Tories Told to Stop Laundering
Frontbench Cash Through CCHQ
The Tories say that they sought clarification of the rules only to discover that their interpretation was incorrect. That is a patently disingenuous explanation. Osborne's office was found by the Mail on Sunday to have had half-a-million of support from donors channelled quietly via CCHQ. Osborne's office nervously sought clarification of the rules only after the Abrahams proxy donor scandal. The authorities gave them muddled advice which got them off a sticky wicket. In reality anyone honest in politics knows the rules are there to provide transparency, if you are acting opaquely you know it is wrong even if it is legal. The public want to know who is paying so we can judge if policy or favours are being bought.
It turns out that the Tory frontbench is awash with covert cash from vested interests. Mortgage brokers funding the office of the Housing Shadow is pertinent. Cameron gave a high ground speech promising transparency and openness only two months ago. Well get on with it. If this is the finest democracy that money can buy, we want to know at least who is doing the paying. No more shadowy cash, if public money is paying we want receipts for every last single penny.
"Follow the money" is the basic rule of politics, where does the private money come from, where does the public money go? Not hard to understand is it? If donors don't like publicity, don't donate...
It turns out that the Tory frontbench is awash with covert cash from vested interests. Mortgage brokers funding the office of the Housing Shadow is pertinent. Cameron gave a high ground speech promising transparency and openness only two months ago. Well get on with it. If this is the finest democracy that money can buy, we want to know at least who is doing the paying. No more shadowy cash, if public money is paying we want receipts for every last single penny.
"Follow the money" is the basic rule of politics, where does the private money come from, where does the public money go? Not hard to understand is it? If donors don't like publicity, don't donate...
33 comments:
This is public service blogging at its best.
Few here, like few of the public, will like the suggestion that we should just bite the bullet and provide proper state funding of political parties, something which is in itself a massive can of worms. But the perpetually murky waters of political donations do nothing to build trust in the political system, they just feed general cynicism and distrust.
Guido,
Any gossip about the Abrahams investigation? Considering Gordon's admission that a criminal offence had taken place, the Old Bill investigation certainly seems to be taking its time.
As far as I can recall - nobody has been taken in for questioning, no documents have been seized, no arrests etc.... Are the police actually conducting an enquiry or what?
What's the Tories problem? The New Liebour party have been laundering union money and their donors for years. Just ask who and how much was given to try to get that crook Red Ken to be London mayor again, you can't, because the money has been laundered.
Come on DC and GO, don't follow the Bliar/Gorgon path to sleaze via the 'whiter-than-white' soap show!
Treat the voter with respect and honesty and let's finally reverse the trend to dirtier and dirtier politics : a trend that would be the path to a bloody revolution.
it's good to see some balance....while anonymous donations are legitimate... money will always move to where power is or where it might be soon....your job mr fawkes is to shine a spotlight on what goes on....where power is corrupted and where snouts are in the trough and when you do it well you truly act as the fourth estate should.
what worries me is when you start to campaign.... with the london mayoral campaign you almost slipped into "its the sun wot won it" mode...even with the flimsy balance piece on banning drink on public transport afterwards.
even more with john mccain....the man absolutely represents the status quo regards big government...can't you tell people about bob barr....the mans journey towards my idea of libertarianism has been great to see.
keep up the good work...keep the bastards on their toes and looking over their shoulder every second.
Donations to Ken Livingstone were laundered through the Labour Party coffers so I can't think anyone can complain if the Tories do it as well.
Isn't it time that ALL this money is forced to go through some Royal commission that will receive it, break it down into standard sized chunks and then distribute it unnamed to the relevant political party? Difficult to buy influence if no-one can be sure you actually paid what you said you were going to pay.
So when does your campaign on Tort troughing start? This is a million times more clear cut than your nonsense on the Watson family...
I had a good chat in the House of Commons about all this with a senior Tory MP this week. He made a good point. Thus:
- MPs get salaries, plus various allowances to help them do their job
- the salaries are now very low by comparison with other positions of responsibility - another MP told me that a headmaster in his constituency can now earn £100,000 plus. MPs (and most Ambassadors) are well short of that.
- some of the allowances are immediately linked to performing official duties (running an office etc)
- some are indirectly linked, such as an allowance for the cost of renting/buying somewhere in London to use during the week
- it is reasonable to expect full accountability for some allowances, not others (where as long as the money is paid according to the rules that should be the end of it)
- above all it is not fair to publicise the addresses of MPs - there are some reasonable security/privacy issues to think about.
