You going to vote for David Cameron?

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm watching PMQ's right now, and I forgot how it is the best entertainment on offer each week.

Conservative MP- 'Can the Prime Minister explain what he would like for christmas?'

British politicians may be less attractive than their US friends, but boy are they more entertaining.

 

[JonWhite]

Yeah, it was fun wasn't it.

Gotta say that once again I found Vince Cable's, "From Stalin to Mr. Bean" approach far better than the usual Cameron slagging.

Still, any self-inflicted party incompetence that gets the grim Scot squirming and stammering makes for great entertainment.

Incidently, did you catch "The Daily Politics" and Chris Huhne unequivocably accuse Labour of taking cash for honours? I still don't like the guy but brownie points definately awarded.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Didn't catch the cash for honours thing, but to be honest that topic always bores me to death. I know it is important, but.. meh.

I'm not usually a patriotic guy, but watching the entire house shouting and slagging each other off for an hour makes me glad to live in a country with such a snake pit.

Watching the Tories again just made my vote swing to Comrade Brown even more so.

 

[Darat]

It's strange isn't when you compare all the hullabaloo the Conservatives are making about this with how quiet and restrained they were throughout the "cash for honours" episode... you'd almost have thought they were worried about something coming to light....

 

[JonWhite]

It's strange isn't when you compare all the hullabaloo the Conservatives are making about this with how quiet and restrained they were throughout the "cash for honours" episode... you'd almost have thought they were worried about something coming to light....

Oooh, I do hope so.

Watching politicians of any colour squirming and self-imploding is always good value and often the only return one gets for a vote. It's just that the grim Scot and his New Conservative party are currently the most squirming deserving.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Didn't catch the cash for honours thing, but to be honest that topic always bores me to death. I know it is important, but.. meh.

I'm not usually a patriotic guy, but watching the entire house shouting and slagging each other off for an hour makes me glad to live in a country with such a snake pit.

Watching the Tories again just made my vote swing to Comrade Brown even more so.

So the lying about donations, the cover up, the arrogance in ignoring laws they introduced and the unwillingness to accept responsibility when they got caught doesn't put you off?

Takes all sorts I suppose.

The question I want answered is:

Despite the huge controversy over cash for honours and the ensuing police investigation, you expect us to believe that none of the Labour party leadership asked those responsible for handling donations if there were any other arrangements in place which could be considered to breach the spirit of transparency underlying the legislation on public declaration of political donations even if they may have been considered to not breach the technical provisions?

If they asked, then it is inconceivable that nobody told them about donations that they clearly knew were questionable. If they knew about these donations, Peter Watt has set the precedent for what they need to do.

If they didn't ask, then they should resign for incompetence.

It seems that it was widespread knowledge throughout the Labour party that there was something questionable about these donations - Baroness Jay knew that a donation to Hilary Benn's deputy leadership campaign under the name Janet Kidd was from Abrahams and he refused it unless made by Abrahams directly. Mendelsohn, Brown's chief fundraiser knew at least a month ago (and given that Brown refused a donation to his leadership campaign from one of the front names for Abrahams there is at least a very strong suspicion he knew earlier - the explanation for turning down the donation, that the donor was not known to them, makes absolutely no sense as she would have been one of the biggest donors to the Labour party if the money she was giving had actually been hers.) but did not raise it with the police or the electoral commission and claims not to have mentioned it to Brown or anyone else within the party.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It's strange isn't when you compare all the hullabaloo the Conservatives are making about this with how quiet and restrained they were throughout the "cash for honours" episode... you'd almost have thought they were worried about something coming to light....

Not really, they were under investigation in that case along with Labour making it somewhat difficult to make political capital out of.

In this case however, it seems that Labour have outsleazed all the other parties - quite an achievement.

 

[Darat]

Not really, they were under investigation in that case along with Labour making it somewhat difficult to make political capital out of.

...snip...

Not at the beginning they weren't.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

So the lying about donations, the cover up, the arrogance in ignoring laws they introduced and the unwillingness to accept responsibility when they got caught doesn't put you off?

Takes all sorts I suppose.

No.
I care about getting low income young adults suffering from mental health getting the support and funding they need, among other things. I don't give a crap if Mr Barney-Joe from the West Sussex fishing club gets a high position for his 50,000 quid.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Not at the beginning they weren't.

Yeah, but they knew they had taken loans from people who they had later proposed for honours, so they didn't need to be psychic to see what would happen next.

Looks on this occasion like they are confident they have not got anyone making donations through other people to avoid publicity, hence they can go on the offensive.

 

[JonWhite]

The question I want answered is:

Despite the huge controversy over cash for honours and the ensuing police investigation, you expect us to believe that none of the Labour party leadership asked those responsible for handling donations if there were any other arrangements in place which could be considered to breach the spirit of transparency underlying the legislation on public declaration of political donations even if they may have been considered to not breach the technical provisions?

If they asked, then it is inconceivable that nobody told them about donations that they clearly knew were questionable. If they knew about these donations, Peter Watt has set the precedent for what they need to do.

If they didn't ask, then they should resign for incompetence.

