Turn on thread page Beta

What do you think a Corbyn Britain would be like? watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Yeah, Corbyn is going to save the Union. As well as broker peace in the Middle East, stop all wars, save the planet and banish "austerity" and all the UK's economic woes.

    What a great man. All the problems he is going to solve are astounding.
    Will we solve the energy crisis with sarcasm-fuelled homes?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    This isn't really scaremongering.

    The second point is just a statement of fact, are you suggesting there is scaremongering here?

    The first point is also arguably true - the tax gap may be £120bn, which in reality (as HMRC have said themselves) is £102bn, but most of that will be unrecoverable. Tax loops will always exist and will always be used - if there was so much money, Osborne would have at least had a go at reducing that figure to allow him to cut the deficit without cutting public services (though I'm assuming you're not one of those who says everything Osborne does is for his mates in the City, as I don't think you're thick enough).
    The scaremongering related to the point about corporation tax when he has only proposed to increase it by 0.5%, hardly a huge amount or a radical policy.


    How about Johnny Nash, chairman of Care UK who donated to the tory party and then gets very favourable health legislation...

    You make out like this is all conspiracy but look at America where Private firms lobby and pay huge donations to congressmen/senators who vote in their favour - and subsequenlty look how favorable legislation has been to private health firms and gun firms.

    When Bill Clinton proposed national health care - private health firms donated huge amounts to Democratic candidates and they defeated the bill. Coincidence?

    Now the UK isn't as bad or as blatant as that, but those with money certainly influence policies.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The scaremongering related to the point about corporation tax when he has only proposed to increase it by 0.5%, hardly a huge amount or a radical policy.


    How about Johnny Nash, chairman of Care UK who donated to the tory party and then gets very favourable health legislation...

    You make out like this is all conspiracy but look at America where Private firms lobby and pay huge donations to congressmen/senators who vote in their favour - and subsequenlty look how favorable legislation has been to private health firms and gun firms.

    When Bill Clinton proposed national health care - private health firms donated huge amounts to Democratic candidates and they defeated the bill. Coincidence?

    Now the UK isn't as bad or as blatant as that, but those with money certainly influence policies.
    Or what about the Tories' huge City donations, which resulted in Osborne making banks pay even more tax!

    If you have a shred of evidence for the implication of your argument, then by all means take it to the media. If you can prove any of this, you will rock the political establishment in the biggest way since the expenses scandal - go on, don't confine yourself to TSR if you actually have anything convincing to say, spread the word!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Or what about the Tories' huge City donations, which resulted in Osborne making banks pay even more tax!

    If you have a shred of evidence for the implication of your argument, then by all means take it to the media. If you can prove any of this, you will rock the political establishment in the biggest way since the expenses scandal - go on, don't confine yourself to TSR if you actually have anything convincing to say, spread the word!
    Are you being serious?
    Have you heard of the iron triangle or the revolving door syndrome?
    Its all well known. When Bill Clinton proposed national healthcare, private firms paid Democratic congressmen huge donations. coincidence?
    Is it a coincidence that the pro -Israel lobby in the USA donates a huge amount to candidates and Israel receives more US aid then any other country?


    And you haven't responded to my point about Jonny Nash. Was it a coincidence that he donated money to the tories and then got favourable legislation?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolv...%28politics%29
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_t...US_politics%29
    Have a read, do some research. President Eisenhower in the 50s spoke of Iron triangles and the influece of corporations on govt policies - its not some conspiracy.


    You really are an arrogant sod aren't you? Try actually doing some research rather then burying your head in the sand.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Are you being serious?
    Have you heard of the iron triangle or the revolving door syndrome?
    Its all well known. When Bill Clinton proposed national healthcare, private firms paid Democratic congressmen huge donations. coincidence?
    Is it a coincidence that the pro -Israel lobby in the USA donates a huge amount to candidates and Israel receives more US aid then any other country?