As a former British diplomat I think there are some fair distinctions to be drawn here. At Post all our 'representational' expenses had to be fully documented. But our general allowance for living overseas did not (just as a London Weighting payment is not). That has run for decades without anyone saying that it is unfair or untransparent.
The problem in all this is that because MPs are not paid enough, they end up using allowances for purposes which look more 'private' than public, hence all the rows.
The right answer seems to be to increase MPs' salaries to a more realistic level, then slash and simplify the allowances regimes, making most if not all allowances accountable/transparent. Plus all their Westminster office hirings should be run through Parliament from a central budget to help manage the improper family hirings issue.
Guido plus co-conspirators might not like the idea that MPs get paid more when for many of them dynamite is urgently needed. But if we are to have a Parliament, a scheme on the lines above would be more transparent and NB probably cheaper to the taxpayer when everything is added up...
Listen to all the fucking tories on here trying to deflect the attention onto ken and nulab - The Tory's were the architects of sleaze and nulab have only become successful by following the typical tory traditional of looking after vested interests and getting rich in the process
both parties are now full of a bunch of careerist wankers without any respect for democracy. Bring on state funding for political parties.
Tories with their snouts in the trough? - How novel! Did they have to make some of the Labour porkers budge over? Do the Lib-Dems have enough influence for the gravy train to roll their way as well?
@charles: you've posted in the wrong section. This was about donations to political parties, not allowances.
Tend to agree with you about MP salaries. Something needs to be done. I get paid £75,000 a year but I wouldn't want someone like me elected as an MP! And i wouldn't apply anyway - I'd need to take a pay cut! And of course the MPs salary isn't guaranteed if he loses the next election because his leaders is a twat. Talking of twats - bear in mind the twat that wins "The Apprentice" will be on £100,000 a year. I wouldn't want any of tose fools with their hands on the levers of power.
I think perhaps we should say that the 2015 election will lead to MPs salaries of £150,000 per annum. Maybe that will encourage better quality candidates to step forward. But we also have to get rid of the dreadful party politics system that simply leads to daft groupthink from parties that are 100+ years old, filtering out anyone with new ideas. Not to mention curbing media intrusion which ensures that only a son of a vicar can ever get anywhere near being PM. Who wants a son of a vicar to be PM? Hardly representative is it? But if you've ever done something a bit naughty you are discounted. Guido is completely out of the picture.
Charles, you are sadly deluded or have been taken for a ride. The difference between a Headmaster and an MP is....... any ideas? Any thing? Also, to compare being an MP to other jobs of responsibility again is erroneous as Westminster does not add value.
Can someone actually explain the above accusations that trade union money was 'laundered' for Ken Livingstone's mayoral campaign, or is this just baseless accusations being thrown around?
After all there's nothing wrong with the unions giving money to political campaigns - did something nefarious really happen with Labour and Ken? Or is this just the standard spiel from the union haters?
Charles f*** off
Not before time Guido!Tory sleazeball cunts! Just hope you you keep giving this as much prominence as coxster Cleggy's expenses!
Anonymous asks " Who wants the son of a vicar to be PM ?".
Am I alone in wishing the gorgeously fragrant Ben Bradshaw (son of vicar) to take the next step to greatness?
Why the fuck does Osborne's office need half a million quid?
The root of the problem is that the bastards spend too much money - whether donors' or taxpayers'.
Good to see some balance of reporting regarding snouts in the trough.
Keep the spotlight on these dodgy bastards, Guido - Liebour, Conartists or LimpDems, and let them know the game is up, as far as Joe Public is concerned.
Politicians are attracted by the financial prospects rather than any desire to serve the public regardless of party. Sleaze and corruption will not change with a change in government. All that changes are the companies and Ministers who benefit. It is no longer possible to keep such sleazy dealings secret from the public today. Parliament will be held in ever lower esteem as each succeeding parliament proves sleaze and corruption are endemic in politicians.
I think people are missing the simple point here.... nobody is suggesting the Osborne benifited personally from this.
They can't allow Public funding as that would allow the BNP to get state funding and the amount of Publicity they would be able to Generate with an electorate who clearly do not want the EU nor Mass Immigration would give them a Landslide Victory. These Traitorous ******* are determined to Bring Britain and the British to their Knees.
What was it Commy Straw said 'The British are not worth saving as a race'
We need more People here hence mass mass mass mass immigration.
