Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Political Corruption

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    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.
    I'm ultimately trying to say that I think that Cameron definitely knew about Cruddas' actions but was trying to conceal it until it was publicized, then because he's not been secretly filmed on tape he can just deny and dismiss any involvement in the whole of it. It's not like he's going to admit it is it?

    It doesn't really come as much of a surprise though if this were to be the case.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by starkey)
    I'm ultimately trying to say that I think that Cameron definitely knew about Cruddas' actions but was trying to conceal it until it was publicized, then because he's not been secretly filmed on tape he can just deny and dismiss any involvement in the whole of it. It's not like he's going to admit it is it?

    It doesn't really come as much of a surprise though if this were to be the case.
    I'm ultimately trying to say that I think that Miliband is definitely a shape shifting lizard, and is trying to conceal it. Then because he's not been secretly filmed on tape in lizard form, he can just deny and dismiss any involvement in the whole of the New World Order. It's not like he's going to admit it is it?

    It doesn't really come as much of a surprise though if this were to be the case.

    I just don't have time for conspiraloon theories and vested interest wishful thinking

    :rolleyes:

    EDIT - LOL - Miliband features in a Youtube video suggesting that he is indeed a shapeshifting lizard. Watch the eyes!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    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...
    The reason we are "having this little to and fro", is because I asked you what you meant by "This the man who owes his very leadership to unions armed with chequebooks walking all over party democracy.".

    Now we have established that Milliband was voted to be leader in a transparent democratic process, because trade union members have a democratic say in the Labour Party by the fact that unions and their membership are affiliate members of the party.

    In what way is this being "armed with chequebooks walking all over party democracy"? Its a transparent, democratic and recognised process that everyone knows about.

    I'm assuming you're attempting to compare it to the tory party corruption revealed in Murdoch's sting of Cruddas. In what way is it comparable?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    The reason we are "having this little to and fro", is because I asked you what you meant by "This the man who owes his very leadership to unions armed with chequebooks walking all over party democracy.".

    Now we have established that Milliband was voted to be leader in a transparent democratic process, because trade union members have a democratic say in the Labour Party by the fact that unions and their membership are affiliate members of the party.

    In what way is this being "armed with chequebooks walking all over party democracy"? Its a transparent, democratic and recognised process that everyone knows about.
    OK, so you agree that trade union members have a say because they bought their votes with the 'chequebook'. That's what affiliate membership is.

    The 'party democracy' would be that David Miliband was wanted by the Labour party MPs and members, as shown by the fact that most of them voted for him.

    Cruddas in his inept and ham fisted way managed to say what we already know, only he said it explicitly.

    It was saying it explicitly that broke the rules, when a few weasel words would have been OK.

    It’s a fuss about nothing all the political parties, of all colours, are influenced by their donors – what is wrong with this?

    Provided it’s all done transparently, with all interests declared, then the electorate are free to make their choice in light of that information.

    Besides, the alternative of state funding parties, would be the rest of us paying for them out of our taxes.

    In a party that has one member one vote it also means the constituencies can put the boot in if something pisses them off.

    Which, of course, bring us to the entirely insidious way Labour’s fiefdom does things.

    Without one party member one vote, the unions get to walk all over Labour, deciding their policies and even their leader. Worst of all, allowing a complete turd like Brown to walk all over their party and, in the process, our democracy.

    Len McCluskey waves the chequebook, gets to make Miliband leader and write the Labour party manifesto.

    I don’t care what you say, you could never buy that kind of influence over the Tories or the Lib Dems because they are both properly and democratically constituted.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, you'll have to explain how affiliate membership is a chequebook. I'll tackle the rest of your post after that.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    OK, so you agree that trade union members have a say because they bought their votes with the 'chequebook'. That's what affiliate membership is.

    The 'party democracy' would be that David Miliband was wanted by the Labour party MPs and members, as shown by the fact that most of them voted for him.

    Cruddas in his inept and ham fisted way managed to say what we already know, only he said it explicitly.

    It was saying it explicitly that broke the rules, when a few weasel words would have been OK.

    It’s a fuss about nothing all the political parties, of all colours, are influenced by their donors – what is wrong with this?

    Provided it’s all done transparently, with all interests declared, then the electorate are free to make their choice in light of that information.

    Besides, the alternative of state funding parties, would be the rest of us paying for them out of our taxes.

    In a party that has one member one vote it also means the constituencies can put the boot in if something pisses them off.

    Which, of course, bring us to the entirely insidious way Labour’s fiefdom does things.

    Without one party member one vote, the unions get to walk all over Labour, deciding their policies and even their leader. Worst of all, allowing a complete turd like Brown to walk all over their party and, in the process, our democracy.

    Len McCluskey waves the chequebook, gets to make Miliband leader and write the Labour party manifesto.

    I don’t care what you say, you could never buy that kind of influence over the Tories or the Lib Dems because they are both properly and democratically constituted.

    I have asked repeatedly what is the problem if the political parties were to benefit from public funding. Surely if it will will only cost the taxpayer only £30-40 million a year as it is mooted it would be ten times better for the tax payer if the corruption avenue were to be eliminated completely. That sum is peanut and I am sure the smallest council in the country will have a larger budget than that so we can easily finance if we had he political will.

    The parties will be forced to listen to their electorate since we can make funding proportionate to the number of votes received although their policies may become more populist. Democracy will certainly be enhanced. Can anyone give me drawbacks of public funding.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Sorry, you'll have to explain how affiliate membership is a chequebook. I'll tackle the rest of your post after that.
    If you're going to be deliberately obtuse and continue to ignore the very obvious fact that to obtain affiliate membership of the Labour party you need to get out the 'chequebook' and make a 'donation' to the party coffers, you may as well not bother.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    If you're going to be deliberately obtuse and continue to ignore the very obvious fact that to obtain affiliate membership of the Labour party you need to get out the 'chequebook' and make a 'donation' to the party coffers, you may as well not bother.
    You don't understand how unions work do you. :facepalm:
    • 5 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.
    The Labour we see standing before us today is completely different to the Labour of over 100 years ago.

    I assume you know that Unite (could be unison) contributes the most to the Labour Party per annum?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    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.
    You should be careful with Labour leadership elections, as it is easy to assume they are properly democratic, when in fact they are not. One man one vote is not observed, as you get one vote per associated institution. For example, if you are a member of the Labour party, you get one vote. If you are also a member of Labour Students you get a second. If you are also a member of LGBT Labour, a third vote, if you are a member of UNITE a fourth, if you are a member of the Socialist Health association a fifth.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    You should be careful with Labour leadership elections, as it is easy to assume they are properly democratic, when in fact they are not. One man one vote is not observed, as you get one vote per associated institution. For example, if you are a member of the Labour party, you get one vote. If you are also a member of Labour Students you get a second. If you are also a member of LGBT Labour, a third vote, if you are a member of UNITE a fourth, if you are a member of the Socialist Health association a fifth.
    I have said that they are undemocratic in a later post to this thread.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Personally, I think the unions should disaffliate from Labour, as Labour are a neoliberal party that doesn't represent them in the slightest.

    But the current arrangement is still is ridiculous compromise. I personally don't think Labour MPs should have any say on it at all. But Labour needs to decide who it is for. If it is merely a party that stands for.....well, whatever it is Labour stand for nowadays, then have it purely on a members' vote. If it wants to keep pretending it represents the unions, as it was created to do, then have it purely on a union members' vote. But the current way of doing it is just ridiculous.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I have said that they are undemocratic in a later post to this thread.
    Sorry, I just really like that example, particularly because it bases your number of votes (at least partly) on your job and sexuality, which is one of the most farcical things I've ever seen in a supposedly democratic system.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
    The Labour we see standing before us today is completely different to the Labour of over 100 years ago.

    I assume you know that Unite (could be unison) contributes the most to the Labour Party per annum?
    You clearly don't!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    You should be careful with Labour leadership elections, as it is easy to assume they are properly democratic, when in fact they are not. One man one vote is not observed, as you get one vote per associated institution. For example, if you are a member of the Labour party, you get one vote. If you are also a member of Labour Students you get a second. If you are also a member of LGBT Labour, a third vote, if you are a member of UNITE a fourth, if you are a member of the Socialist Health association a fifth.
    I'm not disputing this, but I'd like to see a source?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I'm not disputing this, but I'd like to see a source?
    Anecdotal, but by a party member on a pro-labour site so I would imagine it is reliable. He also implies that the various groups for ethnic minorities get extra votes, meaning that your voting power is based on who your parents are, which strikes me as odd for a socialist party.
    http://labourlist.org/2010/09/is-the...st-democratic/
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I have said that they are undemocratic in a later post to this thread.
    Its an open and transparent process, with independently run ballots. You're comparing this to the murky corruption of Cruddas? :eek:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Its minimal relative to other countries therefore its okay?

    That's like saying Hitler was alright because Stalin was worse.

    Tories/Labour/Lib Dem, they're all the same, all corrupt. As long as we sit by and hand over our freedom to the government it will always be the same.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Its an open and transparent process, with independently run ballots. You're comparing this to the murky corruption of Cruddas? :eek:
    No, do try to keep up.

    I'm comparing the way affiliate members (unions) buy into the voting process with a 'chequebook' to elect the Labour leader with the way the Conservative and Lib Dems elect theirs.

    Imagine the Conservatives or Lib Dems placing an ad in the media saying "If you want a vote in our leadership election, it will cost you £X million apiece" that's as much an 'open and transparent' process as your example.

    There's plenty of corruption and cash for influence in the Labour party over the past 13 years for at least five new threads that I could compare Cruddas to if I wanted.

    If you ever needed any proof, look how muted the response from the opposition have been compared to how vocal they usually are over controversial issues, lest they appear to be complete hypocrites.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    No, do try to keep up.

    I'm comparing the way affiliate members (unions) buy into the voting process with a 'chequebook' to elect the Labour leader with the way the Conservative and Lib Dems elect theirs.

    Imagine the Conservatives or Lib Dems placing an ad in the media saying "If you want a vote in our leadership election, it will cost you £X million apiece" that's as much an 'open and transparent' process as your example.

    There's plenty of corruption and cash for influence in the Labour party over the past 13 years for at least five new threads that I could compare Cruddas to if I wanted.

    If you ever needed any proof, look how muted the response from the opposition have been compared to how vocal they usually are over controversial issues, lest they appear to be complete hypocrites.
    You still need to explain this "chequebook" business.

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?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  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 joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: March 28, 2012
New on TSR

Exclusive Nick Clegg interview

Your questions answered by the deputy prime minister

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.