    And you haven't responded to my point about Jonny Nash. Was it a coincidence that he donated money to the tories and then got favourable legislation?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolv...%28politics%29
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_t...US_politics%29
    Have a read, do some research. President Eisenhower in the 50s spoke of Iron triangles and the influece of corporations on govt policies - its not some conspiracy.


    You really are an arrogant sod aren't you? Try actually doing some research rather then burying your head in the sand.
    Can you please stop putting two things together and then just say: '.Coincidence?'
    If you've got evidence for your claims, then present them properly to the relevant bodies. You have two bits of evidence: the revolving door and some cases of donors having nice legislation put through Parliament. If you can give evidence of a causal link between donors and legislation, or prove that those who worked in industry are now influencing policy from inside government, then as I've said, make a formal case.
    The law is extremely clear on these matters and journalists (though I'm sure they're paid off by the government in your fantasies) trawl through information all day to find any evidence of these conspiracies. Cases are few and far between.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Can you please stop putting two things together and then just say: '.Coincidence?'
    If you've got evidence for your claims, then present them properly to the relevant bodies. You have two bits of evidence: the revolving door and some cases of donors having nice legislation put through Parliament. If you can give evidence of a causal link between donors and legislation, or prove that those who worked in industry are now influencing policy from inside government, then as I've said, make a formal case.
    The law is extremely clear on these matters and journalists (though I'm sure they're paid off by the government in your fantasies) trawl through information all day to find any evidence of these conspiracies. Cases are few and far between.
    So you're saying the monteray powers and donations of the NRA, Pro-Israel lobby and private healthcare firms have nothing to do with the positive legsilation those causes recieve. And shut up with your 'go and prove your case'. the Case has been made several times- even by presidents themselves.

    Is it all just a coincidence?

    Of course to you it is, because you don't like the very real idea that money buys power - that those with huge amounts of money who donate to political parties get favorable legislation.

    Crickey you're a facetious sod.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So you're saying the monteray powers and donations of the NRA, Pro-Israel lobby and private healthcare firms have nothing to do with the positive legsilation those causes recieve. And shut up with your 'go and prove your case'. the Case has been made several times- even by presidents themselves.

    Is it all just a coincidence?

    Of course to you it is, because you don't like the very real idea that money buys power - that those with huge amounts of money who donate to political parties get favorable legislation.

    Crickey you're a facetious sod.
    The connection is much, much weaker than you suggest. Again, whenever these events do occur you can bet some journalist or committee MP will find out and creat havoc.

    And again, one of the Tories' biggest donors is the City - we've just seen Osborne raise taxes for banks really quite a lot in the last budget.

    The case you've said has been made is the weak correlation between donations and favourable legislation for those donors - there has been no case to show there is a causal relationship between the two. If you have any evidence, I'd love to see it and I'm sure a few journalists would, too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    The connection is much, much weaker than you suggest. Again, whenever these events do occur you can bet some journalist or committee MP will find out and creat havoc.

    And again, one of the Tories' biggest donors is the City - we've just seen Osborne raise taxes for banks really quite a lot in the last budget.

    The case you've said has been made is the weak correlation between donations and favourable legislation for those donors - there has been no case to show there is a causal relationship between the two. If you have any evidence, I'd love to see it and I'm sure a few journalists would, too.
    You're not seeing what you don't want to see.
    These events did make the news - they were spoken about by presidents themselves who work in the offices where such events occur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_t...US_politics%29

    The president himself spoke of the close relationship and influence that corporations have on legislation and policies.

    And do tell me, do you think it is a total coincidence that the Israel lobby is so powerful and Israel gets more aid and support then any other country?

    Do tell me, is it a total coincidence that the NRA donate huge amounts of money to politicians who then vote against any anti-gun legislation?

    Is it just a freak of nature that private health firms make huge donations to the campaigns of politicians who then vote down pro-national healthcare legislation?


    Do you think there is no link at all between lobbyists paying huge sums to politicians and then receiving friendly legislation?

    And the media and others including presidents and politicians. have all spoke of such influence. It has been reported time and time again. Legislation has been made to try and counter it but there are always loopholes for them to exploit.

    But yeah it's just a massive, massive coincidence that those who donate huge sums to politicians receive favorable legislation.Wow! What a coincidence! I mean when the NRA donate huge sums to politicans they clearly have no motive or incentive behind it - they must just think all those politicans are swell people. And when those politicians who have received the donations vote in line with the NRA's wishes that must be a total coincidence!

    Wake up and take your head out the sand.

    You're stance is beyond a joke.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You're not seeing what you don't want to see.
    These events did make the news - they were spoken about by presidents themselves who work in the offices where such events occur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_t...US_politics%29

    The president himself spoke of the close relationship and influence that corporations have on legislation and policies.

    And do tell me, do you think it is a total coincidence that the Israel lobby is so powerful and Israel gets more aid and support then any other country?

    Do tell me, is it a total coincidence that the NRA donate huge amounts of money to politicians who then vote against any anti-gun legislation?

    Is it just a freak of nature that private health firms make huge donations to the campaigns of politicians who then vote down pro-national healthcare legislation?


    Do you think there is no link at all between lobbyists paying huge sums to politicians and then receiving friendly legislation?

    And the media and others including presidents and politicians. have all spoke of such influence. It has been reported time and time again. Legislation has been made to try and counter it but there are always loopholes for them to exploit.

    But yeah it's just a massive, massive coincidence that those who donate huge sums to politicians receive favorable legislation.Wow! What a coincidence! I mean when the NRA donate huge sums to politicans they clearly have no motive or incentive behind it - they must just think all those politicans are swell people. And when those politicians who have received the donations vote in line with the NRA's wishes that must be a total coincidence!

    Wake up and take your head out the sand.

    You're stance is beyond a joke.

    You cannot easily translate what happens in the USA to the UK. The big difference is that corporations in the USA spend money to get close to individual members of Congress because that is where most legislation originates. One of the reasons that foreign companies new to the UK spend so much on lobbyists is because they misunderstand the situation. In Britain the key is to be close to the government machine and that doesn't need the expenditure of a lot of money in many cases.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You're not seeing what you don't want to see.
    These events did make the news - they were spoken about by presidents themselves who work in the offices where such events occur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_t...US_politics%29

    The president himself spoke of the close relationship and influence that corporations have on legislation and policies.

    And do tell me, do you think it is a total coincidence that the Israel lobby is so powerful and Israel gets more aid and support then any other country?

    Do tell me, is it a total coincidence that the NRA donate huge amounts of money to politicians who then vote against any anti-gun legislation?

    Is it just a freak of nature that private health firms make huge donations to the campaigns of politicians who then vote down pro-national healthcare legislation?


    Do you think there is no link at all between lobbyists paying huge sums to politicians and then receiving friendly legislation?

    And the media and others including presidents and politicians. have all spoke of such influence. It has been reported time and time again. Legislation has been made to try and counter it but there are always loopholes for them to exploit.

    But yeah it's just a massive, massive coincidence that those who donate huge sums to politicians receive favorable legislation.Wow! What a coincidence! I mean when the NRA donate huge sums to politicans they clearly have no motive or incentive behind it - they must just think all those politicans are swell people. And when those politicians who have received the donations vote in line with the NRA's wishes that must be a total coincidence!

    Wake up and take your head out the sand.

    You're stance is beyond a joke.
    US is not UK, strange as it may seem.
    UK has extremely strict safeguards, and if you have evidence of anything untoward, as you suggest you do, I suggest you take it to someone. You point to Nash getting favourable legislation, and I point to banks being made to pay more tax.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    US is not UK, strange as it may seem.
    UK has extremely strict safeguards, and if you have evidence of anything untoward, as you suggest you do, I suggest you take it to someone. You point to Nash getting favourable legislation, and I point to banks being made to pay more tax.
    You were arguing it doesn't exist in the U.S. When it clearly does- has been reported about many times - has been commented on by the president and politicians and shown several times. Recently 46 senators voted down a bill which would require background checks before buying a gun. 43 of them had received prior donations from the nra but that's just a massive coincidence that 95% of those who voted in line with the nras wishes had been funded by them? Wow what a coincidence !!!

    And you've made a huge logical fallacy. You're saying that because of one example it means that there is no link between lobbying and receiving favourable legislation. Of course there are exceptions - as there is with everything. But do tell me, why did Jonny Nash receive favourable legislation so soon after donating money to the Tories? How about Bernie eccleston who was allowed to adverise cigarettes at sporting events despite no one else being allowed to after he donated 1 million to labour - coincidence? Massive donation followed by favourable legislation - must just be a coincidence eh ? And these things were reported and did make the news.

    Please drop the pathetic 'go take it to someone'. All this information is in the public domain and has been reported on and pointed out several times. I'm not claiming something new, crazy or unheard of.
    You're retreating and talking rubbish.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You were arguing it doesn't exist in the U.S. When it clearly does- has been reported about many times - has been commented on by the president and politicians and shown several times. Recently 46 senators voted down a bill which would require background checks before buying a gun. 43 of them had received prior donations from thenra but that's just a massive coincidence that 95% of those who voted in line with the nras wishes had been funded by them? Wow what a coincidence !!!

    And you've made a huge logical fallacy. You're saying that because of one example it means that there is no link between lobbying and receiving favourable legislation. Of course there are exceptions - as there is with everything. But do tell me, why did Jonny Nash receive favourable legislation so soon after donating money to the Tories? How about Bernie eccleston who was allowed to adverise cigarettes at sporting events despite no one else being allowed to after he donated 1 million to labour - coincidence? Massive donation followed by favourable legislation - must just be a coincidence eh ? And these things were reported and did make the news.


    You're retreating and talking rubbish.
    All comments I made were in relation to the UK, which, surprisingly, is the country we're having a discussion about in relation to UK politics. Though I'm not quite sure you brought up the issue in the first place (we were having a discussion about tax avoidance and corporation tax), you seem to misunderstand the way you need to on a strong argument. If you want to put forward a strong argument, you need to prove that there is a causal relationship between donations and favourable legislation. Up till now you've provided evidence of a donor seeing positive legislation put through Parliament, but have not provided evidence of a causal relationship; you've also presented a series of events in which a donor gets nice legislation, but I have also done so where a donor receives no such nice legislation. Moreover, is it surprising that a donor gives money to a party they align with? If I owned a massive clothes factory, I would definitely donate money to a libertarian party that would allow unlimited immigration and get rid of the minimum wage - if this party were to put this legislation through, that's not because I made the donation as the party had the policy prior to my making the donation.
    As you've said, in any case where there is a clear causal relationship, there is a high chance the media will pick up on it and uproar will ensue. The fact that few stories come out is at least a slight reflection on the rarity of these cases.

    I can't help but notice another user picked you up on your mistakes about an hour ago (nulli tertius, a I think it was) and yet you still maintain you are right.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    If you want to put forward a strong argument, you need to prove that there is a causal relationship between donations and favourable legislation. Up till now you've provided evidence of a donor seeing positive legislation put through Parliament, but have not provided evidence of a causal relationship; you've also presented a series of events in which a donor gets nice legislation
    So you admit you're wrong on the USA and about these issues not being reported.