Yet these EU Trojan Horses have Presided over 6 MILLION Abortions.
Even now Primorolo is Pushing for a Bill allowing her to sterilise British schoolgirls ( Other races will be exempt of course )
Sterilise British Schhoolgirls
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514542&in_page_id=1770
Here is Jack straw again, stirring up Trouble between the British, Divide and ConqEUr.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/596717.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/uk/596703.stm
Just who is this One Worlder working for, Certainly not the British People.
'They are creating a New Race Of People called Europeans'.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
The Elite, numbering hundreds of thousands will preside over an EUSSR divided bland Populace, devoid of national identities, cultures.
Divide and ConqeUr.
A new era of fEUdalism.
Charles raises some very good points.
everyone is quick to criticise how shite this or that MP is and how they don't justify their wage are on the gravy train etc etc -agreed.
but if you want to attract top flight people, and want them to work properly instead of looking at how they can supplement their income, and want good levels of competition to become an MP - then pay them properly -
simple and cost effective.
so often when discussing this subject the politics of envy come to the fore.
Dick - 'westminster does not add value' shows you have the reasoning power of an 12 year old.
Looks like a lot of New Labour trolls on here.
This is not sleaze. A few Conservative donors were collared and asked to donate. When they ask why the money is needed and what it is to be used for they are told that it is for financial policy work, probably mostly reviewing the 700 page Finance Bill and other Treasury documents. So the donors pay this to CCHQ (and the donation is registered with the ELectoral Commission).
I assume that the workers are employed by CCHQ, but work under the direction of George Osborne, in which case I really don't see that there is any need for Osborne to make any further disclosure. They are working under his control but for party policy work. The work is funded by the Conservative party, but the dobnations to pay for it have been recorded.
Does any minister declare the services they receive from civil servants?
Senators get 80k and their job's a little bit harder, you know, what with running the world. Why the intransigence about perhaps cutting their wage?
@dick the prick:"Also, to compare being an MP to other jobs of responsibility again is erroneous as Westminster does not add value."
Yes, but it should. Currently it is costing us trillions. If we put people that knew what they were doing in charge perhaps it would work a bit better? I wouldn't get out of bed for a mere £67,000, and personally I don't think I'm shit hot enough to be running UK PLC. I'd still be better than the imbeciles and incompetent spivs that are running the show. Either we go the whole hog and ask for volunteers (in which case we'd end up with the likes of Peter Tatchell filling the benches) or we pay the proper wage and get decent people in to run the joint.
Back in April I rang the CCHQ 'enquiry line' to ask why one of their candidates was sending out postal vote application forms having replaced the pre-paid return envelope supplied by the local council with one addressed to the local party's office.
The local council told me this was within the letter of the law if not the spirit; CCHQ told me that "if something's within the letter of the law then it's alright." So that's that then.
"Senators get 80k"
Fucking hell. Why do you think the American political system is one of the most corrupt in the world? The whole bloody thing is based on buying influence.
Parliament is controlling about £500bn of our money. If you think you can put a bunch of former sheet metal workers in charge of that kind of cash without them finding novel ways of filling their boots you are nuts. That's why they can be bought.
you'd think they'd be getting ready for government instead of just acting like money grubbing cunts.
better get on top of it dave. I'd ditch ashcroft if I were you, he's a cunt.
At the moment, 80% of legislation is written in Brussells. This becomes absolute if they ratify the treaty. Perhaps we can demand an 80% pay cut if they agree to ratification?
"The problem in all this is that because MPs are not paid enough"
The simple test of whether a certain role is underpaid is the presence of unfilled vacancies.
If every MP resigned today over 'low pay' how many milliseconds do you think it would take before thousands of wannabes volunteered to take on the vacant roles at the same price?
Thus MP's are not underpaid, they are just greedy.
Chad said what I was going to say.
Anyone who claims that MPs are underpaid is an idiot or a stooge.
it is not that mps are underpaid, the problem is that other public servants are overpaid.
council chief executives are paid more than the prime minister.
that makes no sense at all.
infact it is a perverse state of affairs.
I think it is time for a rationalization and streamlining of all management levels in the public sector. severe cutbacks will be inevitable because of all the dead wood, but savings could be ring-fenced for spending on the departments from which those savings were made.
it's time the public stopped funding public sector wastefulness caused by inept, unecessary, buck passing managers.
giving them more money is like giving money to crackheads, they will only waste it.
Post a Comment