Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    One consisting of stagnant economic progression and the brunt of the classist divide fomenting into a hostile and irreversible civil war.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AzimH)
    Better for students than it is now.
    Leaving uni to enter a jobs market congested by graduates of such useful skills as "social and gender studies" or "comparative philosophy" or "sociology"


    Posted from the TSR app - no updates since 2013!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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).
    His money bought him access and thus allowed him to influence policy- it was pretty much proven.

    Then you have cash for access and cash for peerages which resulted in Blair being interviewed by the police.
    When stuff like this happens at the very highest level it seems bizarre to rule out it happening elsewhere.

    Lobbying essentially is paying money to influence policy- that's what they do and due to the amount of loopholes it all is legal. Private health firms donate hugely to the Tories and get nice legislation in return - the pro Israel lobby donates hugely to the Tories and gets favourable treatment. You are actually allowed to buy access to Cameron if you have the money.

    Read the independent report on it- politicians often receive huge donations from individuals / corporations and then propose and vote for legislation in those people's interests.

    Remember the Al-Fayed case?

    You are basically allows to buy policies if you have the money.


    Personally I'd ban financial or equivalent donations to political parties and make them state funded to avoid corruption.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So one article proves everything? Lobbysits are hugely powerful in the UK. See the Pro-Israel Lobby.
    Yes, this article puts well the comparison between the opportunities for private-interest groups' influence on policy in the UK and U.S. In short, there is less opportunity in the UK so your whole argument about the US is redundant.
    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?
    I'm fairly sure I didn't say these things never happen.
    The Ecclestone affair is exactly my point - when it does happen, it is uncovered and causes a huge fuss. I'm not saying politicians cannot engage in such affairs, but that there is a strong incentive not to do so and that this is indicated by the relative lack of huge scandals in recent years.


    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?
    Again, your direct comparison between US and UK doesn't stand. I'm not the only one to say this.

    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.
    Ecclestone case I've mentioned.

    You have not engaged at all with my series of events in which a donor can make a donation without influencing policy - that a donor makes a donation because they already agree with a party's policy. For example, the very case you talk about, Cameron and his party were always for the role of private firms in the NHS so it makes sense for these firms to donate to his campaign. They didn't create that policy, they supported it.

    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.
    Yes it did and quite right too. But no wrongdoing was found to have occurred and you cannot simply put two things together and say there is a strong causal link. Argument just doesn't work that way.

    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.
    Of course he did! He wanted to get the contract. But to assert that he got the contract because he gave the donation is an unproven claim. Is it a surprise that one of the biggest care companies gets an NHS contract? I'm not sure it is.

    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.
    I'd just like to finish with a comment on the slight absurdity of the situation. You started off this discussion, after discussing corporation tax, with a 'what about' statement and then proceeded to list all the problems with lobbying in the U.S. You seem to forget the power private-interest groups will yield if Corbyn were elected PM. He has expressly stated he wants the unions to have a greater influence on the Labour Party. Trade unions are private-interest groups who engage in lobbying all the time.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Yes, this article puts well the comparison between the opportunities for private-interest groups' influence on policy in the UK and U.S. In short, there is less opportunity in the UK so your whole argument about the US is redundant.
    You keep shifting the goalposts. You started claiming it didn't happen in the USA - I've absolutely proven you wrong on that.
    I never said the UK was as bad as the USA - it's not but that doesn't mean lobbying and influence doesn't happen. 2 billion was spent in lobbying members of Parliament last year.

    I'm fairly sure I didn't say these things never happen.
    The Ecclestone affair is exactly my point - when it does happen, it is uncovered and causes a huge fuss. I'm not saying politicians cannot engage in such affairs, but that there is a strong incentive not to do so and that this is indicated by the relative lack of huge scandals in recent years.
    The Ecclestone scandal represents my point - a private individual buying favourable legislation. You even admit this.
    I notice you didn't respond to cash for peerages which saw Tony Blair questioned by the police...

    But here's another example discussed in the telgraph :http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/inve...of-hubris.html

    Two tory MPs were found guilty of accepting monetary donations from Al-Fayed in order to ask questions in his interest - corruption.
    No doubt this was a coincidence too?
    Or how about the two Labour MPs who were suspended from the lords for accepting £120,000 to make amendments to legislation? Coincidence?

    Is it just a correlation? Of course not.

    I have shown lobbysits buying influence happens at every level including the very top and shown real and clear examples in the past yet you dispute that they can and do buy influence?

    And your argument that ' well if it happened we'd hear about it far more' is an absolute fail of an argument. Remember the phone hacking scnadal? It was going on for years and we heard nothing - whenever the Guardian questioned it they were told they were being ridiculous and then it all came out in 2011. Does that mean phone hacking didn't happen in all those years just because it didn't make main news?






    You have not engaged at all with my series of events in which a donor can make a donation without influencing policy - that a donor makes a donation because they already agree with a party's policy. For example, the very case you talk about, Cameron and his party were always for the role of private firms in the NHS so it makes sense for these firms to donate to his campaign. They didn't create that policy, they supported it.
    That's the theory alright and you'd be bloody naive to actually believe it.
    Show me an article of early Cameron wanting private firms in the NHS? before he was elected.

    You're naive if you think that lobbyists, who's job it is to influence policy, pay money to parties and individuals and then just happen to receive nice legislation.
    Especially when corruption has been proven time and time again.
    Of course huge money buys influence - hence why corporations get far nicer legislation then unions who are not as wealthy.

    Yes it did and quite right too. But no wrongdoing was found to have occurred and you cannot simply put two things together and say there is a strong causal link. Argument just doesn't work that way.
    That's exactly the problem. There are so many loopholes that allow you to buy legislation that it is not illegal.
    He has expressly stated he wants the unions to have a greater influence on the Labour Party. Trade unions are private-interest groups who engage in lobbying all the time.
    That's why i'm against any private donations to political parties at all. That includes unions. Although unions lobby for people to receive a wage they can live off and a secure job for their members whereas corporations lobby for the benefits of a handful of people's wallets.

    And Jonny Nash donated a huge amount and gets given a contract - that's pure and simple corruption. Legalised corruption but nonetheless corruption.


    But of course its a massive coincidence that those who donate huge sums get nice legislation and nice contracts. Coincidence. Of course.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You keep shifting the goalposts. You started claiming it didn't happen in the USA - I've absolutely proven you wrong on that.
    I never said the UK was as bad as the USA - it's not but that doesn't mean lobbying and influence doesn't happen. 2 billion was spent in lobbying members of Parliament last year.
    I've just look through our conversation and have found no instances of my saying it didn't happen in the US. Nor in the UK - all I said were that cases are 'few and far between' and that the problem is much less than you say.

    The Ecclestone scandal represents my point - a private individual buying favourable legislation. You even admit this.
    I notice you didn't respond to cash for peerages which saw Tony Blair questioned by the police...

    But here's another example discussed in the telgraph :http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/inve...of-hubris.html

    Two tory MPs were found guilty of accepting monetary donations from Al-Fayed in order to ask questions in his interest - corruption.
    No doubt this was a coincidence too?
    Or how about the two Labour MPs who were suspended from the lords for accepting £120,000 to make amendments to legislation? Coincidence?
    Again, having a few cases where corruption has taken place is not enough to imply the whole system is corrupt. Think of all the legislation that is churned through Parliament each year and all the donations the party in government gets - it is as part of these figures you must count the number of corrupt deals. Turns out, it's relatively small a number.

    Is it just a correlation? Of course not.

    I have shown lobbysits buying influence happens at every level including the very top and shown real and clear examples in the past yet you dispute that they can and do buy influence?

    And your argument that ' well if it happened we'd hear about it far more' is an absolute fail of an argument. Remember the phone hacking scnadal? It was going on for years and we heard nothing - whenever the Guardian questioned it they were told they were being ridiculous and then it all came out in 2011. Does that mean phone hacking didn't happen in all those years just because it didn't make main news?
    You have shown examples but failed to look at them in context of the huge numbers of donations and bits of legislation that take place each year. I'm sure there are a few preventable deaths per year at my local hospital - is that something that needs improving? Yes, of course. Does it prove that the hospital is terrible? No, because the vast majority of patients make it out better than when they went in.

    That's the theory alright and you'd be bloody naive to actually believe it.
    Show me an article of early Cameron wanting private firms in the NHS? before he was elected.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...20-points.html

    Sorry mate.