    Well how can you possibly absolutely prove the single reason why someone votes how they do? You'd have to get inside a politicians head. You can however deduce information and build a strong case for a causal link which I have. When lobbyists pay politicians money and those politicians then vote in line with said lobbyists wishes - that is strong evidence for a link.
    Then you have clear cases showing a causal link:
    The Bernie Eccleston issue was massive. This is an article in the telegraph ffs which had access to the documents. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/t...-too-late.html

    Ecclestone donated money to Labour and shortly after got favourable legislation/government policy. How much more evidence do you need? It was huge and made the news - it was corruption so quite why you're asking me to make a case that was made and proven 14 years ago is bizarre. Blair personally made sure that formula 1 was exempt from the tobacco advertising ban. Official documents show that.
    Then you had the peers scandal where Blair gave peerages to many people who'd donated hugely to the Labour party. He was questioned by the police ffs - so again why would I need to make the case when it was publically made back then and the police were involved? But its all just a conspiracy right?

    I mean Bernie Ecclestone donated 1 million to labour and then got favorable legislation which no one else got but of course that's just a massive coincidence right?



    but I have also done so where a donor receives no such nice legislation.
    Which proves nothing. Providing a single counter example doesn't disprove it and moreover banks receive plenty of nice legislation.

    Moreover, is it surprising that a donor gives money to a party they align with? If I owned a massive clothes factory, I would definitely donate money to a libertarian party that would allow unlimited immigration and get rid of the minimum wage - if this party were to put this legislation through, that's not because I made the donation as the party had the policy prior to my making the donation.
    Which would be akin to trying to influence policy. If you donate loads of money to a politician who then votes as you want them to for your own financial interests that's pretty much corruption - you're basically buying policies. Do you really think huge corporations really just donate because they like a candidate? Or its far more likely they are trying to influence policy - AS IS THE CASE IN THE USA - in which even Presidents have spoken about how the corporations and lobbyists have a huge influence in policy.


    As you've said, in any case where there is a clear causal relationship, there is a high chance the media will pick up on it and uproar will ensue. The fact that few stories come out is at least a slight reflection on the rarity of these cases.
    What?! Loads of stories come out and its very well documented.



    So if a Saudi arms dealer came to the UK, donated huge amounts of money to certain politicians and those politicians then voted through a bill to buy arms from them - you wouldn't think there was anything untoward?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So you admit you're wrong on the USA and about these issues not being reported.

    Well how can you possibly absolutely prove the single reason why someone votes how they do? You'd have to get inside a politicians head. You can however deduce information and build a strong case for a causal link which I have. When lobbyists pay politicians money and those politicians then vote in line with said lobbyists wishes - that is strong evidence for a link.
    Then you have clear cases showing a causal link:
    The Bernie Eccleston issue was massive. This is an article in the telegraph ffs which had access to the documents. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/t...-too-late.html

    Ecclestone donated money to Labour and shortly after got favourable legislation/government policy. How much more evidence do you need? It was huge and made the news - it was corruption so quite why you're asking me to make a case that was made and proven 14 years ago is bizarre. Blair personally made sure that formula 1 was exempt from the tobacco advertising ban. Official documents show that.
    Then you had the peers scandal where Blair gave peerages to many people who'd donated hugely to the Labour party. He was questioned by the police ffs - so again why would I need to make the case when it was publically made back then and the police were involved? But its all just a conspiracy right?

    I mean Bernie Ecclestone donated 1 million to labour and then got favorable legislation which no one else got but of course that's just a massive coincidence right?





    Which proves nothing. Providing a single counter example doesn't disprove it and moreover banks receive plenty of nice legislation.



    Which would be akin to trying to influence policy. If you donate loads of money to a politician who then votes as you want them to for your own financial interests that's pretty much corruption - you're basically buying policies. Do you really think huge corporations really just donate because they like a candidate? Or its far more likely they are trying to influence policy - AS IS THE CASE IN THE USA - in which even Presidents have spoken about how the corporations and lobbyists have a huge influence in policy.



    What?! Loads of stories come out and its very well documented.



    So if a Saudi arms dealer came to the UK, donated huge amounts of money to certain politicians and those politicians then voted through a bill to buy arms from them - you wouldn't think there was anything untoward?
    Again, US is very different from UK. Not only have I said this, but another user too. You've failed to respond to either of our comments.

