Our Donation Scandals Are Totally Different From Yours...
So Tory leader David Cameron is attacking Peter Hain over undeclared financial donations, is he?Is that the David Cameron whose own local Conservative constituency association recently failed to declare financial donations? Yes, that's the one.
The one whose right-hand man and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne is today caught up in a similar scandal concerning undeclared financial donations? Yes, that's the one.
But apparently that is a completely different matter according to the Tories. And considering the amount Osborne being investigated over is almost 4 times the amount Hain is being criticised over, I can only agree. :-/
As John Major helpfully pointed out, Tory sleaze is completely different to any Labour maybe accused of. It's good to see Cameron following so ably in his predecessor's footsteps on this matter. :-/
-
Labels: george osborne, John Major, Peter Hain, sleaze, tories, witney
posted by Kerron @ 12:23 PM
13 Comments:
This is poor.
I'm a Labour party member and I really don't give a f**k what the tories may or may not be doing.
I do care that our leadership is so blind to the fact that obfuscating sources of funding is straight out of order.
Do we want MP's coming to meetings and saying how important the local party is and members concerns whilst furtively trousering thousands to further their career from people who's motives are at best obscured.
When we are free of sleaze, let's talk about the Tory's then.
If you dont get this: you just dont get it!
I'm not a Labour supporter but Big Andy gets it right.
Lets compare: Cameron's local party find out they accepted a raffle prize/donation from a source they shouldn't have, ?They call up the Electoral Commission own up and pay the forfeit.
The Conservative Party accept donations towards the running of the Shadow Chancellors Office, for which CCHQ employs and pays the staff and pays the bills and declares these to the Electoral Commission, ask if they should declare in HoC Register, told not.
Peter Hain only recalls £103,000 that he had personally asked for when prompted during Abrahams donation ruckus (the £103,000 excludes the £5,000 that prompted this, half of these are through a shady Think Tank that has no signs of activity, then he takes 6 weeks to provide details to Electoral Commission and still doesn't put them on the Register. Not clear that the PPF donors cleared the transfer of donations beforehand nor that PPF fulfilled the requirements of PPERA & the Companies Act on political donations.
Two cases follow the laws, one doesn't.
Ted says it all. Pretty scary for the peter hain fan club.
If I was feeling charitable I'd say this post is the blogging equivalent of going through the motions.
Further from my above post, I'm actually getting pretty annoyed with the smugness emanating from certain quarters of the Labour party re. sleaze.
If we are really honest, we would admit that we have been far more sleazy in government than the Tories were. Primarily I would say this is because Blair’s moral compass was significantly less robust than Major's who I believe eschewed a lot of easy routes out of the Tories sleaze troubles out of a sense of duty to this office. Call me naive but I would rather have Major as treasurer of my local branch than Blair, put it that way!
We don’t have space to list all the myriad episodes of sleaze but Cash for Honour's was plain bad for a start. Nothing of this scale happened under John Major. And then we have blunketts shares, forgotten now, but far worse than many Tory scandals. Ministers should not have shares in companies that benefit from departmental largesse. Particularly when the only reason for them having these shares is because of their ministerial office. That was a very sleazy episode. But there are so many more.
The difference though is actually that much of this sleaze involves senior cabinet ministers and in particular the prime minister.
Neil Hamilton's dealings with Al Fayed had nothing to do with John Major. Jonathan Aitken? The same.
Also, after 13 years of Tony Blair's leadership our party is virtually insolvent and reliant on soft loans from the Co-op bank and support from a few millionaires. We have no HQ to speak off and presumably after the next election things will only be worse on the finance front. What is our current leadership doing to actually secure our party’s future? It has done a pretty poor job of this over the last 13 years and the party has effectively no control over the political leadership.
Basically, what I am really saying is: Can you please explain why you are being so smug on this issue? I don’t get it? After ten years in power we are far more sleazy than the Tories ever were after 17 years and our party has been spending way beyond its means, mortgaging the future of the party in order to pay for grossly in-prudent campaigning.
And before you think i am getting on my high horse, whenever I read about party funding sleaze, I am always reminded of those people who left all they had to the labour party in their wills. Who sacrificed a lifetime of hard work to the party and now everything they gave is subsumed to the next headline whilst the party chases the largesse of multi millionaires who have no connection to the party. It stinks. Our party stinks. And your attitude stinks.
so John Major's moral compass was more robust...
would this be the same John Major who pushed the Back to Basics agenda on family life(justifying cutting benefits to lone parents and their children) after having had an extra-marital affair with Edwina Currie. Hmm, quite an exemplary moral individual.
also shirley porter 'homes for votes'?
This is the reason why I won't have anything to do with Labour. They are quick to point the finger at others and fix their own party.
They are even less inclined to fix the nations problems. Far better to blame John Majors for something (and who cares) than own up to your own wrongs.
Why is the Labour party so smug? They remind me of a bunch of rich kids.
big andy - you sure you are a Labour party member?
You make sensible points - but come on??
You sir, are a cock
Anon 11am.
Totally. An ex CLP Secretary and Council candidate (though was a "kamikaze run").
That's what is making me irate. I really dont care about the Tories, but I really do care that our party - at the highest levels (including NEC) - just does not seem to understand what a conflict of interest is.
My dad was employed in a public capacity (of a very minor sort) and he always said to me: "If someone tries to give you a present based on what you do, as opposed to who you are, you can not take it." And he was right, if years later, it comes to light that in your professional capacity you made a decision of benefit to that person, who can say that the decision was based on the merits of the case alone.
Now I understand that political parties need funding to operate, and that you can never keep this to the members levy, BUT, this only magnify's the importance of full and proper disclosure.
Kerron doesn't do difficult questions.
Try asking about football, toilets, fire drills or summat
'Kerron doesn't do difficult questions.
Try asking about football, toilets, fire drills or summat'
Blunt, I am pissing myself. Genius line...
Didn't labour end the yob culture.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7176471.stm
Post a Comment
<< Home