    You're naive if you think that lobbyists, who's job it is to influence policy, pay money to parties and individuals and then just happen to receive nice legislation.
    Especially when corruption has been proven time and time again.
    Of course huge money buys influence - hence why corporations get far nicer legislation then unions who are not as wealthy.

    That's exactly the problem. There are so many loopholes that allow you to buy legislation that it is not illegal.
    I have consistently said that cases of corruption exist, but these are few and far between when one considers the amount of stuff that happens in politics each year.

    That's why i'm against any private donations to political parties at all. That includes unions. Although unions lobby for people to receive a wage they can live off and a secure job for their members whereas corporations lobby for the benefits of a handful of people's wallets.
    But do you not accept that a political party, at its core, serves to benefit private interests? The Tories traditionally tried to get into government to help rich landowners and Labour traditionally tried to get into government to help manual, low-wage workers. Does it not, then, make sense for these private interest groups to donate to the party of their choice in the hope that it will help them get into government?
    If a politician came around to vastly increase the wages of miners and I were a mining union boss, I would absolutely try and make sure this politician has all the money he needs to win an election. There's nothing wrong with that, is there? After all, political parties are there to represent private interests.

    And Jonny Nash donated a huge amount and gets given a contract - that's pure and simple corruption. Legalised corruption but nonetheless corruption.

    But of course its a massive coincidence that those who donate huge sums get nice legislation and nice contracts. Coincidence. Of course.
    I sneezed the day before my dog died. Coincidence?To say there is corruption, you need proof. You cannot just pair two events that conveniently look bad for the government.


    Could I ask why, eons ago, you brought this issue up? If I remember we were talking about corporation tax and the tax gap (by the way, I'm still asking for evidence that tax avoidance is 'way, way above' £100bn). I'm not sure why you brought up the issue of lobbying. Will you be campaigning for Corbyn to lose his union funding?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)



    Again, having a few cases where corruption has taken place is not enough to imply the whole system is corrupt. Think of all the legislation that is churned through Parliament each year and all the donations the party in government gets - it is as part of these figures you must count the number of corrupt deals. Turns out, it's relatively small a number.
    It's happened a fair bit and that's just what we know about. My point is about the close relationship between wealthy donors and politicians and how they influence policy.

    You have shown examples but failed to look at them in context of the huge numbers of donations and bits of legislation that take place each year. I'm sure there are a few preventable deaths per year at my local hospital - is that something that needs improving? Yes, of course. Does it prove that the hospital is terrible? No, because the vast majority of patients make it out better than when they went in.
    When our own PM is found guilty of accepting cash for legislation and cash for peerages does it prove there is a problem with the system which allows this to happen? Of course it does - and it stems from the close nature of politicians and wealthy businessmen.


    I have consistently said that cases of corruption exist, but these are few and far between when one considers the amount of stuff that happens in politics each year.
    They aren't 'few and far between'. As i've shown. The point is about what leads to corruption and influence which is the cosy relationship between wealthy donors and politicians giving them favourable legislation.


    But do you not accept that a political party, at its core, serves to benefit private interests? The Tories traditionally tried to get into government to help rich landowners and Labour traditionally tried to get into government to help manual, low-wage workers. Does it not, then, make sense for these private interest groups to donate to the party of their choice in the hope that it will help them get into government?
    If a politician came around to vastly increase the wages of miners and I were a mining union boss, I would absolutely try and make sure this politician has all the money he needs to win an election. There's nothing wrong with that, is there? After all, political parties are there to represent private interests.
    There's a huge difference between lobbying for every day workers to be paid more and lobbying for multi-millionaires to recieve contracts benefiting themselves.
    Having said that, I'd ban all private donation to political parties, unions included.

    Poltical parties should represent the public - not a handful of individuals.

    I sneezed the day before my dog died. Coincidence?To say there is corruption, you need proof. You cannot just pair two events that conveniently look bad for the government.
    Shocking argument here.Are you really saying there is as much link between you sneezing and your dog dying as there is between an individual donating a huge amount to a political party and then receiving favourable legislation?

    Give over - you know that's an awful point.
    I've shown a strong case for a causal link. The fact that an indivudal who donated money to the tories himself received a contract. That shouldn't be the case and again highlights the far too close relationship between private interests and politicians.

