Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Political Corruption

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    So the news last night was that Tory co-Treasurer and member of the party's ruling board, Peter Cruddas, was forced to resign after being caught attempting to sell influence with the Prime Minister to undercover journalists.

    Peter Cruddas, who runs an online trading company, allegedly told potential donors that gifts of more than £200,000 would get them into the party's "premier league."

    This would be enough to get donors invitations to dinners with the Prime Minister and George Osborne, the Chancellor, it was alleged. Mr Cruddas was apparently filmed making the offer to undercover reporters.

    He was filmed apparently telling reporters posing as businessmen that making a large donation would be "awesome for your business" and that "things will open up for you".
    Of course the Tories have worked quickly to distance and downplay the incident, and Cruddas himself has issued a statement with his resignation purporting to be nothing more than a blustering idiot acting outside his brief. At best then, attempting to procure funds in return for promises he was unable to keep. To be fair though, it's not like the ability to pay was ever hidden by the Tories as the method by which to gain access to the PM- The Leader's Group is openly advertised. Just £50,000 a year ensures you're "invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches."

    Obviously New Labour's response to this scandal will be muted, given their own record in power. Bernie Ecclestone's £1mil tobacco advertising bribe, the cash-for-honours scandal, 2010 cash for influence and the numerous skeletons hanging in the closet after thirteen years worth of PFI and government contracting don't really leave them with a leg to stand on.

    Cameron himself said a couple of years ago that the state of today's political lobbying is "the next big scandal waiting to happen". So when is the tipping point going to come? Is this sort of thing really acceptable in British politics? And how can we change the system to ensure that politicians respond to the needs of citizens, rather than hawking influence to rich backers for financial gain? Clegg's probably going to use this as an excuse to bang on about state funding of political parties again, but is this the only, and best option?
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    The level of so-called "corruption" in British politics is extremely low in comparison to most countries in the world, and where it exists, the scale is generally much smaller. Certainly, in comparison to France or Italy our politicians would be laughed at for what is considered corruption. The MPs expenses "scandal" would not even figure in the most parts of Europe.

    In general, British politicians are relatively clean, but with respect to MPs, the problem is because they are not paid anywhere near enough.

    If Clegg pursues central funding, he's an even bigger idiot than I thought. No-one seriously wants to be funding the extremist parties.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There is not a single country in the world that is not corrupt - pretty much everyone has their price.

    It's very sad, but it's a fact.

    No one will be able to change it.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Public choice theory should be as widely read and known about as market failure.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    The level of so-called "corruption" in British politics is extremely low in comparison to most countries in the world, and where it exists, the scale is generally much smaller. Certainly, in comparison to France or Italy our politicians would be laughed at for what is considered corruption. The MPs expenses "scandal" would not even figure in the most parts of Europe.

    In general, British politicians are relatively clean, but with respect to MPs, the problem is because they are not paid anywhere near enough.

    If Clegg pursues central funding, he's an even bigger idiot than I thought. No-one seriously wants to be funding the extremist parties.
    What is your problem with public funding? If the extreme parties you are referring to are legal and they have enough citizens voting for them why would you deny them the funding? Surely those citizens and their representatives deserve to air their views as long as they are not illegal.

    What you fail to see is that public funding is the lesser of two evils. We know that private encourages corruption hence the richest will bribe to gain influence, money and power. However public funding will force the politicians to pander to the people if for example they gained extra funding for every vote gained. The parties will become more populist with their policies and perhaps more democratic.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    The level of so-called "corruption" in British politics is extremely low in comparison to most countries in the world, and where it exists, the scale is generally much smaller. Certainly, in comparison to France or Italy our politicians would be laughed at for what is considered corruption. The MPs expenses "scandal" would not even figure in the most parts of Europe.

    In general, British politicians are relatively clean, but with respect to MPs, the problem is because they are not paid anywhere near enough.

    If Clegg pursues central funding, he's an even bigger idiot than I thought. No-one seriously wants to be funding the extremist parties.
    You being serious with that statement?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How exactly is any of this any different from lobbying, just at a higher (i.e. top of government) level? The naivety of the not so great british public is the shining story here, not some 'corrupt' individual.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by creak)
    So the news last night was that Tory co-Treasurer and member of the party's ruling board, Peter Cruddas, was forced to resign after being caught attempting to sell influence with the Prime Minister to undercover journalists.

    Of course the Tories have worked quickly to distance and downplay the incident, and Cruddas himself has issued a statement with his resignation purporting to be nothing more than a blustering idiot acting outside his brief. At best then, attempting to procure funds in return for promises he was unable to keep. To be fair though, it's not like the ability to pay was ever hidden by the Tories as the method by which to gain access to the PM- The Leader's Group is openly advertised. Just £50,000 a year ensures you're "invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches."

