advertisement


Tory corruption & sleaze (lobbying, second jobs, dodgy contracts etc)

Here's another question for the panel: how is it possible for somebody to donate £ 4 million to a political party in a civilized West European nation in the 21st century?

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-johnson-to-resign-amid-no-10-party-scandals
John Griffin, taxi tycoon, gave £ 4 million but seems unhappy with his investment and is asking for changes.
Peter Hargreaves of HL fame only donated £ 1 million for the 2019 election but he also sounds unhappy with his investment.
John Cardwell of Phones4U gave half a million before the last election and sounds distinctly grumpy: he mentions hypocrisy, arrogance and rule breaking.

Labour "only" hauled in half of the £ 3.7 million the Tories received in Q3 2021: amateurs.

Collectively, these Tory donors are unhappy. There is more than a suggestion that they will no longer contribute until the CP has defenestrated the Prime Minister. Sounds to me like an attempt to influence who runs the British government.
 
PsB said:
Here's another question for the panel: how is it possible for somebody to donate £ 4 million to a political party in a civilized West European nation in the 21st century?

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-johnson-to-resign-amid-no-10-party-scandals
John Griffin, taxi tycoon, gave £ 4 million but seems unhappy with his investment and is asking for changes.
Peter Hargreaves of HL fame only donated £ 1 million for the 2019 election but he also sounds unhappy with his investment.
John Cardwell of Phones4U gave half a million before the last election and sounds distinctly grumpy: he mentions hypocrisy, arrogance and rule breaking.

Labour "only" hauled in half of the £ 3.7 million the Tories received in Q3 2021: amateurs.

Collectively, these Tory donors are unhappy. There is more than a suggestion that they will no longer contribute until the CP has defenestrated the Prime Minister. Sounds to me like an attempt to influence who runs the British government.
Click to expand...

"yerbut we can vote them out" © @eternumviti - except of course we cannot vote these corruptors out of anything.
 
I've been looking at how other W. European nations work political financing to prevent too much influence by private donors. Here is a summary of the French set-up:
- parties can receive contributions from private persons up to a maximum of 7,500 € per contributor per year
- private companies, foundations, associations and other legal entities can no longer make any contribution, whether financial or in kind.
- the public purse finances directly about 40 political parties (125 M€ in 2018). Half the subsidy is based on the party's score in the first round of the previous parliamentary elections. To qualify, parties have to field candidates in at least 50 out of 577 constituencies and receive at least 1% of votes. The other half is for parties with MPs in the National Assembly, strictly proportional to the number of MPs.
- in addition and for each election, private persons can contribute up to 4,800 € per person per election, and parties can support without any cap. Expensive forms of campaigning (TV & radio ads, and telemarketing, polls etc. less than 6 months before each election) are banned. Each candidate is entitled to a lump sum of 38,000 €, plus 0.15 € per inhabitant in the constituency. Candidates have to keep full accounts for audit. Once the audit is approved by a dedicated commission, candidates that received more than 5% of the 1st round vote receive a refund of up to 47% of their campaign expenses (looks like Anne Hidalgo is going to lose that).
- all candidates must fully disclose their property holdings, financial assets etc. (Incomplete disclosures have caught out quite a few of them.)
- penalties for candidates that breach these limits include forced resignation and ineligibility for up to 3 years, in addition to the usual financial and penal sanctions.

Probably not perfectly fair and full of loopholes, but seems like a decent start.

/a few omissions edited
 
PsB said:
I've been looking at how other W. European nations work political to prevent too much influence by private donors. Here is a summary of the French set-up:
- parties can receive contributions from private persons up to a maximum of 7,500 € per contributor per year
- private companies, foundations, associations and other legal entities can no longer make any contribution, whether financial or in kind.
- the public purse finances directly about 40 political parties (125 M€ in 2018). Half the subsidy is based on the party's score in the first round of the previous parliamentary elections. To qualify, parties have to field candidates in at least 50 out of 577 constituencies and receive at least 1% of votes. The other half is for parties with MPs in the National Assembly, strictly proportional to the number of MPs.
- in addition and for each election, private persons can contribute up to 4,800 € per person per election, and parties can support without any cap. Expensive forms of campaigning (TV & radio ads, and telemarketing, polls etc. less than 6 months before each election) are banned. Each candidate is entitled to a lump sum of 38,000 €, plus 0.15 € per inhabitant in the constituency. Candidates have to keep full accounts for audit. Once the audit is approved by a dedicated commission, candidates that received more than 5% of the 1st round vote receive a refund of up to 47% of their campaign expenses (looks like Anne Hidalgo is going to lose that).
- all candidates must fully disclose their property holdings, financial assets etc. (Incomplete disclosures have caught out quite a few of them.)
- penalties for candidates that breach these limits include forced resignation and ineligibility for up to 3 years, in addition to the usual financial and penal sanctions.

