• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ask a Tory a Question

Don't know what all the fuss is about - after all they weren't asking for that much, I mean £25,000, that's peanuts- at least for the people the Tories want to have lunch with!
 
Do these people just have no conscience at all?

Why does the voting public expect anything to change while they vote the same criminal groups in again and again? Maybe they don't expect change, and just expect different news.

Normally it's the left that has money problems and the right has sex issues.
 
nvidiot said:
Do these people just have no conscience at all?

Why does the voting public expect anything to change while they vote the same criminal groups in again and again? Maybe they don't expect change, and just expect different news.

Normally it's the left that has money problems and the right has sex issues.
Click to expand...

These chaps have shexy money problems.

Francis Maude has this morning stood on the doorstep of No 10 and said, "We've nothing to hide [he's not a crook?]" but that they are not going to reveal anything more about who may have paid to gain access to this country's Prime Minister.

Strumpet government.
 
Skepticemea said:
Please fill in the attached:

http://www.cash4access.com/
Click to expand...


I've always assumed this happens all the time with the Tories so I was surprised it even made the news. They've even publicised it openly before, you pay hundreds/thousands for a Tory dinner event attended by Cameron. Why is he lying about it? Hmmm because he's a Tory I suppose.

For the payers, it's a small price for getting your tax rate lowered - just for that small % of income you can't find a tax loophole for, of course :rolleyes:
 
If you have a private dinner party, you don't charge your guests. (Allowances made for people bringing wine or ice-cream, though).

If they're paying, then they are customers, and I hope the kitchen complies with relevant environmental health legislation.
 
commandlinegamer said:
If you have a private dinner party, you don't charge your guests. (Allowances made for people bringing wine or ice-cream, though).

If they're paying, then they are customers, and I hope the kitchen complies with relevant environmental health legislation.
Click to expand...

Only "donors" who are "friends" have been to dinner in the flat. So that'll be the Brookses, then.

If Cameron's judgement of people really is this execrable what can that possibly say about his judgement in general?
 
nvidiot said:
Do these people just have no conscience at all?

Why does the voting public expect anything to change while they vote the same criminal groups in again and again?

...snip...
Click to expand...

Since we have a coalition government it is fair to say no-one got the party they voted for into government.
 
joolz said:
I've always assumed this happens all the time with the Tories so I was surprised it even made the news. They've even publicised it openly before, you pay hundreds/thousands for a Tory dinner event attended by Cameron.

...snip...
Click to expand...

There's a difference drawn between a private meeting and a public dinner for which anyone can buy a ticket but doesn't guarantee you any face time with Cameron.
 
I agree its a total outrage that a party would seek to raise funds by selling access to the prime minister and encouraging contributors to believe they could influence policy. This sort of thing:

"The report refers to the need for "creating a reason to give" money to the party and stresses the importance of the Prime Minister having "private meetings" with substantial donors. It also tells of the need to "flatter" the desire of donors to offer policy advice."

would never have happened under a non-Tory government. would it?

They'll start selling peerages next.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549306/Revealed-birth-of-plot-to-sell-access-to-Blair.html

Oddly enough the story in the link appears to hive misspelled "Cameron" throughout as "Blair" and "Tory" as "Labour" but I'm sure that is a mere oversight.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
I agree its a total outrage that a party would seek to raise funds by selling access to the prime minister and encouraging contributors to believe they could influence policy. This sort of thing:

"The report refers to the need for "creating a reason to give" money to the party and stresses the importance of the Prime Minister having "private meetings" with substantial donors. It also tells of the need to "flatter" the desire of donors to offer policy advice."

would never have happened under a non-Tory government. would it?

They'll start selling peerages next.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549306/Revealed-birth-of-plot-to-sell-access-to-Blair.html

Oddly enough the story in the link appears to hive misspelled "Cameron" throughout as "Blair" and "Tory" as "Labour" but I'm sure that is a mere oversight.
Click to expand...
So your position is either, "It's okay, they all do it" or "It's not okay, but they all do it"? I believe the expression is "whataboutery".
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
I agree its a total outrage that a party would seek to raise funds by selling access to the prime minister and encouraging contributors to believe they could influence policy. This sort of thing:

"The report refers to the need for "creating a reason to give" money to the party and stresses the importance of the Prime Minister having "private meetings" with substantial donors. It also tells of the need to "flatter" the desire of donors to offer policy advice."

would never have happened under a non-Tory government. would it?

They'll start selling peerages next.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549306/Revealed-birth-of-plot-to-sell-access-to-Blair.html

Oddly enough the story in the link appears to hive misspelled "Cameron" throughout as "Blair" and "Tory" as "Labour" but I'm sure that is a mere oversight.
Click to expand...

Er... you do realise that Blair has not been PM for quite a few years? I'm sure I can find some dirt on Cromwell if you think it is relevant.
 
Darat said:
Er... you do realise that Blair has not been PM for quite a few years? I'm sure I can find some dirt on Cromwell if you think it is relevant.
Click to expand...

Claudius du Puy charged money for access to an audience with Cromwell. Or part of him, at any rate.
 
Skepticemea said:
So your position is either, "It's okay, they all do it" or "It's not okay, but they all do it"? I believe the expression is "whataboutery".
Click to expand...

Was simply pointing out that it is less to do with "Tory" and more to do with "in power". Your opening post appeared to imply otherwise as did several of the responses.

From the Hamiltons, through Blair (possibly the most blatant exponent and the only one accused of actually selling influence by accepting money to make people part of the legislative process) to Cameron and undoubtedly to the next government as well the party is irrelevant, whoever is in power exploits it for financial advantage for their party or themselves. And the Liberals are no better - the only reason they haven't been involved in a similar scandal since Lloyd George is because they have been out of power, but don't ask them about where there biggest donation came from and why they think it is OK to keep it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom