Democracy - bought & paid for

[John Drake]

So much focus (and often politically motivated lawmaking) on the subject of Trade Unions funding the Labour Party, while this kind of murky stuff just goes on unchecked.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/in-a-time-of-austerity-should-tories-be-bidding-210000-for-a-signed-photo-of-the-new-cabinet-10362163.html

 

Buying influence? Of course they are! The whole system of political party funding needs a radical overhaul to ensure our democracy isn't owned lock stock and barrel by the rich and powerful.

[Trojan]

But it's what the Tory party are all about.  They don'r really care about policies as long as they have influence.  Being out of power is anathema to the Tories.  Blair pretty much acted like a Tory PM, except instead of giving tax cuts to the well off he redistributed wealth, and spent money on the NHS and social services.  Like any good Tory PM when the US asked for his backing in Afghanistan and Iraq he gave it.  And the Tory press instead of welcoming these actions went out of their way to make sure that Labour didn't benefit from any success the armed forces had.  In the sixties when Wilson witheld British help in Vietnam he was castigated by the Tory press.  

Why was Blair hated so much if he basically behaved like a Tory?. Because he kept them out of power for 13 years, away from all the perks of being in government.  Cameron through his English votes for English MP's bill, altering the constituency boundaries, and interfering with Labour's funding is trying to ensure that England will be virtually a one party state.  And there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop him.  

It's because of this mainly that I was so outraged by Clegg's actions in 2010.  He saw the bait but he didn't see the hook, or if he did he ignored it.  Anyone who remembers the fifties and the eighties and nineties knows that once they're in the take some shifting, because they take steps to ensure they stay in come hell or high water.

[Ramite]

Like any other party they want to be in power , much like Labour. Part of the reason the Tories are in power and could win again in 2020 is partly down to the pathetic opposition.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record DC can't adjust the boundaries it is done independently. He can then say yes or no to what is presented.

[Trojan]

Like any other party they want to be in power , much like Labour. Part of the reason the Tories are in power and could win again in 2020 is partly down to the pathetic opposition.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record DC can't adjust the boundaries it is done independently. He can then say yes or no to what is presented.

But if he doesn't like the boundaries he can refuse to accept them, and he is trying to marginalise the Scots Nats, and he is trying to interfere with Labour;s funding.  Labour were in for 13 years with for the first two terms huge majorities, they didn't try to interfere with the Tories' funding.  The reason the rich pay huge sums to support the Tories is because they know they can influence policy.  The prime example is early in the last Parliament when the Forgemasters loan was cancelled.  It was one of their competitors, a huge Tory donor who got it cancelled, presumably because it was against his interests.  

Randolph Churchill late in the nineteenth century kept the Tories in power for 18 years, by playing "the Orange card."  It was a good move for the Tories and a disaster in the long run for the country, we're still living with the consequences.  That's what Cameron's doing.  They pretend to be super patriots, but they're not, they're grubby little opportunists, for sale to the highest bidder.  Always have been. Always will be.

[Ramite]

He can just like any other PM could , its one of the advantages of being in power. The problem Labour have the current boundaries unfairly favour them so any adjustment will favour generally , though not always the Tories.Probably the reason Labour didn't do anything for 13 years was Tony B was quite cosy with big business , the lax regulation of the banking industry started on his watch. Those who pay huge sums will want to influence policy. Look at Bernie E and tobacco sponsorship. This sort of thing isnt limited to the Tories. Look at the murky world of lobbying it covers all the parties. Look at the unions they expect influence within the Labour party , they helped get Ed M elected. The labour party are equally grubby. How can this be solved ? Maybe general taxation could fund the parties ?

[Griff9of13]

I agree about publicly funding political parties, however it begs the question how do you divided up the money without blocking new parties from forming?

[Stan Doffarf]

.Probably the reason Labour didn't do anything for 13 years was Tony B was quite cosy with big business , the lax regulation of the banking industry started on his watch.

 

Started on Blair's watch? Utter nonsense.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

[Ramite]

Lax yes , the seeds of the last banking collapse were sown under brown and Blair. 13 years they had to get a grip and they chose not to.

[Ramite]

I agree about publicly funding political parties, however it begs the question how do you divided up the money without blocking new parties from forming?

Based on membership numbers or maybe allow a small base line of party funding.

[Griff9of13]

Lax yes , the seeds of the last banking collapse were sown under brown and Blair. 13 years they had to get a grip and they chose not to.

No, the seeds were sown much earlier. It all goes back to the deregulation of the financial industry introduced by Thatcher in 1986. And let's not forget that during the Blair/Brown years the only input from the Tories was to call for less intervention not more. Had they been in power in 2007 things may have been far worse.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Until 2007 the banking sector was seen by just about everyone right round the world who mattered as the goose that layed the golden egg. Only a small handful of economists were flagging up the dangers and they were dismissed as doom mongering nutters. Most believed that the money tree would continue to bear fruit for the rest of time. I was working for a subsidiary of Barclays in 2005 - 2007 and my then manager and I figured out what was about to happen, all the signs were there that the house of cards was about to tumble. All the major world economics were built on a culture of credit and it was, at that level, unsustainable.

[Ramite]

Had the Tories called for more regulation they would have been ignored. There is plenty of blame to go around Tory and Labour and other regulators over the years.

[JohnM]

So much focus (and often politically motivated lawmaking) on the subject of Trade Unions funding the Labour Party, while this kind of murky stuff just goes on unchecked.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/in-a-time-of-austerity-should-tories-be-bidding-210000-for-a-signed-photo-of-the-new-cabinet-10362163.html

 

Buying influence? Of course they are! The whole system of political party funding needs a radical overhaul to ensure our democracy isn't owned lock stock and barrel by the rich and powerful.