    And to add to my case, there have been many well documented cases in the past including our own PM and MPs who have engaged in such corruption - who have taken money to pass legislation for private interests. It has happened before, regularly yet you think its absurd it could happen again.

    But its part of a wider point - that having money buys influence. Sometimes it's pure corruption - sometimes it may be legal - due to a loophole but the wider issue is that private interests can sway directly or indirectly policy with their own money.

    Will you be campaigning for Corbyn to lose his union funding?
    I have always maintained that I disagree with private donations and although unions are nowhere near as bad - they still fall under the category of private donations so yes I will continue to advocate for that. Politics should be more transparent and private interests and welathy individuals should not be able to buy legislation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    As fascinating as this back and forth is what is wrong with privatisation in the NHS as long as the service is good and remains free at the point of use?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    As fascinating as this back and forth is what is wrong with privatisation in the NHS as long as the service is good and remains free at the point of use?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well the second bit of that sentence.
    Once you introduce a profit motive they start looking to cut corners. The focus becomes on making money, not providing a service and funds are taken out for profit rather then reinvested.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    As fascinating as this back and forth is what is wrong with privatisation in the NHS as long as the service is good and remains free at the point of use?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nothing's wrong with it at all. If private firms can do the job then there's no problem.

    All I'm objecting to is the use of the word privatisation and I've given Bornblue the definition of the word so hopefully this argument won't need to continue. He's certainly kept quiet.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Well the second bit of that sentence.
    Once you introduce a profit motive they start looking to cut corners. The focus becomes on making money, not providing a service and funds are taken out for profit rather then reinvested.
    Make a stronger contract then! Make it impossible to cut corners and continually rewrite the contract whenever evidence of corner-cutting is found. This really is not a fundamental problem.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Make a stronger contract then! Make it impossible to cut corners and continually rewrite the contract whenever evidence of corner-cutting is found. This really is not a fundamental problem.
    PFI is backdoor privatisation. It transfers the ownership and control of contracts, facilities, and staff to private firms who then make a profit from the public.

    Remove the profit incentive and provide an actual service where evey single penny is reinvested back in, rather then leached out into multi millioanires bank accounts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's happened a fair bit and that's just what we know about. My point is about the close relationship between wealthy donors and politicians and how they influence policy.


    When our own PM is found guilty of accepting cash for legislation and cash for peerages does it prove there is a problem with the system which allows this to happen? Of course it does - and it stems from the close nature of politicians and wealthy businessmen.



    They aren't 'few and far between'. As i've shown. The point is about what leads to corruption and influence which is the cosy relationship between wealthy donors and politicians giving them favourable legislation.
    'As I've shown'? Have you shown that there are more than 'few and far between' cases in the context of all legislation passed through parliament and all donations made to parties? I don think so.


    There's a huge difference between lobbying for every day workers to be paid more and lobbying for multi-millionaires to recieve contracts benefiting themselves.
    Having said that, I'd ban all private donation to political parties, unions included.

    Poltical parties should represent the public - not a handful of individuals.
    A political party is not there to represent the public, because for that to be the case, there'd need to be public agreement on every issue. Obviously, that's not the case and so it stands to reason that a party must, by default, represent the interests of particular groups of people. The Labour Party, for instance, basically wants the poor to be better off by taking from the rich. It's clear they are representing private individuals here, and there's nothing wrong with that, because every voter is a private individual with their own interests.

    Shocking argument here.Are you really saying there is as much link between you sneezing and your dog dying as there is between an individual donating a huge amount to a political party and then receiving favourable legislation?

    Give over - you know that's an awful point.
    I've shown a strong case for a causal link. The fact that an indivudal who donated money to the tories himself received a contract. That shouldn't be the case and again highlights the far too close relationship between private interests and politicians.
    Why is that a bad point? Both my claim and your claim have little to no evidence for a causal relationship. Just as dogs have caught diseases from their owners, so too have politicians changed their policies to suit interests; both cases, though are historic and very rare.

    And to add to my case, there have been many well documented cases in the past including our own PM and MPs who have engaged in such corruption - who have taken money to pass legislation for private interests. It has happened before, regularly yet you think its absurd it could happen again.
    Again, you've given some examples - in the context of everything that happens in parliament across a year, it's very rare. I haven't argued it doesn't exist, I've argued that it is rarer than you say.