Probably not perfectly fair and loopholes, but seems like a decent start.
Click to expand...
That would make for a rather depleted Westminster as it stands...
 
PsB said:
I've been looking at how other W. European nations work political to prevent too much influence by private donors. Here is a summary of the French set-up:
- parties can receive contributions from private persons up to a maximum of 7,500 € per contributor per year
- private companies, foundations, associations and other legal entities can no longer make any contribution, whether financial or in kind.
- the public purse finances directly about 40 political parties (125 M€ in 2018). Half the subsidy is based on the party's score in the first round of the previous parliamentary elections. To qualify, parties have to field candidates in at least 50 out of 577 constituencies and receive at least 1% of votes. The other half is for parties with MPs in the National Assembly, strictly proportional to the number of MPs.
- in addition and for each election, private persons can contribute up to 4,800 € per person per election, and parties can support without any cap. Expensive forms of campaigning (TV & radio ads, and telemarketing, polls etc. less than 6 months before each election) are banned. Each candidate is entitled to a lump sum of 38,000 €, plus 0.15 € per inhabitant in the constituency. Candidates have to keep full accounts for audit. Once the audit is approved by a dedicated commission, candidates that received more than 5% of the 1st round vote receive a refund of up to 47% of their campaign expenses (looks like Anne Hidalgo is going to lose that).
- all candidates must fully disclose their property holdings, financial assets etc. (Incomplete disclosures have caught out quite a few of them.)
- penalties for candidates that breach these limits include forced resignation and ineligibility for up to 3 years, in addition to the usual financial and penal sanctions.

Probably not perfectly fair and loopholes, but seems like a decent start.
Click to expand...
It'll never catch on. Foreign practices, how ghastly my dear.
 
Just saw the Rigby interview- toe curling right enough. That will be his political epitaph- he hosted a party while the Queen waited to bury her husband. That’s Bullingdon for you.
 
Powell may have said "all political careers end in failure." The Johnsons has been failure from start to finish, he has failed to manage a single thing other than drink wine, eat cheese and unzip his flies.
 
Johnson’s has ended up in the failure of a nation. The damage he has done both economically and socially will likely take decades to undo (assuming it is even possible to avert the ongoing decline into a far-right police state).
 
IIRC he didn’t. Ok he came back as a crooked loan-shark spiv lobbying his crooked party on £39k a day or something absurd, but he had the dignity to resign as PM once he realised his ridiculous Brexit gamble had destroyed the future prospects of the country.
 
John Crace Tweeted: The Fireplace Salesman of the year in 2007

https://twitter.com/JohnJCrace/stat...zpspAAAA&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw==&refsrc=email

Gabriel Pogrund
EXCLUSIVE: Christian Wakeford says Gavin Williamson is the MP who threatened to cancel a new school in his constituency if he voted against govt on free school meals He's categorical: "It was Gavin Williamson" — then education secretary. https://thetimes.co.uk/article/mp-points-finger-at-gavin-williamson-for-school-threat-dfg5kqwzf
 
Mullardman said:
I'd easily believe anything cowardly, stupid and mean from that little shit Williamson.
Click to expand...

They really are all the same though aren't they? I have never seen a cabinet so full of obviously corrupt and self serving people who blatantly demonstrate they think they are above the 'little people' and even their colleagues who dare to stand in their way. Scum is a word oft over used, but in this case it is absolutely 100% the right term for them.
 
ff1d1l said:
Hislop for leader of the opposition
No, make that PM.
Click to expand...

Interesting video. I actually thought Hislop was needlessly hostile to Bernard Jenkin under the circumstances - though probably not without other reasons for taking a certain tone with him. But that Alberto Costa chap seems like a right viperous git, I couldn’t stand to have to deal with him. Good to see a bit of directness, especially later on from Hislop’s colleague, prevail over his slithering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top