Tory snouts in the trough again

WhiteHorse

headcone wrote: »

What a surprise. Absolute scum.

And who was it who bailed out the Tory banksters?

The socialists.

grizzly1911

WhiteHorse wrote: »

And who was it who bailed out the Tory banksters?

The socialists.

Allowing the banks to go bust would have bankrupted us all. those with deposits would have lost them and those with loans would still have been pursued.

There would have been no money in the system to run society. Funnily enough if UK PLC reneged on its debts no other country would repay us either.

Any "new" money created would have had to be entrusted to someone to "manage" the same donkeys would have ended up in control again anyway.

System

I seem to remember that the big unions were always getting invited to no. 10 when there was a labour prime minister.

Perhaps the reason the tiny guild unions didn't get to the binges was because they didn't contribute as much as, say, the TGW?

pqrdef

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

I seem to remember that the big unions were always getting invited to no. 10 when there was a labour prime minister.

Probably because they were usually on strike.

But many individual Labour MPs were directly funded by, and in the pockets of, individual unions.

Of course the whole idea in the first place was to get people into the Commons who couldn't be self-funding, as other MPs were then.

Somebody has to pay, unless we want politics to go back to being a hobby for rich old men.

Generali

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Allowing the banks to go bust would have bankrupted us all. those with deposits would have lost them and those with loans would still have been pursued.

There would have been no money in the system to run society. Funnily enough if UK PLC reneged on its debts no other country would repay us either.

Any "new" money created would have had to be entrusted to someone to "manage" the same donkeys would have ended up in control again anyway.

Iceland is doing pretty well having refused to bail out rich bankers and middle class savers.

StevieJ

Don't you just wish they would hold their hands up and say 'fair cop'

A Downing Street source said those invited for dinner with the Prime Minister and his wife, Samantha, at Number 11 or Chequers since May 2010 were old friends who just happened to have given money to the party.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/handful-donors-dined-camerons-020930790.html

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Iceland is doing pretty well having refused to bail out rich bankers and middle class savers.

Just the same as a recession is easy to get out of if you are the only country in it

chewmylegoff

pqrdef wrote: »

Somebody has to pay, unless we want politics to go back to being a hobby for rich old men.

yes, but why do political parties need to be funded by large organisations with obvious vested interests? we are past the days now where it was necessary for trades union to fund MPs and political parties. similarly there is no need for political parties to be soliciting large amounts of money from business.

if people want to be members of a political party and to influence its policy, they can join the party and pay the standard subscription to it. if the political party finds that this income doesn't cover its costs then it should (i) cut its costs; and/or (ii) put up its subscription and/or (iii) go and find some more members (presumably by altering its policies it make itself representative of what the electorate wants so that people are actually motivated to join it). maybe the MPs, MSPs, councillors, AMs, MEPs etc could donate more of their salaries to their party.

political parties don't need the large donations to be viable exist and function - they just need them to fund their ridiculous and unnecessary costs, including their extensive propoganda machinery. i'm sure we'd all still manage to find out who we wanted to vote for and go to the polling station without politicians needing to solicit large donations from people seeking to influence policy.

pqrdef

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if the political party finds that this income doesn't cover its costs then it should (i) cut its costs; and/or (ii) put up its subscription and/or (iii) go and find some more members (presumably by altering its policies it make itself representative of what the electorate wants so that people are actually motivated to join it).

None of that will raise enough money to get anybody elected and maintain them in office. Why would anybody join a party? Agreeing with it isn't enough. Wanting it to win isn't enough. People join parties so they can go to local party meetings. In other words, almost nobody wants to join.

GlynD

So the Tory's have their noses in the snout eh?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12127327

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14364037

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8316646/Former-Labour-MP-Eric-Illsley-jailed-over-expenses-scandal.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/05/20/uk-britain-expenses-morley-idUKTRE74J2WY20110520

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259485/Top-Labour-MPs-trapped-TV-sting.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540804/Cash-for-honours-paper-trail-leads-to-Blair.html

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2760