    But its part of a wider point - that having money buys influence. Sometimes it's pure corruption - sometimes it may be legal - due to a loophole but the wider issue is that private interests can sway directly or indirectly policy with their own money.

    I have always maintained that I disagree with private donations and although unions are nowhere near as bad - they still fall under the category of private donations so yes I will continue to advocate for that. Politics should be more transparent and private interests and welathy individuals should not be able to buy legislation.
    Good to hear.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    2) The Tories have actually borrowed less every year
    Not quite. In 2012 the budget deficit was £90 billion. In 2013 is was £108 billion. So under their watch the deficit increased by £18 billion

    In 2015 it's £76 billion. So from 2012 to 2015, the reductions were not particularly large. I don't think you can really say the Conservatives have made huge cuts.

    Which begs the question, how is it that they have slashed departmental budgets by huge amounts like 25% or 40%, and yet they have barely touched the sides of the deficit?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    PFI is backdoor privatisation. It transfers the ownership and control of contracts, facilities, and staff to private firms who then make a profit from the public.

    Remove the profit incentive and provide an actual service where evey single penny is reinvested back in, rather then leached out into multi millioanires bank accounts.
    There is no transfer of ownership. Just like I have a contract with a window cleaner to wash our windows every 3 weeks, the NHS has contracts with firms to carry out certain services.

    I refer you to my post in the other thread where I gave you three definitions of privatisation. I notice you haven't responded to that. The ignorance is fine, it's the obstinateness that astounds me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    'As I've shown'? Have you shown that there are more than 'few and far between' cases in the context of all legislation passed through parliament and all donations made to parties? I don think so.



    A political party is not there to represent the public, because for that to be the case, there'd need to be public agreement on every issue. Obviously, that's not the case and so it stands to reason that a party must, by default, represent the interests of particular groups of people. The Labour Party, for instance, basically wants the poor to be better off by taking from the rich. It's clear they are representing private individuals here, and there's nothing wrong with that, because every voter is a private individual with their own interests.



    Why is that a bad point? Both my claim and your claim have little to no evidence for a causal relationship. Just as dogs have caught diseases from their owners, so too have politicians changed their policies to suit interests; both cases, though are historic and very rare.


    Again, you've given some examples - in the context of everything that happens in parliament across a year, it's very rare. I haven't argued it doesn't exist, I've argued that it is rarer than you say.



    Good to hear.
    Urghh you'd start an argument with yourself if you could.

    I've never said it happens in every case. I've said it's happened lots of times - some more blatant then other. Our own Prime Minister has even been involved in it. So a system that allows a PM to do that, clearly does need fixing.

    Many loopholes exist, making it legal for individual businessmen to pay huge sums to politicians and in return get given contracts or nice legislation. That's wrong. It's legalised bribery and corruption.

    There are countless cases - I'll find some more for you of politicians receiving large donations from businessmen/vested interests and then proposing legislation to favour them.

    You shouldn't be allowed to go pay a politician loads of money and then they go and vote how you want them to or introduce legislation which directly favours you.

    Money buys influence.

    Again, you're really comparing sneezing and a dog dying to making a huge donation to someone and then they do you a favour. On surface level, which one looks closer linked? Don't be a prat.

    And then you throw in the close relationship - the fact they can buy access to politicans and the fact that huge cases of corruption have occurred in the past involving those at the highest level and that's strong evidence for money buying policies.

    I've not said every piece of legislation is like this as you seem to be implying I've said. I have said the close relationship allows policies to be bought in many cases. Sometimes this spills into pure corruption - often it's more subtle and finds a loophole but is equally as damaging.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    There is no transfer of ownership. Just like I have a contract with a window cleaner to wash our windows every 3 weeks, the NHS has contracts with firms to carry out certain services.

    I refer you to my post in the other thread where I gave you three definitions of privatisation. I notice you haven't responded to that. The ignorance is fine, it's the obstinateness that astounds me.
    Yes and the PFI fits.
    Bits have been privatised - taken into private control. They own public assets in the way of facilities, contracts and services.

    I can't be bothered arguing this point anymore with you - your stubbornness is astounding.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Urghh you'd start an argument with yourself if you could.

    I've never said it happens in every case. I've said it's happened lots of times - some more blatant then other. Our own Prime Minister has even been involved in it. So a system that allows a PM to do that, clearly does need fixing.

