QuoteTory Peter Cruddas sold access to PM, Sunday Times alleges
Conservative Party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas offered access to the prime minister and chancellor for £250,000, the Sunday Times has alleged.
It has footage of him apparently making the offer to undercover reporters.
London-based Mr Cruddas was appointed Tory co-treasurer in June 2011 and is the founder of online trading company Currency Management Consultants Ltd.
The Conservative Party said it would investigate but pointed out no donation had actually been accepted.
Labour has challenged the Prime Minister to "come clean" about what he knew about the matter, and when he knew of it.
In the footage, Mr Cruddas is heard discussing what access different size donations would get.
"Two hundred grand to 250 is Premier League... what you would get is, when we talk about your donations the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron/Osborne dinners," he says.
"You do really pick up a lot of information and when you see the Prime Minister, you're seeing David Cameron, not the Prime Minister.
"But within that room everything is confidential - you can ask him practically any question you want.
"If you're unhappy about something, we will listen to you and put it into the policy committee at number 10 - we feed all feedback to the policy committee."
Labour questions
A statement from the Tories said: "No donation was ever accepted or even formally considered by the Conservative Party.
"All donations to the Conservative Party have to comply with requirements of electoral law, and these are strictly enforced by our compliance department."
The BBC was unable to contact Mr Cruddas via the Conservative Party.
Labour MP Michael Dugher said: "Time and again the Tory party has been the obstacle to capping donations from wealthy individuals. Now it appears obvious why.
"David Cameron should come clean. Will the PM say exactly what he knew and when about an apparent effort to sell access and influence in Downing Street?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17501618
There's a video on the link.
'Things will open up for you...It'll be awesome for your business.' I don't think that's just because of the photo with Cameron.
The actual story's in the Sunday Times (Murdoch's revenge? :o) so it's paywalled I'm afraid.
Well it didn't take long for the Tories to start falling apart.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2012, 07:40:51 PM
Well it didn't take long for the Tories to start falling apart.
No, I think this is advertising; there saying we're open to Any offers. <_<
That was essentially the previous governor's slogan here. "Missouri is open for business". The guy was such a failure he didn't even try to get re elected. I suppose it didn't help that one of the largest energy companies in the state was represented by his brother. Said business also accidently destroyed a state park due to negligence. Lucky nobody was killed in that fiasco. Now they want to build a new nuclear power plant. Well maybe. They want to have the money to build it, they aren't sure they are actually going to build it.
Cruddas has resigned. When a story claims a scalp the same night I think it's going to be a big one:
QuoteTory co-treasurer Peter Cruddas resigns over cash for access to prime minister
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2012%2F3%2F25%2F1332635484828%2FPeter-Cruddas-008.jpg&hash=1eca5b57d31255739f47cb502439b0c3ad0cc911)
Peter Cruddas, the Tory party co-treasurer, who has resigned after footage emerged of him apparently offering accesss to the PM for cash. Photograph: Eamonn McCabe for the Observer
The Tory party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas has resigned after it was revealed he was offering access to the prime minister and chancellor for up to £250,000. He was forced out after footage emerged of him apparently making the offer to undercover reporters.
In his resignation statement last night the senior Conservative official responsible for collecting donations for the party said he deeply regretted the repercussions of his "bluster" during the recorded conversations. He added: "Clearly there is no question of donors being able to influence policy or gain undue access to politicians. Specifically, it was categorically not the case that I could offer, or that David Cameron would consider, any access as a result of a donation. Similarly, I have never knowingly even met anyone from the Number 10 policy unit.
"But in order to make that clear beyond doubt, I have regrettably decided to resign with immediate effect."
Cruddas, the founder of online trading company Currency Management Consultants, is heard discussing how much access different-sized donations would get, during an undercover operation run by the Sunday Times.
In the footage, he is heard to say: "Two hundred grand to 250 is premier league ... what you would get is, when we talk about your donations the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron/Osborne dinners.
"You do really pick up a lot of information and when you see the prime minister, you're seeing David Cameron, not the prime minister. But within that room everything is confidential – you can ask him practically any question you want.
"If you're unhappy about something, we will listen to you and put it into the policy committee at No 10 – we feed all feedback to the policy committee."
A Tory party source said Cruddas's position had been made untenable by the revelations. He added: "He has only been in position for three weeks but has clearly gone over the top and well beyond anything that would be tolerable to the party. It appears a case of him showing off."
The newspaper claims the offer was made even though Cruddas knew the money would come from a fund in Liechtenstein that was not eligible to make donations under electoral law. Options said to have been discussed included creating a British subsidiary or using UK employees as conduits. The overseas clients were, in fact, reporters posing as wealth fund executives who had made clear they wished to develop contacts with the prime minister and other senior ministers to further their business.
The revelations will be a considerable embarrassment for the government, especially in the wake of claims in the budget of a crackdown on wealth in offshore havens. Cameron has also made political mileage out of his intention to run a sleaze-free government.
In the last 18 months there have been three major resignations: the chief secretary to the treasury, David Laws, energy secretary Chris Huhne and defence secretary Liam Fox.
