 |  |
Last 3 Posts @ September 8, 2008 2:06:47 AM EDT
| George Bush in lipstick (1 hour, 5 mins ago) | Refresh |
The Huffington Post has a funny piece about "George Bush in lipstick", a.k.a. Sarah Palin, complete with a series of pictures to demonstrate how Bush morphs into Palin...
| The Alberta Spectator |
| The end of the neo-liberal project? (4 hrs, 40 mins ago) |
Today’s news that the US’s two big mortgage lenders are effectively being nationalised would, if there any justice left around the place, be a final nail i...
 |
 |
The Bickerstaffe Record |
| Dion's moment (4 hrs, 51 mins ago) |
Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has sent out this mass email this afternoon, titled "This Moment": This is the moment I've been waiting for. It's a critical moment for bo...
| The Alberta Spectator |
Thanks to Andrew for bringing this to my attention.
B4L Running Costs
£2,115.43 spent since 2007, which could be met by a donation of £4.18 per blogger.
|
Created by Andrew Regan and others, 2005-8. Any part of this site can be used, if properly attributed. |
|||
 |
|
 |
|
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
12 comments so far...
Prescott and McCartney unaware of secret loans arranged by Lord Cashpoint...
The Lords commitee kept in the dark....
Corruption in the affairs of state, secrecy in the party...
... and an eerie silence from Bloggers4Labour and many Labour supporting blogs.
I note this is the second day in a row you have posted the same off-topic post. That's rather rude, don't you think? What do you want them to say about it? Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about. Now it's broadened out to an issue that effects all the parties it's died a death. Perhaps they could knock up a post saying the media got their knickers in twist for nothing.
Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Just prior to the election, nearly 14 million quid is raised from rich businessmen by Lord Levy to fund the Labour Party.
This fund is kept secret - John Prescott, Ian McCartney and Jack Dromey are kept in the dark - all key figures in the party.
The Prime Minister (knowingly) and Ian McCartney (unknowingly) fail to tell the Lords appointments commitee that some of the people nominated for peerages are significant party doners.
This is corruption at the highest level - and it says a lot about how the Labour Party operates and is funded.
Apparently for the saps who pass as Labour members and supporters these days, this is nothing - blame the media. Remarkable stuff.
How far we have travelled, indeed.
Just lost my original comment. OK, a summary:
1) This *is* off-topic.
2) There's no evidence that influence was bought
3) Approval for honours is outside Labour's control, so any cash-for-nominations would be more misleading than corrupt.
The party-funding debate is a little sanctimonious: as long as its transparent, I'm not sure it matters who does it. If ordinary people hate politicians and don't want to contribute/pay in taxes, then let those who do want to, pay, providing they don't benefit unfairly.
2) There's no evidence that influence was bought
Ho ho ho. Doesn't mean it isn't bought though, hey? Try reading Private Eye's "In the Back", for starters. It's all nods and winks.
No, no, don't want to burst your bubble, it's okay - the Labour Party could never be bought!
3) Approval for honours is outside Labour's control, so any cash-for-nominations would be more misleading than corrupt.
Denial stage. If the PM does not disclose the important information that the nomination has just lent or given a big sum to the Labour Party, that's why he's nominated, and the nomination is then approved for a peerage, that is corrupt. Open and shut. And it stinks.
Wait, something is stirring in my memory: Labour sweeping into power in 1997 to clean up govt, banish sleaze.
Yes, a dim and distant memory.
Who said this:
So now anything goes â and our society is steadily going, as a result. Polyandry, polyamory, polygamy, polymorphism â can paedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality be far behind?
Was it Melanie Phillips or Craig Brown?
What a silly chap these Benjamin is. Now he has posted further off-comment remarks.
The loans were kept secret because these people don't want their names splashed all over the media and to be hounded by people like yourself. Yes, you can argue that the internal workings of the Labour party could have been better, but I hardly think arguments about the workings of the Labour's bureaucracy amounts to corruption. Every penny of that money went to getting a Labour government re-elected - that's why your so bitter about it.
Perosnally, if I was Tony Blair, I would want our strongest supporters to be representing labour in the house of Lords, so for me those successful people that have proven their loyalty by even loaning the party money would be at the top of the short list.
Something tells me you weren't so upset when that Scottish billionaire who isn't even registered to vote in this country was funding the Lib dems to the hilt.
Interesting how you define the "strongest supporters" as rich businessmen giving the party money through Lord Levy. Well, I suppose it beats buidling a strong, engaged, large and broad membership.
And if you think rich businessmen don't give money to political groups in order to get influence through that largesse, you are very naive.
If you recall, we were on about peerages - which are not in the power of Ministers to give out - not 'influence', which does not even need to be bought. There's no shortage of interest groups - the 'moral' and the 'evil' - and no shortage of rich businesspeople, and contact with these - formally or socially - is not regulated. This is why you have to look at outputs (what actually happened) for signs of corruption, not just the inputs (who was involved).
Also people don't become immoral/corrupt simply by becoming rich businespeople - many will be as motivated by memories of a good education/NHS investment/support for international democracy as those who can't so conveniently be caricatured.
It turns out the party asked for this money to be converted to loans in order to hide the contribution - not actually illegal, but very cynical.
As a Labour MP said today, the fact that political parties - including Labour - can be funded to such an extent like this by a relatively small number of rich people is not healthy for democracy. It's still not a point touched on by many Labour bloggers - with the honourable exception of Neil Harding.
if you think rich businessmen don't give money to political groups in order to get influence through that largesse, you are very naive.
Hmmm, you still don't get it. Do you really think Tony Blair is going to risk putting someone in the house of lords who doesn't support Labour? You're incredibly naive if you think he would.
And of course, working Peers are supposed to be people who are successful in a particular field and are not like the normal boring career politician. It really has been a fuss about nothing - this time next week everyone will have forgetton about it.
Do you really think Tony Blair is going to risk putting someone in the house of lords who doesn't support Labour? You're incredibly naive if you think he would.
Rather desperate false dichotomy. I am not suggesting he shouldn't appoint Labour supporters. But that is rather different than just accepting its okay to simply appoint big doners (who may not have a long history supporting Labour) because they have just given a big wad of cash to the party. These appointments need to be vetted transparently, something that Labour sought to bypass cynically although not at the time illegally.
You're on the extreme, anyway, and behind the times. Most people would frown at such cynical behaviouur, and already the PM is pledged to implement steps to make it more difficult to behave in such a way.
That's through pressure from people who care - from within the party and without - but not including you, obviously.
Post a Comment
<< Home