    Many loopholes exist, making it legal for individual businessmen to pay huge sums to politicians and in return get given contracts or nice legislation. That's wrong. It's legalised bribery and corruption.

    There are countless cases - I'll find some more for you of politicians receiving large donations from businessmen/vested interests and then proposing legislation to favour them.

    You shouldn't be allowed to go pay a politician loads of money and then they go and vote how you want them to or introduce legislation which directly favours you.

    Money buys influence.

    Again, you're really comparing sneezing and a dog dying to making a huge donation to someone and then they do you a favour. On surface level, which one looks closer linked? Don't be a prat.

    And then you throw in the close relationship - the fact they can buy access to politicans and the fact that huge cases of corruption have occurred in the past involving those at the highest level and that's strong evidence for money buying policies.

    I've not said every piece of legislation is like this as you seem to be implying I've said. I have said the close relationship allows policies to be bought in many cases. Sometimes this spills into pure corruption - often it's more subtle and finds a loophole but is equally as damaging.
    My only problem is that you are making the issue seem far bigger than it is. We both agree that this stuff can go on and does. What you're forgetting is that as a fraction of all the legislation that goes through parliament and all the donations to the party in charge, the number of instances wherein a donation has created new legislation is tiny. That's all I've said. You're argument is that because it can happen, it must happen and it must happen on a large scale - besides the more obvious point of a lack of evidence, it makes a logical jump from 'can' and 'does' for which there is no justification. I'm sure a tiny number of dogs have died as a result of catching diseases from a human - I'd sneezed on my dog prior to its dying; does this mean I caused the death? Statistically not, but I'd investigate the situation. All the same applies in the case of lobbying.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    My only problem is that you are making the issue seem far bigger than it is. We both agree that this stuff can go on and does. What you're forgetting is that as a fraction of all the legislation that goes through parliament and all the donations to the party in charge, the number of instances wherein a donation has created new legislation is tiny. That's all I've said. You're argument is that because it can happen, it must happen and it must happen on a large scale - besides the more obvious point of a lack of evidence, it makes a logical jump from 'can' and 'does' for which there is no justification. I'm sure a tiny number of dogs have died as a result of catching diseases from a human - I'd sneezed on my dog prior to its dying; does this mean I caused the death? Statistically not, but I'd investigate the situation. All the same applies in the case of lobbying.
    You're conflating what I'm saying
    The big issue is the fact that private indivudals through monetary donations can and do influence policies. Sometimes very blatantly such as Blair + Ecclestone - sometimes more subtle but it happens all the time. Most of it isn't illegal and that itself is the problem. That individuals are allowed to give huge sums to politicans who then in return give them nice legislation.

    If a random person wanted me to do something and paid me a lot of money to and then I did it- (sorry for vagueness - sounds a bit like a prostitute) then it would strongly indicate a causal link.

    When you see powerful lobbies like the pro-israel lobby get favourable legislation and treatment and then see the huge donations they make - it strikes alarm bells.

    When Jonny Nash donates hugely to the tories and then recieves a contract - it influences policy. Read up on the oil companies after the Iraq War. The oil companies lobbied hard to go to war and then they got awarded all the lucrative contracts when we did.

    Paying money to politicians to influence them directly or indirectly to give you nice legislation and do you favours is wrong.

    Financial lobbying as an entity should be banned completely in my view and yes this includes unions.

    I've not said it happens all the time - but rather much of our policy is influenced by those with money who lobby politicians and parties with big financial donations.
    Do you think when Cameron awarded PFI contracts, the fact that Jonny Nash had paid him a shedload of money didn't play on his mind? Is it just a massive coincidence?
    You'd be mad or naive to think that there is no link between donating massive sums and receiving favours - when this has happened many times at the past including our very own Prime Minister.

    Someone donating hugely to a politician is a more likely cause of that politician doing them favors then someone sneezing and a dog dying. It's a stupid analogy - come off it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AzimH)
    Better for students than it is now.
    Being a student is usually 3 years of a person's life. And not every person for that matter either. For some it's longer than 3, or shorter. Electing a politician based on a few years of your life, assuming they served for 3 years that you are a student, is silly. Vote for the person and party who you believe in rather than who will give you a better three years.
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
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.