During a three-month investigation the Sunday Times claims to have hired Sarah Southern, a former Cameron aide now working as a lobbyist, who advised that making a "huge donation" was the best way to gain access to senior government figures. Her connections are said to have led to a two-hour meeting with Cruddas this month in which he laid bare the extent to which the party has been prepared to sell access to Cameron.
Last night Cruddas said he had acted without the knowledge of the leadership of the party. A Tory spokesman added: "No donation was ever accepted or even formally considered by the Conservative party. All donations to the party have to comply with requirements of electoral law, and these are strictly enforced by our compliance department."
The disclosures appear to contradict previous claims by the Conservatives that their high-value donor groups, such as the "leader's group", are for genuine supporters who do not seek to influence policy in return for their cash.
They also raise questions about the role of the prime minister. Months before taking office, Cameron warned that this type of "secret corporate lobbying" was the "next big scandal waiting to happen".
Yet the Sunday Times claims the meetings, at which Cruddas claimed "premier league" donors could lobby the prime minister directly, have not been declared to the public.
Cruddas, who built a £750m fortune through financial spread-betting, is also a member of the party's controlling board.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2012, 08:35:34 PM
Cruddas has resigned. When a story claims a scalp the same night I think it's going to be a big one:
QuoteTory co-treasurer Peter Cruddas resigns over cash for access to prime minister
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2012%2F3%2F25%2F1332635484828%2FPeter-Cruddas-008.jpg&hash=1eca5b57d31255739f47cb502439b0c3ad0cc911)
Peter Cruddas, the Tory party co-treasurer, who has resigned after footage emerged of him apparently offering accesss to the PM for cash. Photograph: Eamonn McCabe for the Observer
The Tory party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas has resigned after it was revealed he was offering access to the prime minister and chancellor for up to £250,000. He was forced out after footage emerged of him apparently making the offer to undercover reporters.
In his resignation statement last night the senior Conservative official responsible for collecting donations for the party said he deeply regretted the repercussions of his "bluster" during the recorded conversations. He added: "Clearly there is no question of donors being able to influence policy or gain undue access to politicians. Specifically, it was categorically not the case that I could offer, or that David Cameron would consider, any access as a result of a donation. Similarly, I have never knowingly even met anyone from the Number 10 policy unit.
"But in order to make that clear beyond doubt, I have regrettably decided to resign with immediate effect."
Cruddas, the founder of online trading company Currency Management Consultants, is heard discussing how much access different-sized donations would get, during an undercover operation run by the Sunday Times.
In the footage, he is heard to say: "Two hundred grand to 250 is premier league ... what you would get is, when we talk about your donations the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron/Osborne dinners.
"You do really pick up a lot of information and when you see the prime minister, you're seeing David Cameron, not the prime minister. But within that room everything is confidential – you can ask him practically any question you want.
"If you're unhappy about something, we will listen to you and put it into the policy committee at No 10 – we feed all feedback to the policy committee."
A Tory party source said Cruddas's position had been made untenable by the revelations. He added: "He has only been in position for three weeks but has clearly gone over the top and well beyond anything that would be tolerable to the party. It appears a case of him showing off."
The newspaper claims the offer was made even though Cruddas knew the money would come from a fund in Liechtenstein that was not eligible to make donations under electoral law. Options said to have been discussed included creating a British subsidiary or using UK employees as conduits. The overseas clients were, in fact, reporters posing as wealth fund executives who had made clear they wished to develop contacts with the prime minister and other senior ministers to further their business.
The revelations will be a considerable embarrassment for the government, especially in the wake of claims in the budget of a crackdown on wealth in offshore havens. Cameron has also made political mileage out of his intention to run a sleaze-free government.
In the last 18 months there have been three major resignations: the chief secretary to the treasury, David Laws, energy secretary Chris Huhne and defence secretary Liam Fox.
During a three-month investigation the Sunday Times claims to have hired Sarah Southern, a former Cameron aide now working as a lobbyist, who advised that making a "huge donation" was the best way to gain access to senior government figures. Her connections are said to have led to a two-hour meeting with Cruddas this month in which he laid bare the extent to which the party has been prepared to sell access to Cameron.
Last night Cruddas said he had acted without the knowledge of the leadership of the party. A Tory spokesman added: "No donation was ever accepted or even formally considered by the Conservative party. All donations to the party have to comply with requirements of electoral law, and these are strictly enforced by our compliance department."
The disclosures appear to contradict previous claims by the Conservatives that their high-value donor groups, such as the "leader's group", are for genuine supporters who do not seek to influence policy in return for their cash.
They also raise questions about the role of the prime minister. Months before taking office, Cameron warned that this type of "secret corporate lobbying" was the "next big scandal waiting to happen".
Yet the Sunday Times claims the meetings, at which Cruddas claimed "premier league" donors could lobby the prime minister directly, have not been declared to the public.
Cruddas, who built a £750m fortune through financial spread-betting, is also a member of the party's controlling board.
Good news and bad news, it certainly holes below the waterline Camerons claim to being an honest guy you can trust.
Incidentally is it just me, or does that guy in the photo, just ooozzz slime-ball ?
I know. With looks like that and making his millions out of spread betting, what could go wrong? :P
What cameron? James Cameron or Cameron Diaz?
That's nice to see Tories are branching out from their traditional sex scandal area.
