seems to have worked.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 29, 2012)

Which is strange because, although I've not seen the lists, tory donors do indeed seem to have been able to buy influence as accused.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> It's the 'leader of the conservative party' thing that gets my goat more than his weird, thin lips


 
He didn't start off with lips like that, but 7 years of being a junior toast-rack at Eton, and taking the members of other Etonians in his mouth in order to escape beatings meant that his lips got worn down, like those of any other flautist.


----------



## laptop (Mar 29, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Which is strange because, although I've not seen the lists, tory donors do indeed seem to have been able to buy influence as accused.


 
I look forward to the next issue of _Private Eye_


----------

