Tuesday, 27 March 2012

‘Cash for access’ inquiry calls grow


Softcapitalist | March 27 8:19am | Permalink
there is no doubt that the political parties, all political parties should not take money in exchange of policy advantages. Policy is not for sale, is in the interest of you and me. It is corrupt to accept personal bribes and it is corrupt to alter policy to promote the interests of donors. 

One thing I want to understand is the nerve the Tories have when claiming if they are not allowed to get the money from donors, they need to get the money from you and me. Are the rich doing me a favor by paying for their interests? Are you serious Mr Cameron? Shame on you to suggest that. They pay to dine with you either because they love Disneyland and you are Mickey Mouse, or because you would do them a favor. Either way, it is not flattering for you.

The parties without enough cash should cut their electoral spending. If a party cannot fund their requirements they need to slim down (just as the companies in the "free market economy"). Take your hands off the taxpayers money!

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e6e9f9e6-7767-11e1-827d-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1qId4MMvE

‘Cash for access’ inquiry calls grow

David Cameron has been forced to reveal the names of Tory donors invited to dinners at his official residences as pressure grows for an independent inquiry into the “cash for access” affair.
Some of the UK’s leading businessmen, including Sir Anthony Bamford, David Rowland and Michael Spencer, dined with Mr Cameron either in his flat above No 11 or at Chequers after donating millions of pounds to the Conservative party.





But Downing Street insisted they had not sought to influence government decision-making: “There is no question of anyone buying policy.”
Number 10 published the lists just hours after insisting they would not do so, as the government scrambled to contain the controversy sparked by a Sunday Times’ report that Peter Cruddas, the party treasurer, promised potential donors access and influence policy. Mr Cruddas has since resigned.
Rupert Murdoch, the Sunday Times’ owner who is no longer on Number 10’s invite list after thephone-hacking scandal, said: “What was Cameron thinking? No one, rightly or wrongly, will believe his story.”
The controversy caps a damaging two weeks for Mr Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne,whose Budget last week cut the 50p top rate of income tax in a move backed by many Tory donors.
A ComRes poll in Tuesday’s Independent shows that two out of three people now believe the Conservatives are the “party of the rich” – the latest in a succession of surveys which have recorded a post-Budget bounce for Labour.
Mr Cameron pledged an internal Tory party inquiry into the affair led by Lord Gold, one of the party’s members in the House of Lords. But he resisted Labour calls to hold a wider independent investigation by Sir Alex Allan, the former mandarin who is now an independent adviser on MPs’ interests.
While offering to reopen cross-party talks on funding reform, the prime minister ruled out Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendation that there should be a £10,000 cap on party donations.
Mr Cameron later failed to attend a Commons debate on the issue, which was led instead by Francis Maude, the minister for the Cabinet Office. Mr Maude defended the government’s position in the face of sustained attack by Ed Miliband, the Labour leader. “Anything short of an independent inquiry will leave a permanent stain on the reputation of this government and this prime minister,” Mr Miliband said.
Lord Fink returned to the role he vacated just three weeks ago for Mr Cruddas, and immediately wrote to Conservative donors anxious about being caught in the media spotlight. Lord Fink wrote: “I would like to . . . apologise profusely for the embarrassment and reputational damage caused by the Peter Cruddas incident.”

No comments:

Post a Comment