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 08:44:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2012, 08:35:34 PM
Cruddas has resigned. When a story claims a scalp the same night I think it's going to be a big one:
QuoteTory co-treasurer Peter Cruddas resigns over cash for access to prime minister
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2012%2F3%2F25%2F1332635484828%2FPeter-Cruddas-008.jpg&hash=1eca5b57d31255739f47cb502439b0c3ad0cc911)
Peter Cruddas, the Tory party co-treasurer, who has resigned after footage emerged of him apparently offering accesss to the PM for cash. Photograph: Eamonn McCabe for the Observer
The Tory party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas has resigned after it was revealed he was offering access to the prime minister and chancellor for up to £250,000. He was forced out after footage emerged of him apparently making the offer to undercover reporters.
In his resignation statement last night the senior Conservative official responsible for collecting donations for the party said he deeply regretted the repercussions of his "bluster" during the recorded conversations. He added: "Clearly there is no question of donors being able to influence policy or gain undue access to politicians. Specifically, it was categorically not the case that I could offer, or that David Cameron would consider, any access as a result of a donation. Similarly, I have never knowingly even met anyone from the Number 10 policy unit.
"But in order to make that clear beyond doubt, I have regrettably decided to resign with immediate effect."
Cruddas, the founder of online trading company Currency Management Consultants, is heard discussing how much access different-sized donations would get, during an undercover operation run by the Sunday Times.
In the footage, he is heard to say: "Two hundred grand to 250 is premier league ... what you would get is, when we talk about your donations the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron/Osborne dinners.
"You do really pick up a lot of information and when you see the prime minister, you're seeing David Cameron, not the prime minister. But within that room everything is confidential – you can ask him practically any question you want.
"If you're unhappy about something, we will listen to you and put it into the policy committee at No 10 – we feed all feedback to the policy committee."
A Tory party source said Cruddas's position had been made untenable by the revelations. He added: "He has only been in position for three weeks but has clearly gone over the top and well beyond anything that would be tolerable to the party. It appears a case of him showing off."
The newspaper claims the offer was made even though Cruddas knew the money would come from a fund in Liechtenstein that was not eligible to make donations under electoral law. Options said to have been discussed included creating a British subsidiary or using UK employees as conduits. The overseas clients were, in fact, reporters posing as wealth fund executives who had made clear they wished to develop contacts with the prime minister and other senior ministers to further their business.
The revelations will be a considerable embarrassment for the government, especially in the wake of claims in the budget of a crackdown on wealth in offshore havens. Cameron has also made political mileage out of his intention to run a sleaze-free government.
In the last 18 months there have been three major resignations: the chief secretary to the treasury, David Laws, energy secretary Chris Huhne and defence secretary Liam Fox.
During a three-month investigation the Sunday Times claims to have hired Sarah Southern, a former Cameron aide now working as a lobbyist, who advised that making a "huge donation" was the best way to gain access to senior government figures. Her connections are said to have led to a two-hour meeting with Cruddas this month in which he laid bare the extent to which the party has been prepared to sell access to Cameron.
Last night Cruddas said he had acted without the knowledge of the leadership of the party. A Tory spokesman added: "No donation was ever accepted or even formally considered by the Conservative party. All donations to the party have to comply with requirements of electoral law, and these are strictly enforced by our compliance department."
The disclosures appear to contradict previous claims by the Conservatives that their high-value donor groups, such as the "leader's group", are for genuine supporters who do not seek to influence policy in return for their cash.
They also raise questions about the role of the prime minister. Months before taking office, Cameron warned that this type of "secret corporate lobbying" was the "next big scandal waiting to happen".
Yet the Sunday Times claims the meetings, at which Cruddas claimed "premier league" donors could lobby the prime minister directly, have not been declared to the public.
Cruddas, who built a £750m fortune through financial spread-betting, is also a member of the party's controlling board.
Good news and bad news, it certainly holes below the waterline Camerons claim to being an honest guy you can trust.
Incidentally is it just me, or does that guy in the photo, just ooozzz slime-ball ?
I have nothing to add at the moment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2012, 03:00:52 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 08:44:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2012, 08:35:34 PM
Cruddas has resigned. When a story claims a scalp the same night I think it's going to be a big one:
QuoteTory co-treasurer Peter Cruddas resigns over cash for access to prime minister
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2012%2F3%2F25%2F1332635484828%2FPeter-Cruddas-008.jpg&hash=1eca5b57d31255739f47cb502439b0c3ad0cc911)
Peter Cruddas, the Tory party co-treasurer, who has resigned after footage emerged of him apparently offering accesss to the PM for cash. Photograph: Eamonn McCabe for the Observer
The Tory party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas has resigned after it was revealed he was offering access to the prime minister and chancellor for up to £250,000. He was forced out after footage emerged of him apparently making the offer to undercover reporters.
In his resignation statement last night the senior Conservative official responsible for collecting donations for the party said he deeply regretted the repercussions of his "bluster" during the recorded conversations. He added: "Clearly there is no question of donors being able to influence policy or gain undue access to politicians. Specifically, it was categorically not the case that I could offer, or that David Cameron would consider, any access as a result of a donation. Similarly, I have never knowingly even met anyone from the Number 10 policy unit.