    You also completely misunderstood the example I gave. It is likely, is it not, that a rich individual will donate money to a politician who share their views in the hope they get elected and out their views into law. Does this mean the politician is in the pockets of the donor? No, because the politician had that view (on, say, abolishing the min wage) prior to the donation.

    I don't believe there is anything untoward about the case you give as long as due care has been carried out to ensure the party's executive has not put undue pressure on its MPs - ie the leadership can claim the Saudi's equipment is of higher quality or cheaper. Of course, if none of these things are true and the equipment is still bought, there is a strong case to suggest a causal relationship between the donation and the government's action, and these would no doubt lead to huge media trouble and a select committee grilling.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Again, US is very different from UK. Not only have I said this, but another user too. You've failed to respond to either of our comments.

    You also completely misunderstood the example I gave. It is likely, is it not, that a rich individual will donate money to a politician who share their views in the hope they get elected and out their views into law. Does this mean the politician is in the pockets of the donor? No, because the politician had that view (on, say, abolishing the min wage) prior to the donation.

    I don't believe there is anything untoward about the case you give as long as due care has been carried out to ensure the party's executive has not put undue pressure on its MPs - ie the leadership can claim the Saudi's equipment is of higher quality or cheaper. Of course, if none of these things are true and the equipment is still bought, there is a strong case to suggest a causal relationship between the donation and the government's action, and these would no doubt lead to huge media trouble and a select committee grilling.
    The UK is not that different from the US.

    And you haven't commented on the Ecclestone case which was proven and made national news. Nor the peerages scandal which resulted in Blair being interviewed under caution by the police.

    If someone with a vested interest donates heavily to certain politicans/parties who then pass favourable legislation - that indicates a strong causal link.

    There have been huge media grillings ffs - look at the Ecclestone case again - which you have STILL not responded to.


    You really have no leg to stand on - you're arguing against cases which have been proven. And it happens in the USA - a lot so it's not unlikley that it could happen here too.

    And you haven't given a defence about Jonny Nash.
    So it's just a HUGE coincidence that he gets favourable legislation after donating hugely to the tories?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure but I fear it will involve flares, the Austin Allegro and Brotherhood of Man appeared at the Last Night of the Proms.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The UK is not that different from the US.
    Wrong again, just like both I and nulli tertius have said. Here's a nice little article for yo to look at:

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...essure-groups/

    And you haven't commented on the Ecclestone case which was proven and made national news. Nor the peerages scandal which resulted in Blair being interviewed under caution by the police.

    If someone with a vested interest donates heavily to certain politicans/parties who then pass favourable legislation - that indicates a strong causal link.
    Oh yea sorry about that.
    This is exactly what I am saying - when it does come out it rocks the political world. But how long ago was the Ecclestone case? These cases are few and far between.

    To respond to your second paragraph: No it doesn't. It proves a correlation, but proves no causal link. As I've said before, it is entirely plausible that an entity would donate money to a party who they share specific interests with (for example if Greenpeace were to donate money to an environmentalist Labour Party who got elected and imposed a CO2 tax) without the donation having created that legislation. Do you see? And things like this are always open to investigation.

    There have been huge media grillings ffs - look at the Ecclestone case again - which you have STILL not responded to.
    Oh sorry - I didn't quite get the time between you writing your second paragraph and you writing your fourth paragraph.

    You really have no leg to stand on - you're arguing against cases which have been proven. And it happens in the USA - a lot so it's not unlikley that it could happen here too.