Is that it? Might it be worth remembering that at the ballot box the electorate preferred the solution offered by the Conservative Party? I expect your response will be to express the view that the current voting system is "unfair" but in reality, it just seems like sour grapes from those who wanted, and even expected, a Conservative defeat.

[Trojan]

Lax yes , the seeds of the last banking collapse were sown under brown and Blair. 13 years they had to get a grip and they chose not to.

The seeds of the banking collapse were sown under Thatcher.  All Brown and Blair did was carry on where she left off.  The difference was that the proceeds instead of being hived off for tax cuts for the rich, were ploughed into schools and hospitals.  As for lax regulation, before the crash Cameron and Osborne were calling for less not more regulation.

[Biff]

Blair is about as crooked as it is possible to get, both in and out of office. Have people forgotten about cash for honours already? The Hinduja brothers ring a bell? The truth is that throughout history, Labour governments always leave the UK economy in worse shape than they found it, often they totally trash it as they did in the 70s and the last decade. Also surprised that people think Blair and Brown 'invested' tax receipts in schools and hospitals. They did no such thing, they farmed it through the private sector in off-book PFI contracts which will take 30 years of paying through the nose to clear. You might be surprised to learn that the Major government ruled out PFI as a viable procurement mechanism because it did not give good value to the taxpayer. They made that decision despite being skint too, Blair and Brown chose PFI during a time of unprecedented tax income rolling in.

The biggest problem for any political party on the Left is to convince anyone if they are relevant anymore. What argument are they trying to win?

[WearyRhino]

Is that it? Might it be worth remembering that at the ballot box the electorate preferred the solution offered by the Conservative Party? I expect your response will be to express the view that the current voting system is "unfair" but in reality, it just seems like sour grapes from those who wanted, and even expected, a Conservative defeat.

The fact remains that 76% did NOT prefer the solution offered by the Tory party.

[Trojan]

Blair is about as crooked as it is possible to get, both in and out of office. Have people forgotten about cash for honours already? The Hinduja brothers ring a bell? The truth is that throughout history, Labour governments always leave the UK economy in worse shape than they found it, often they totally trash it as they did in the 70s and the last decade. Also surprised that people think Blair and Brown 'invested' tax receipts in schools and hospitals. They did no such thing, they farmed it through the private sector in off-book PFI contracts which will take 30 years of paying through the nose to clear. You might be surprised to learn that the Major government ruled out PFI as a viable procurement mechanism because it did not give good value to the taxpayer. They made that decision despite being skint too, Blair and Brown chose PFI during a time of unprecedented tax income rolling in.

The biggest problem for any political party on the Left is to convince anyone if they are relevant anymore. What argument are they trying to win?

Increasing NHS waiting lists and waiting times, unemployed people being victimised, the bedroom tax, low pay, trades union rights being threatened, I could go on, but a party of the left is certainly relevant.  Without the threat of losing power we'd be back in the nineteenth century and sending kids up chimneys again (or the equivalent)

[Biff]

Increasing NHS waiting lists and waiting times, unemployed people being victimised, the bedroom tax, low pay, trades union rights being threatened, I could go on, but a party of the left is certainly relevant. Without the threat of losing power we'd be back in the nineteenth century and sending kids up chimneys again (or the equivalent)

Clearing Labour debt is expensive isn't it. The Tories have removed more people from paying any income tax in 5 years than Labour did in 13! Brown never increased the inheritance tax threshold or stamp duty and creamed in billions that way. And don't forget Brown introduced tax on pension funds too, nice touch that from the party of 'the people'.

[Bedford Roughyed]

You tell 'em Biff. Paying back the debt is the number 1 priority, that's why we need tough policies on reducing inheritance tax...

[Biff]

You tell 'em Biff. Paying back the debt is the number 1 priority, that's why we need tough policies on reducing inheritance tax...

Inheritance tax is inherently unjust. Taxing you because you die.

[ckn]

Y'see, when you come on here and post inflammatory things then you tend to get the attention of a moderator or administrator.  That then gets us looking at the banned member tools and then we ban you all over again.

[Bob8]

Had the Tories called for more regulation they would have been ignored. There is plenty of blame to go around Tory and Labour and other regulators over the years.

You are right they would have been ignored. They would also have been ignored if they called for the abolishment of private property. Both were unlikely to be called for.

Both are culpable for allowing it to happen, the Conservatives through dogma and Labour through timidity.

And the signs were there. The sub-prime lenders heavily insured themselves as it was an insurance scam. The insurers and banks were either willfully stupid or having to keep up with bankers who were. And there was no reward for being right.

[Bob8]

Inheritance tax is inherently unjust. Taxing you because you die.

Tax is typically placed on the transfer of funds. No one has been taxed for dying.

[Bedford Roughyed]

You'd think the Tories would be in favour of a 100% inheritance tax? After all everyone should be capable of making it from the bottom to the top...

[Trojan]

You are right they would have been ignored. They would also have been ignored if they called for the abolishment of private property. Both were unlikely to be called for.

Both are culpable for allowing it to happen, the Conservatives through dogma and Labour through timidity.

And the signs were there. The sub-prime lenders heavily insured themselves as it was an insurance scam. The insurers and banks were either willfully stupid or having to keep up with bankers who were. And there was no reward for being right.

You are right of course. Someone should have seen it coming.  But the government didn't see it coming, the Civil Service didn't see it coming, the Bank of England didn't see it coming and the Tories didn't see it coming. Whenever there's a crash, it's because no one saw it coming.

[Bedford Roughyed]