"But in order to make that clear beyond doubt, I have regrettably decided to resign with immediate effect."
Cruddas, the founder of online trading company Currency Management Consultants, is heard discussing how much access different-sized donations would get, during an undercover operation run by the Sunday Times.
In the footage, he is heard to say: "Two hundred grand to 250 is premier league ... what you would get is, when we talk about your donations the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron/Osborne dinners.
"You do really pick up a lot of information and when you see the prime minister, you're seeing David Cameron, not the prime minister. But within that room everything is confidential – you can ask him practically any question you want.
"If you're unhappy about something, we will listen to you and put it into the policy committee at No 10 – we feed all feedback to the policy committee."
A Tory party source said Cruddas's position had been made untenable by the revelations. He added: "He has only been in position for three weeks but has clearly gone over the top and well beyond anything that would be tolerable to the party. It appears a case of him showing off."
The newspaper claims the offer was made even though Cruddas knew the money would come from a fund in Liechtenstein that was not eligible to make donations under electoral law. Options said to have been discussed included creating a British subsidiary or using UK employees as conduits. The overseas clients were, in fact, reporters posing as wealth fund executives who had made clear they wished to develop contacts with the prime minister and other senior ministers to further their business.
The revelations will be a considerable embarrassment for the government, especially in the wake of claims in the budget of a crackdown on wealth in offshore havens. Cameron has also made political mileage out of his intention to run a sleaze-free government.
In the last 18 months there have been three major resignations: the chief secretary to the treasury, David Laws, energy secretary Chris Huhne and defence secretary Liam Fox.
During a three-month investigation the Sunday Times claims to have hired Sarah Southern, a former Cameron aide now working as a lobbyist, who advised that making a "huge donation" was the best way to gain access to senior government figures. Her connections are said to have led to a two-hour meeting with Cruddas this month in which he laid bare the extent to which the party has been prepared to sell access to Cameron.
Last night Cruddas said he had acted without the knowledge of the leadership of the party. A Tory spokesman added: "No donation was ever accepted or even formally considered by the Conservative party. All donations to the party have to comply with requirements of electoral law, and these are strictly enforced by our compliance department."
The disclosures appear to contradict previous claims by the Conservatives that their high-value donor groups, such as the "leader's group", are for genuine supporters who do not seek to influence policy in return for their cash.
They also raise questions about the role of the prime minister. Months before taking office, Cameron warned that this type of "secret corporate lobbying" was the "next big scandal waiting to happen".
Yet the Sunday Times claims the meetings, at which Cruddas claimed "premier league" donors could lobby the prime minister directly, have not been declared to the public.
Cruddas, who built a £750m fortune through financial spread-betting, is also a member of the party's controlling board.
Good news and bad news, it certainly holes below the waterline Camerons claim to being an honest guy you can trust.
Incidentally is it just me, or does that guy in the photo, just ooozzz slime-ball ?
I have nothing to add at the moment.
Thank you for letting us know.
Cruddas' scalp is not going to impress the other chaps down at the lodge :huh:
The guy looks like he could play a devil on some modern scifi show.
Btw, is Sunday Times Murdoch-owned? If so, this looks like a big revenge/warning thing.
Quote from: Siege on March 25, 2012, 01:25:22 AM
What cameron? James Cameron or Cameron Diaz?
I thought it was Cash for Cameroon.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent7.flixster.com%2Fquestion%2F56%2F92%2F96%2F5692961_std.jpg&hash=b54fbc2a37f9aee2fc256d78f777c87b1b66517a)
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2012, 02:50:19 AM
That's nice to see Tories are branching out from their traditional sex scandal area.
Well now they're okay with the gays there's very few sex scandals left. When the government started the Tory Prisons Minister announced that he was divorcing his wife because he's gay. Then he grew a beard. But he's still Prisons Minister.
QuoteBtw, is Sunday Times Murdoch-owned? If so, this looks like a big revenge/warning thing.
Yep. The Sun in Scotland also looks like it'll endorse independence :lol:
The PM's made a statement and ordered an inquiry. Which normally takes more than 24 hours. Maybe there's more on this and Cameron wants to get ahead of it.
I thought this on the collapse of the Tory press was interesting. For what it's worth I agree with their critique of Cameron:
QuoteCameron-bashing shows 'the Tory press' ain't what it used to be
The Mail, Telegraph and Sun's recent hostility to Cameron and George Osborne shows a new detachment from the Tory party
Once it was accepted by everyone that there was an entity known as "the Tory press". The old barons in the last century may have played fast and loose within the Conservative fold, but they never kicked it hard enough to cause any real problems.
Gradually, however, the newspapers of the right have detached themselves from any semblance of party allegiance.
Now they have no care to preserve the Tory party at all costs. They wish to refashion it and feel emboldened enough to rage at what they believe are its shortcomings apparently heedless of the ramifications.
Never has this been more obvious than in the reaction to the budget, and the furore over the enforced resignation of the party's co-treasurer, Peter Cruddas.
The Daily Mail has given David Cameron the biggest kicking of all in the past week. But the Daily Telegraph and the Sun have put on their hobnail boots too.