    And you haven't given a defence about Jonny Nash.
    So it's just a HUGE coincidence that he gets favourable legislation after donating hugely to the tories?
    Yes, is most likely completely above board. Nash may have agreed what Tory health policy was and so donated, not donated in order to change policy. I know you like to see huge establishment cover-ups everywhere but sometimes you just have to accept that powerful people can act in perfectly legitimate ways.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Wrong again, just like both I and nulli tertius have said. Here's a nice little article for yo to look at:

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...essure-groups/
    So one article proves everything? Lobbysits are hugely powerful in the UK. See the Pro-Israel Lobby.
    This is exactly what I am saying - when it does come out it rocks the political world. But how long ago was the Ecclestone case? These cases are few and far between.
    You were saying they don't happen, now you've retreated to 'few and far between'. These are two massive cases which made huge headlines and absolutely represent my point. And this was at the very highest level involving our PM. Yet you think it's unthinkable that other politicians could engage in similar?


    To respond to your second paragraph: No it doesn't. It proves a correlation, but proves no causal link. As I've said before, it is entirely plausible that an entity would donate money to a party who they share specific interests with (for example if Greenpeace were to donate money to an environmentalist Labour Party who got elected and imposed a CO2 tax) without the donation having created that legislation. Do you see? And things like this are always open to investigation.
    It is almost impossible in many cases to prove a causal link but your naivity here is nothing short of stunning. So you think that the NRA donates huge amounts to congressmen simply because they are swell guys?
    You think that the fact many outgoing politicians enter jobs as lobbysits after leavng congress for firms they voted favourably for after receiving donations is all just a coincidence?

    And you think President Eisenhower who worked in the office and saw this close relationship and influence of lobbyists first hand is talking rubbish and you know better?

    When individuals like Bernie Ecclestone donate huge amounts to political parties and politicians and then get favorable legislation - it's corruption. The Blair case was proven corruption.
    When private healthcare firms are allowed to buy accees to take Cameron to dinner and when they donate huge funds to the tory party and subsequently receive favourable legislation that is good evidence for a causal link. You're so naive thinking they donate because they like politicans - they donate because they want to influence policy - it happens in America with the same sort of firms- it happens here.

    And the media do report on such - Jonny Nash gained much scruitny - it's just that they tend to be very sneaky and it's impossible to prove it exactly without mind reading the politicians.

    Oh sorry - I didn't quite get the time between you writing your second paragraph and you writing your fourth paragraph.


    Yes, is most likely completely above board. Nash may have agreed what Tory health policy was and so donated, not donated in order to change policy. I know you like to see huge establishment cover-ups everywhere but sometimes you just have to accept that powerful people can act in perfectly legitimate ways.
    Yes of course, because Nash who owned a huge private care firm of course had no ulterior motive when donating a huge sum to the tory party.

    And the problem of course, is that it is perfectly legitimate. It is legal for corporations to donate hugely to certain parties and influence policies.

    Have a read of this -http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-report-lays-bare-the-scandal-of-lobbyists-10031467.html

    A report in your beloved Independent detailing about how there are so many loopholes they can exploit to stay 'above board' while effectively buying influence.
    It also highlights more examples of when lobbyists have pretty much bought policies.

    But of course its all just a massive coincidence that lobbyists who donate huge amounts to politicans get nice legislation in return. All just a massive coincidence.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I do wish people would stop writing essay replies on threads, as if people are going to read all of them in full


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)

    And you haven't commented on the Ecclestone case which was proven and made national news. Nor the peerages scandal which resulted in Blair being interviewed under caution by the police.
    The Ecclestone case is the exception which proves the rule.

    Formula1 would have had power and influence with successive governments through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its predecessors without the need to "buy" influence other than by the provision of grand prix freebies.

    In 2007, it was facing an existential threat (as much as anything to the British based teams) from a wholly different area of government; the Department for Health, if Labour were elected.

    Ecclestone's £1M donation was to give him name recognition in Downing Street in the event that Labour were elected because he knew "his" ministry had lost the tobacco advertising argument.

    That is an unusual set of circumstances (although to be fair it would be in the interests of the higher education sector if it started showering Teresa May with honorary degrees because that is facing a similar threat from an area of government which does not usually concern itself with them).
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.