    Obviously New Labour's response to this scandal will be muted, given their own record in power. Bernie Ecclestone's £1mil tobacco advertising bribe, the cash-for-honours scandal, 2010 cash for influence and the numerous skeletons hanging in the closet after thirteen years worth of PFI and government contracting don't really leave them with a leg to stand on.

    Cameron himself said a couple of years ago that the state of today's political lobbying is "the next big scandal waiting to happen". So when is the tipping point going to come? Is this sort of thing really acceptable in British politics? And how can we change the system to ensure that politicians respond to the needs of citizens, rather than hawking influence to rich backers for financial gain? Clegg's probably going to use this as an excuse to bang on about state funding of political parties again, but is this the only, and best option?
    I see idiot Miliband has gone rushing in again from the safety of his glass-house.

    This the man who owes his very leadership to unions armed with chequebooks walking all over party democracy.

    Banker bashing when it was he who signed off all the bankers' wage deals, in the first place.

    Then going on the offensive over Cameron’s links with Murdoch, even though it's plain to see that the only reason Cameron and Osborne couldn't get all the way up Murdoch's backside was because Brown and the Milibands were already there blocking the way.

    But, best of all, has to be his pointing at all the Tory front bench accusing them of being out of touch toffs all benefiting from the 50p rate cut.

    Let’s face it, he could have equally pointed at his own front bench full of millionaires.

    Besides, yes, the Tories, being toffs, will never quite get ordinary working people but they'll get them a darn sight more than a Labour party dominated by middle class health and education public sector unions, with their PC diversity badges on their tits.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Our political corruption is very, very low in comparison to the rest of the world and we are much better than all of eastern, southern and cetral europe, including france, only Holland and Scandanavia beat us.

    We have a high level of accountability and a savage press, prolly why.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I see idiot Miliband has gone rushing in again from the safety of his glass-house.

    This the man who owes his very leadership to unions armed with chequebooks walking all over party democracy.

    Banker bashing when it was he who signed off all the bankers' wage deals, in the first place.

    Then going on the offensive over Cameron’s links with Murdoch, even though it's plain to see that the only reason Cameron and Osborne couldn't get all the way up Murdoch's backside was because Brown and the Milibands were already there blocking the way.

    But, best of all, has to be his pointing at all the Tory front bench accusing them of being out of touch toffs all benefiting from the 50p rate cut.

    Let’s face it, he could have equally pointed at his own front bench full of millionaires.

    Besides, yes, the Tories, being toffs, will never quite get ordinary working people but they'll get them a darn sight more than a Labour party dominated by middle class health and education public sector unions, with their PC diversity badges on their tits.
    What do you mean by this?
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    What do you mean by this?
    Labour badly need the trade union donations to fund their party, and consequently he who pays the piper calls the tune.

    Miliband was not the Labour party's choice, he was the unions' choice and consequently the unions told Labour how it was going to go down.

    The irony is that come the next election, if he is still leader, will try to persuade everyone to vote for a kinder, fairer political vision than the nasty Tories, when the party was being led by someone who could do that to his own brother.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Labour badly need the trade union donations to fund their party, and consequently he who pays the piper calls the tune.

    Miliband was not the Labour party's choice, he was the unions' choice and consequently the unions told Labour how it was going to go down.

    The irony is that come the next election, if he is still leader, will try to persuade everyone to vote for a kinder, fairer political vision than the nasty Tories, when the party was being led by someone who could do that to his own brother.
    I assume you're aware of the history of the Labour party? I also assume you're aware that "the unions" are made up of ordinary workers, and it is these ordinary workers who voted for Milliband? I wish I hadn't tbh, he's an ineffectual ****.


    Oh, and if you think "the unions" have much influence over Labour these days, you need to follow the news a little more.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I assume you're aware of the history of the Labour party? I also assume you're aware that "the unions" are made up of ordinary workers, and it is these ordinary workers who voted for Milliband? I wish I hadn't tbh, he's an ineffectual ****.


    Oh, and if you think "the unions" have much influence over Labour these days, you need to follow the news a little more.
    Nope, the unions are made up of ordinary working people who pay their subs, but they have about as much choice in choosing the leaders of their unions as the electorate have in choosing the cabinet, or shadow cabinet.

    You are the one who needs to 'follow the news'. It was plain as day that his brother David was the Labour MP's choice. Ed Miliband is the trade union choice for leader of the Labour Party. He did not have a majority in the membership vote nor was he the choice of most Labour MPs. He won by the narrowest of margins, dependant on the trade union vote. This is a position of weakness.

    http://www.labour.org.uk/votes-by-round

    Here's how it works. Each of Labour MPS and MEPS, Labour party members and affiliate members (being unions) vote, with each of the three sections of the vote being converted to a percentage, each section being weighted at 33% overall.

    In final round of voting

    Section 1 - MPs and MEPs.