It would appear that the true blue press is true only to itself, and certainly bluer than the Tories that they helped, without much enthusiasm, into power.
Not that Cameron achieved sole power, of course. He had to settle for a coalition with the Lib Dems and that failure to secure victory is part of this story of newspaper disillusion with him and his administration. As far as the editors of the right-wing papers are concerned, Cameron has let them down. Not that they expected much of him anyway.
It was easy to detect a faint-heartedness among the trio during the general election campaign, and they have never warmed to him since. He just isn't their kind of man.
The editors and columnists of the Mail, Telegraph and Sun hanker for the meritocratic virtues that transformed the Conservatives in the Thatcher era. They stood four-square with her as she dispensed with the grouse moor crew who had risen through privilege. Now they think Cameron is too close to that old style of Tory.
Worse, they believe him guilty of grafting on to his own privileged background a concern for touchy-feely conservatism, tinged with concern for the environment, that make editors like the Mail's Paul Dacre scream with rage.
The language employed in today's leading article in the Mail was hugely significant. "The stench of hypocrisy is almost overpowering," it said.
Though it called him as "a highly capable prime minister in many ways" – a calculated qualification – it pointed to his "worrying track record of appointing questionable people to important jobs".
More telling still was the reference to Cameron's "soignée wife ... playing hostess at cosy dinner parties at No 10". It is a class-based insult, a criticism rooted in the Camerons' background that Mail readers could instantly grasp.
A second Mail leader then laid into the chancellor, George Osborne, for "the outrageous "granny tax". It was a reminder of the Mail's post-budget front page: "Osborne picks the pockets of pensioners."
That condemnation was echoed in the Sun, whose its own hostile reaction to the budget included a page one cartoon lampooning Osborne with an accusation that he had "clobbered the masses of hard-grafting Brits in a budget that boosted super-earners".
Once again, it was a message about social class distinction. The Sun was delivering a broadside by suggesting that an old Etonian could not possibly grasp the problems of the working class. The Sun can be accused of hypocrisy on that count, but its readers are unlikely to bother about that, so the paper felt confident in championing their cause.
The Daily Telegraph, which saw the "granny tax" as "a £3bn 'stealth' raid on middle-class pensioners", also played the class card, pitching its audience against the narrow upper-middle class strata peopled by Cameron and Osborne.
By contrast, the Times has been more conciliatory towards Cameron. But for how long? Note the latest set of tweets by its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch.
Even if it was only natural that he should boost the Sunday Times for breaking the cash-for-access story, it was possible to detect an anti-Cameron agenda. He wrote: "What was Cameron thinking? No one, rightly or wrongly, will believe his story." Then came: "Cameron should just have followed history and flogged some seats in the Lords."
The Tory press? Think of it instead as the Thatcher press – a group of reactionary newspaper editors and proprietors who just cannot find a successor to the old lady.
It's not over yet, I've heard rumours the LibDems are offering privileged access to Nick Clegg is you stump up 250 tesco clubcard points.
A tempting offer, but I went with the set of sporting drink coasters instead :cool:
Notice how this has already been more or less forgotten.
We have now moved on to pastygate!
Apparently the only leading politician who doesn't eat pasties is Eric Pickles :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 29, 2012, 01:57:35 AM
Notice how this has already been more or less forgotten.
Political donations in exchange for meeting people is not that zesty a scandal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2012, 02:21:14 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 29, 2012, 01:57:35 AM
Notice how this has already been more or less forgotten.
Political donations in exchange for meeting people is not that zesty a scandal.
Indeed, especially when it is common and accepted practice. Scroll down to the bottom of this page from the tory party website, it is there in just about as straightforward a fashion as possible :
http://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx
The Trade Unions give Labour about 85% of its funding IIRC, they directly have votes on party policy and leadership.
This was more about general disgust for politicians than a specific shock at a scam imo.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2012, 02:21:14 AM
Political donations in exchange for meeting people is not that zesty a scandal.
The real problem I think was the use of the No. 10 policy unit. If they met at party HQ and the Conservative party policy wonks had a look at things that'd be fine. Having dinner in the No. 10 flat and then having the government's policy unit look over things is different.
QuoteWe have now moved on to pastygate!
And Jerrycanning.
I'm entirely behind the outrage about pastygate though....
Interesting that the class angle - which I think is a legitimate problem with the current government - is getting worse for them. David Davis (the man Cameron beat to the leadership, a more hard-line conservative who was raised in a council estate) has said voters feel the government's 'well dressed, well turned out, well fed ... and in a different world':
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122291/David-Davis-voters-feel-Government.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
In addition it looks like another dangerous element of Osborne's budget was his line that aggressive tax avoidance is 'morally repugnant'. The Times had a front page story on a Minister with a multi-million pound investment in a company engaged in aggressive tax avoidance - there'll be more as journalists look into all the cabinet and major donors records. The Times said it could have been as big a blunder as 'back to basics'.
I was just thinking earlier of the time when Cameron mocked Nadine Dorries in the Commons a few months back. Now she is by no means my favourite politician and I can agree with barely anything she says, but she represents a significant section of people. And, of course, they lost the services of David Davis due to the leadership business a few years back.