It seems that it was widespread knowledge throughout the Labour party that there was something questionable about these donations - Baroness Jay knew that a donation to Hilary Benn's deputy leadership campaign under the name Janet Kidd was from Abrahams and he refused it unless made by Abrahams directly. Mendelsohn, Brown's chief fundraiser knew at least a month ago (and given that Brown refused a donation to his leadership campaign from one of the front names for Abrahams there is at least a very strong suspicion he knew earlier - the explanation for turning down the donation, that the donor was not known to them, makes absolutely no sense as she would have been one of the biggest donors to the Labour party if the money she was giving had actually been hers.) but did not raise it with the police or the electoral commission and claims not to have mentioned it to Brown or anyone else within the party.

I'm also quite miffed that I wasn't invited to Blair's farewell speech. After all, I wasn't "known" to have donated large amounts to the party either.

Oh wait, I really hadn't donated money to the party.

 

[tkingdoll]

No Cameron for me either.

An ex Carlton spin doctor? Just what we need.

(The wisdom of Bill Hicks on marketing types)

Not that a certain grim Scot would get my vote either.

So because Bill Hicks hated marketing, you aren't going to vote Tory? I must say, I find your reasoning odd.

How about a counter-example? Frank Zappa loved marketing, in fact he spent 18 months planning The Mothers from a marketing perspective (even down to what they wore) before he ever launched the band. He knew he had to create something to fill a specific niche and he did it, with the intention of selling records and making money. And he out-genuised anything Bill Hicks had to say by some distance.

Hmm, I guess that means I have to vote Tory now.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No.
I care about getting low income young adults suffering from mental health getting the support and funding they need, among other things. I don't give a crap if Mr Barney-Joe from the West Sussex fishing club gets a high position for his 50,000 quid.

And will you believe Labour when they tell you that they will deliver the funding after the next election, given they are proven to be thoroughly dishonest?

Maybe you believed them when they announced £5bn to improve army accommodation? Seems like they have been caught out there as well. 40% of the figure they claimed was for "upgrading and maintaining" accommodation is, in fact, rent.

I think that what parties do, compared to what they promised is pretty important. Labour are having a bad few days on that front.

 

[JonWhite]

So because Bill Hicks hated marketing, you aren't going to vote Tory?

Errr...no. A mis-represented interpretation worthy of a spin doctor.

I simply wouldn't vote for someone who has a track record in marketing/spin. We've only just suffered 10 years of such BS courtesy of Blair. Why go there again (although judging by Brown nothing's currently changed)? Somewhat naively I prefer actual truth rather than what can only be politely described as politically self-serving half-truthes.

Bill Hicks is just a comedian with a great "spin" on spin.

Hmm, I guess that means I have to vote Tory now.

New Labour Tory or Conservative Tory. We have little viable choice to do otherwise anyway.

 

[tkingdoll]

New Labour Tory or Conservative Tory. We have little viable choice to do otherwise anyway.

I don't disagree with that. It's a rum do.

 

[richardm]

Looks on this occasion like they are confident they have not got anyone making donations through other people to avoid publicity, hence they can go on the offensive.

Give it a bit of time and I bet something drops out of the woodwork though. I suspect that there are people around who would like to support the Tory party but who wouldn't like to be seen to do so.

Edit: Not, mind you, that that would let Labour off the hook and quite rightly so. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and is getting more dismaying as the days go by.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Give it a bit of time and I bet something drops out of the woodwork though. I suspect that there are people around who would like to support the Tory party but who wouldn't like to be seen to do so.

You may be right, but they must be very confident that they have no reason to be aware of such donations to go on the offensive in the way they have.

Edit: Not, mind you, that that would let Labour off the hook and quite rightly so. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and is getting more dismaying as the days go by.

Seems like someone needs to be held to account - and by that I mean spend time inside - before political parties get the message. Took Aitken and Archer for the Tories, might be about time for the Labour party to experience the same.

 

[JonWhite]

Seems like someone needs to be held to account - and by that I mean spend time inside - before political parties get the message. Took Aitken and Archer for the Tories, might be about time for the Labour party to experience the same.

They quite possibly bore this in mind in ensuring absolutely no spare capacity in the prison system for them.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

They quite possibly bore this in mind in ensuring absolutely no spare capacity in the prison system for them.

I would happily chip in to ensure there was a prison space available for wee Wendy....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7124417.stm

Say what you like about the Tory crooks (and I have said most of it) but even someone as odious as Aitken had the decency to resign to fight criminal charges.

Seems like those within the Labour party faced with the same do not intend to do the same.

 

[JonWhite]

Say what you like about the Tory crooks (and I have said most of it) but even someone as odious as Aitken had the decency to resign to fight criminal charges.

Seems like those within the Labour party faced with the same do not intend to do the same.

Fears of a domino effect would be my guess.

If Wendy Alexander should actually do the decent thing, it sets the precedent and removes excuses for a seemingly ever increasing number down here.

One can only hope.


ETA: just seen on the C4 news that there may be a letter and computer file that implicate Alexander in knowing earlier than claimed and that Peter Hain has admitted to "forgetting" yet another donation. It gets ever worse...