    Ed - 122 votes (15.522%)
    Dave - 140 votes (17.812%)

    Dave is the Labour MPs top choice

    Section 2 - Labour party members

    Ed - 55,992 votes (15.198%)
    Dave - 66,814 votes (18.135%)

    Oh, that looks like Davey boy wins again...

    Section 3 - Affiliate members (unions)

    Ed - 119,405 votes (19.934%)
    Dave - 80,266 votes (13.400%)

    Total

    Ed - 50.65%
    Dave - 49.35%

    There we go, Ed was clearly the unions choice.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm not denying he was voted in by the unions.

    What on earth is your point? You do know how the Labour party was established don't you? Go and Google it ffs.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I'm not denying he was voted in by the unions.

    What on earth is your point? You do know how the Labour party was established don't you? Go and Google it ffs.
    My point? To explain the part you requested I clarify.

    Labour need the unions affiliate membership to provide funds to run the party, to get affiliated, the unions need to pay a fee. For this fee, they get a say in how the party is run and the leadership election.

    The Labour Party MPs and members wanted Dave, the unions wanted Ed. The Unions got Ed. Thus the unions bought their say in the choice of candidate. I know they probably paid by electronic transfer and didn't use a chequebook, that was a euphemism.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    My point? To explain the part you requested I clarify.

    Labour need the unions affiliate membership to provide funds to run the party, to get affiliated, the unions need to pay a fee. For this fee, they get a say in how the party is run and the leadership election.

    The Labour Party MPs and members wanted Dave, the unions wanted Ed. The Unions got Ed. Thus the unions bought their say in the choice of candidate. I know they probably paid by electronic transfer and didn't use a chequebook, that was a euphemism.
    Assuming your figures are correct (I really can't be arsed to check), so what? Labour have always been funded by the unions. Tories are funded by business. This is supposed to be news?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by creak)
    So the news last night was that Tory co-Treasurer and member of the party's ruling board, Peter Cruddas, was forced to resign after being caught attempting to sell influence with the Prime Minister to undercover journalists.



    Of course the Tories have worked quickly to distance and downplay the incident, and Cruddas himself has issued a statement with his resignation purporting to be nothing more than a blustering idiot acting outside his brief. At best then, attempting to procure funds in return for promises he was unable to keep. To be fair though, it's not like the ability to pay was ever hidden by the Tories as the method by which to gain access to the PM- The Leader's Group is openly advertised. Just £50,000 a year ensures you're "invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches."

    Obviously New Labour's response to this scandal will be muted, given their own record in power. Bernie Ecclestone's £1mil tobacco advertising bribe, the cash-for-honours scandal, 2010 cash for influence and the numerous skeletons hanging in the closet after thirteen years worth of PFI and government contracting don't really leave them with a leg to stand on.

    Cameron himself said a couple of years ago that the state of today's political lobbying is "the next big scandal waiting to happen". So when is the tipping point going to come? Is this sort of thing really acceptable in British politics? And how can we change the system to ensure that politicians respond to the needs of citizens, rather than hawking influence to rich backers for financial gain? Clegg's probably going to use this as an excuse to bang on about state funding of political parties again, but is this the only, and best option?
    Politicians are corruptible because they work for money. Quite a lot of money, in fact, but relative to what they (believe they) could get elsewhere, it's not so much. Unless we can find a way for politicians to not be greedy at all (fat chance of that considering we're all human, and hence tempt-able), we're stuck as is, just kicking them out if they get caught.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Assuming your figures are correct (I really can't be arsed to check), so what? Labour have always been funded by the unions. Tories are funded by business. This is supposed to be news?
    The whole reason we are having this little to and fro is because you seemed to object most vociferously when I pointed out that the unions bought their choice of Labour leadership candidate. They did this by buying the right to vote for him in the leadership elections.

    The figures are from the Labour.org website that I posted, along with the unions that bought their way into the affiliate membership (section 3 voters).

    I'm not 100% au fait with the process in which the Tories elect their leader, but I suspect that it's unlikely that those paying the electoral donations to the Tories have a direct vote on who the leader is...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I find it all very amusing to be honest, especially due to the fact that the Tories are trying to rebound all of the controversy by distancing themselves from the event, although donation tiers are clearly listed on their website. (it was on BBC News)
    Don't tell me, Peter Crudass was part of the web design team building the Conservative website as well was he?!

    If you have the time, please consider reading my parody spoof take on the incident on my blog, link below:

    http://eggfriedlies.blogspot.co.uk/2...structure.html

    Thank you.x
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by starkey)
    I find it all very amusing to be honest, especially due to the fact that the Tories are trying to rebound all of the controversy by distancing themselves from the event, although donation tiers are clearly listed on their website.
    Why shouldn't the rest of the Tories distance themselves from the actions of Cruddas?

    Unless you are suggesting that it wasn't only Peter Cruddas who was offering access to Cameron for whatever price...

    What is amusing is what Labour will have to say on the matter, hardly being whiter than white themselves when it comes to keeping their own house in order.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: March 28, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.