I'm coming round to the idea that they really are only talking to southern English toffs :hmm:
Which may be rather slow of me; but, since that is electoral suicide, I had been assuming that they are surely not quite so stupid. Anyway, it poses quite a challenge to Miliband and Balls, how can they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory :P
:lol:
There's been a couple of polls that are pretty grim for the Tories too. I don't think they should get too worried about the 10 point lead Labour's got, because, as you say, they're still led by Ed Miliband. But the 7-8% UKIP are getting, unprompted, should worry them a lot.
I think that's a good point about Dorries. Apparently in the post-budget 1922 meeting - when Cameron and Osborne were cheered to the rafters for their triumph - Osborne made a joke about one of the leading Christian Conservatives too. It didn't go down well and Cameron joked that he'd need to make it up with the Christians if he wants to be leader.
The two really do seem a bit clueless at times. The child benefit thing is a point, Iain Martin says that he can see how it came about that they were sitting in Osborne's Notting Hill home - everyone earning over £100k - and someone pointed out how ridiculous it was that they got child benefit. That's a fair point and so he announces he'll cut it at the Tory conference, for a while the Tories think this is great because it shows 'we're all in it together'. But it doesn't just affect people like Cameron and Osborne, even now it affects single earner families on £50k a year (which isn't that high) but, even worse, doesn't affect dual income families on up to £100k. Also it doesn't just affect them but all of the voters who reasonably aspire to be on £50k at some point in their life and have children.
Martin calls it Oka conservatism:
QuoteBy coincidence, the day that Parson's piece appeared, the latest catalogue for the furniture company Oka landed on our doormat at home. It made me wonder about the electoral viability of what we might call Oka Conservatism.
Oka is a company with impeccable Cameroon connections, run by strong-willed entrepreneurial women. The PM's mother-in-law Lady Astor was a founder.
In its shops you can find the expression of a particular kind of elegant West London and South West London late 30s and 40 something living – with lots of cream, tasteful lighting and the odd ethnic themed item thrown in. If Oka made food, all the ingredients would be organic and sourced from Hugh Fearnley-Whatshisname. The furniture is extraordinarily over-priced for what it is, but then what isn't these days.
Of course, a typical customer at the store wouldn't be so vulgar as to fill the entirety of their house with Oka furniture, lamps and rugs, just as they wouldn't be seen dead in head to toe Boden ("just the odd polo shirt, and the children's clothes are great"). No, Oka provides a basic but expensive backdrop against which more individual items from more exclusive stores (such as George "Osborne and Little") can be displayed in smart West London homes.
Think of Oka as the IKEA of the Cameroon classes, although Cameron himself is always canny enough to point out that he himself sometimes buys and constructs IKEA furniture. As he did when he did up the nursery in Number 10 after the election, and got Nick Clegg to help. Message: we're just a pair of ordinary dads struggling with a flat packed wardrobe. Response: Come off it. Their natural habitat is much more rarified and London upper-middle class than that.
Why does any of this matter? If David Cameron wants to govern in his own right after 2015, or even at the head of another coalition, he is going to need the votes of people a million miles removed from that world. If they calculate that he or his coterie are too remote form their concerns that is likely to have implications.
Ever since the post-war collapse of the culture of deference, leaders who are successful electorally have been adept at understanding the concerns of the broad middle – with a particular emphasis on the lower-middle classes. That includes Thatcher and Blair. She felt it instinctively, having started in Grantham. He realized he could not win without thinking his way into the heads of the voters he needed to convince.
Harold Macmillan, something of a hero of David Cameron's, was actually rather brilliant at grasping this whole business. In D.R. Thorpe's new biography a wonderful tale is included, of Macmillan's grandson asking the old man whether he was annoyed by the increased number of airliners taking off near his country home and flying overhead. Not a bit of it, said Macmillan, it was a wonderful development. Those planes were full of hardworking people off to have foreign holidays and broadening their experiences as they rose on the tide of prosperity. When he said that Britons had never had it so good, he meant it (unlike Lord Young) in a positive, inclusive sense.
But all the evidence so far suggests that Cameron doesn't connect properly with such voters. He didn't mange to in the election, or he would have won. And the task won't get easier. The longer he is Prime Minister the more shielded he will become; that is just the way it is.
The whole piece is good and, I think, accurate:
http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/11/26/oka-conservatism-out-of-touchness-and-the-real-middle/
I think they really are speaking to all of the swing voters from the Chilterns to Kensington :mellow:
Has there ever been any discussion of building a new PM's residence? Every time I see no. 10 in a movie I think that dump really needs a yard.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2012, 04:13:53 PM
Has there ever been any discussion of building a new PM's residence? Every time I see no. 10 in a movie I think that dump really needs a yard.
Never.
It's got the Rose Garden out back. Where the coalition had their first joint press conference:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicshome.com%2Ftimthumb.php%3Fw%3D508%26amp%3Bsrc%3D%2Fimages%2Fcamcleggrosegarden.jpg&hash=7c0efbbae9585c35448692918af7393c93e317d6)
The PM should be stuck with a pretty small flat above No. 10 (or 11) that they have to contribute to the refurb of and that doesn't have staff <_<
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2012, 04:13:53 PM
Has there ever been any discussion of building a new PM's residence? Every time I see no. 10 in a movie I think that dump really needs a yard.
