Food & Drink0 min ago
Dinner with the PM for £100,000? Do they never learn?
27 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ladybirder. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Given the current funding system of parties, any donor making any party over, say, £250k is likely to have access to the party seniors and leader. And yes I include the Labour Party in that viz. their benefactors and the access/undue influence of the major Union leaders...
The system needs to change to being supported out of tax revenue if undue representation is going to be reduced.
The system needs to change to being supported out of tax revenue if undue representation is going to be reduced.
This is the way politics work and ways will be.
It is only relatively recently that MPs have been paid. The old system was that you bought your seat in parliament and took as many bribes as you could get to do 'favors' , very little has changed.
In most countries it has not changed at all, you can still buy your way into most governments of the world.
One of the most obvious current examples being the old USSR or Russian Federation as it is now called.
It is only relatively recently that MPs have been paid. The old system was that you bought your seat in parliament and took as many bribes as you could get to do 'favors' , very little has changed.
In most countries it has not changed at all, you can still buy your way into most governments of the world.
One of the most obvious current examples being the old USSR or Russian Federation as it is now called.
-- answer removed --
As Eddie points out, given that this kind of thing has long been a fundamental institution of politics, and given that David Cameron (like Blair) is almost the perfect caricature of the career politician, I find his protestations of being completely innocent about all this extremely unconvincing and not a little sickening. But then I doubt I'm the only one.
actually, I wouldn't bet that Cameron knew what was going on. Deniability is a key word for politicians: staff deliberately keep them in the dark about messy details so they can truthfully say, if push comes to shove, that they didn't know.
All Cameron will have needed to know about dinner guests is that they were wealthy Conservatives who gave money to the party. That's not improper in itself. In fact, I'd expect a Tory PM to dine with rich Tories. If he's held responsible for any of this it will be in his position as party boss rather than personal responsibility; the latter almost certainly will never be proved.
The issue here is more to do with the mercenary approach: not "The PM always likes to meet supporters" but "Give me a quarter of a million and I'll give you dinner with the PM". It gives the impression - as does the budget - that the government's intention is make the rich richer and ignore those who aren't. This is at odds with their claims that we're all in it together.
All Cameron will have needed to know about dinner guests is that they were wealthy Conservatives who gave money to the party. That's not improper in itself. In fact, I'd expect a Tory PM to dine with rich Tories. If he's held responsible for any of this it will be in his position as party boss rather than personal responsibility; the latter almost certainly will never be proved.
The issue here is more to do with the mercenary approach: not "The PM always likes to meet supporters" but "Give me a quarter of a million and I'll give you dinner with the PM". It gives the impression - as does the budget - that the government's intention is make the rich richer and ignore those who aren't. This is at odds with their claims that we're all in it together.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.