It fit perfectly with the country's post-empire vibe; If you've once ruled 1/4 or the world's landmass and are now reduced to 95,00 sq.miles and counting, then a shabby little flat over the shop seems entirely fitting. :bowler:
I thought the PM governed, and the Monarch ruled. The Queen seems to have nice house.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2012, 04:25:37 PM
I thought the PM governed, and the Monarch ruled. The Queen seems to have nice house.
The Queen's got many nice houses. But then she's head of state and the Monarchy's permanent. The Prime Minister's just another politician - first among equals in his own cabinet - who, when the time comes will be replaced in a way that's kind-of brutal. The Queen apparently likes to remind all PM's that she's had 12 PMs during her reign so far :lol:
There's very little pomp and ceremony around the Prime Minister unless he goes abroad (which is why they like it so much), there's no inauguration, state of the union, three hour TV interviews or Air Force One. People don't even stand up when he enters the room and the title is rather separate from the person. It's Mr. Cameron or Prime Minister, not Prime Minister Cameron and once you're out of office you're back to plain old Mr. Blair.
Which is the way I think it should be. There's nothing special about a PM - he's not head of state and unlike a President doesn't have a direct mandate from the people - he's just the MP in charge of the majority. I think it helps keep them in their place a bit.
Edit: And to be fair they've got a lovely country residence:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F11%2FChequers2.jpg&hash=59d4868a5a0e1581c08710844a3db8f26c866e97)
I think it's the same as the Danes with their Copenhagen home and Marienborg.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2012, 04:13:53 PM
Has there ever been any discussion of building a new PM's residence? Every time I see no. 10 in a movie I think that dump really needs a yard.
The PM has a much nicer place in the country :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chequers
No 10 is really more of an office, convenient for the houses of Parliament.
..............and sheilbh beat me to it :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2012, 04:32:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2012, 04:25:37 PM
I thought the PM governed, and the Monarch ruled. The Queen seems to have nice house.
The Queen's got many nice houses. But then she's head of state and the Monarchy's permanent. The Prime Minister's just another politician - first among equals in his own cabinet - who, when the time comes will be replaced in a way that's kind-of brutal. The Queen apparently likes to remind all PM's that she's had 12 PMs during her reign so far :lol:
There's very little pomp and ceremony around the Prime Minister unless he goes abroad (which is why they like it so much), there's no inauguration, state of the union, three hour TV interviews or Air Force One. People don't even stand up when he enters the room and the title is rather separate from the person. It's Mr. Cameron or Prime Minister, not Prime Minister Cameron and once you're out of office you're back to plain old Mr. Blair.
Which is the way I think it should be. There's nothing special about a PM - he's not head of state and unlike a President doesn't have a direct mandate from the people - he's just the MP in charge of the majority. I think it helps keep them in their place a bit.
Edit: And to be fair they've got a lovely country residence:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F11%2FChequers2.jpg&hash=59d4868a5a0e1581c08710844a3db8f26c866e97)
I think it's the same as the Danes with their Copenhagen home and Marienborg.
Shelf, that's a nice summary; you really should consider 'cross-posting' some of you stuff into wiki.
It is why I'm a monarchist. I'm perfectly willing to bow and scrape to her Maj, she was born to that role after all and providing her with that respect is respecting the nation; but I'm damned if I will ever bow and scrape to another mere citizen such as Blair or Cameron :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 29, 2012, 04:45:30 PM
It is why I'm a monarchist. I'm perfectly willing to bow and scrape to her Maj, she was born to that role after all and providing her with that respect is respecting the nation; but I'm damned if I will ever bow and scrape to another mere citizen such as Blair or Cameron :P
:thumbsup:
Which is one of the odder things I find about the conspiracy lot/occupy lot, the hate for HMQ, even leaving aside all the lizard craps, if you're going to viscerally hate someone, make it the here to day gone tomorrow politicians, rather than some who had no choice in the largely powerless position of authority that they find themselves in by an accident of birth and history. *
*This sentence ran out of it's allocation of punctuation rather sooner than expect, we hope to resume normal random service in a later thread.
And yet within his sphere, the PM has more direct and independent power than most heads of government or state on the planet while he's in office. Certainly more than the President of the USA, claims of "leader of the free world" notwithstanding.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 29, 2012, 05:27:13 PM
And yet within his sphere, the PM has more direct and independent power than most heads of government or state on the planet while he's in office. Certainly more than the President of the USA, claims of "leader of the free world" notwithstanding.
Yes.
Edit: Although I do think Brown reduced the number of prerogative powers quite substantially in response to the expenses scandal, part of the series of acts to increase the prestige and strength of Parliament. Of course to be PM you need a majority in Parliament so that may not work, especially if you've got a dominant successful leader like Thatcher or Blair.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 29, 2012, 05:27:13 PM
And yet within his sphere, the PM has more direct and independent power than most heads of government or state on the planet while he's in office. Certainly more than the President of the USA, claims of "leader of the free world" notwithstanding.
Big fish in a small pound syndrome.
Quote from: mongers on March 29, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 29, 2012, 04:45:30 PM
It is why I'm a monarchist. I'm perfectly willing to bow and scrape to her Maj, she was born to that role after all and providing her with that respect is respecting the nation; but I'm damned if I will ever bow and scrape to another mere citizen such as Blair or Cameron :P
:thumbsup:
Which is one of the odder things I find about the conspiracy lot/occupy lot, the hate for HMQ, even leaving aside all the lizard craps, if you're going to viscerally hate someone, make it the here to day gone tomorrow politicians, rather than some who had no choice in the largely powerless position of authority that they find themselves in by an accident of birth and history. *
*This sentence ran out of it's allocation of punctuation rather sooner than expect, we hope to resume normal random service in a later thread.
If it was for the good of the country the Queen would step aside, she certainly does not deserve to be hated after 60 years of service :mad:
Quote from: mongers on March 29, 2012, 04:20:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2012, 04:13:53 PM
Has there ever been any discussion of building a new PM's residence? Every time I see no. 10 in a movie I think that dump really needs a yard.
It fit perfectly with the country's post-empire vibe; If you've once ruled 1/4 or the world's landmass and are now reduced to 95,00 sq.miles and counting, then a shabby little flat over the shop seems entirely fitting. :bowler:
I disagree.
Even in the times of empire having 1/4 of the world ran from a little terraced house is very fittingly British. :bowler:
But yes. Huzzah for the monarchy. Boo to revolutionary morons.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 29, 2012, 04:45:30 PM
It is why I'm a monarchist. I'm perfectly willing to bow and scrape to her Maj, she was born to that role after all and providing her with that respect is respecting the nation; but I'm damned if I will ever bow and scrape to another mere citizen such as Blair or Cameron :P
Being a proud republican I don't scrape and bow to anybody.
Good answer, you understand that if I was a German I would also be a staunch republican; the current republic is by far the best arrangement you chaps have ever had, just as our constitutional monarchy is the best arrangement we have ever had :D
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 30, 2012, 03:43:06 AM
Good answer, you understand that if I was a German I would also be a staunch republican; the current republic is by far the best arrangement you chaps have ever had, just as our constitutional monarchy is the best arrangement we have ever had :D
Does this imply that with all that has gone before, from attila to now, the Merkel regime is the pinnacle of german government? :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2012, 04:32:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2012, 04:25:37 PM
I thought the PM governed, and the Monarch ruled. The Queen seems to have nice house.
The Queen's got many nice houses. But then she's head of state and the Monarchy's permanent. The Prime Minister's just another politician - first among equals in his own cabinet - who, when the time comes will be replaced in a way that's kind-of brutal. The Queen apparently likes to remind all PM's that she's had 12 PMs during her reign so far :lol:
There's very little pomp and ceremony around the Prime Minister unless he goes abroad (which is why they like it so much), there's no inauguration, state of the union, three hour TV interviews or Air Force One. People don't even stand up when he enters the room and the title is rather separate from the person. It's Mr. Cameron or Prime Minister, not Prime Minister Cameron and once you're out of office you're back to plain old Mr. Blair.
Only just saw this.
Are you sure about this? In Canada any Prime Minister is granted the honourific Right Honourable for life, as in the Right Honourable Kim Campbell. Would it not be the same in the UK?
I thought they were offered a Peerage.
Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2012, 01:23:29 AM
But yes. Huzzah for the monarchy. Boo to revolutionary morons.
The idea of a monarchy here in the US makes me want to vomit. Yet I have a soft spot for European monarchies, and think most of those that have vanished should be restored.
Quote from: Barrister on March 30, 2012, 09:18:02 AM
Are you sure about this? In Canada any Prime Minister is granted the honourific Right Honourable for life, as in the Right Honourable Kim Campbell. Would it not be the same in the UK?
I thought the Right Honourable - which is on letterhead only - was because they're still in the Privy Council? But being PM isn't like a knighthood, or a peerage, or sitting in high office in the US after which you're always referred to as Sir/Lord/Senator/President.
Thinking that has just made me realise that Roland Burris will always be known as Senator Burris.
QuoteI thought they were offered a Peerage.
Not automatically. Normally there's a few years and then they're made a Knight of the Garter, then I think they often get offered a peerage. But I think a lot of that depends on the feelings of the government at the time. But since the 70s it's only 50-50 getting a peerage.
It's an odd trend but I think if you're a prominent Cabinet member you're more likely to get a peerage than if you're a PM. Probably because troublesome ex-ministers can be quietly retired to the House of Lords, while a former PM in the House of Lords can cause a lot of problems for their successors in the party and in office, just look at Maggie.
I thought those who didn't get a peerage were ones who didn't want one.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2012, 03:28:51 PM
I thought those who didn't get a peerage were ones who didn't want one.
I think that's true. But I'm still not sure how automatic it is. Callaghan and Wilson waited about a decade before becoming Lords, so did MacMillan. I don't think Douglas-Home who was a Lord before becoming PM ever returned. Maggie became a Baroness two years after leaving office.
It's not like the Italian President becomes a Senator for Life on retiring. I don't think it's a purely automatic thing and it's still in the gift of the Queen (for Knights of the Garter) and the sitting PM (for Lords). I think it's unlikely that the current government would offer Blair or Brown a peerage, maybe Major if he wants it.