Political Crossfire Forums

[angusrae]

£250,000 donation fuels Labour's woes
JAMES KIRKUP POLITICAL EDITOR
A FINANCIER who owns the world's biggest wind turbine manufacturing plant gifted £250,000 to the Labour Party just months before ministers promised new planning rules to fast-track wind farm developments, it was revealed yesterday.

Nigel Doughty, whose investment company owns LM Glasfiber, made the donation in May, according to Electoral Commission records.

In July, the government's Energy Review pledged to make it harder for residents and environmental groups to block applications to build wind farms in England. Ministers argued that more wind farms were vital to reducing Britain's carbon emissions and dependence on fuels such as oil and gas.

Both Labour and Mr Doughty, who is also chairman of Nottingham Forest FC, have denied any improper link between his donations and government policy.

Electoral Commission figures released yesterday provide more proof of Labour's financial crisis. By the end of June, Labour had debts of £28 million,

and in the next 100 days the party must repay more than £4 million to former benefactors. Almost £13 million in loans from wealthy backers is at the heart of Labour's "cash for peerages" scandal.

The money was lent before last year's election and now the party is struggling to repay its debts.

Already, a loan of £1.5 million from one backer, the healthcare tycoon Chai Patel, has had to be rescheduled.

Underlining Labour's financial troubles, the Conservatives recorded healthy donations, receiving more than £6 million between April and June, almost double that donated to Labour.

This article: http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1246192006

It seems that the Labour party are lurching from one scandal to another.

[Pebble]

The sad debaucle of New Labour, and worse still the behaviour is probably mirrored in the other major parties as well. I wonder if anyone recalls the events John Major years, when he was campaigning for 'no more sleeze' and expelling members of his cabinet, he was conducting an affair. :?

[AKAMad]

If our political parties are so corrupt, why are they in debt ? Better than the US, where you have to raise 1/4 billion to become President.

It's time for public funding.

[angusrae]

AKAMad wrote: If our political parties are so corrupt, why are they in debt ? Better than the US, where you have to raise 1/4 billion to become President.

It's time for public funding.

Because they keep getting caught at it by the British Media and other political parties but I agree we need public funding of political parties but it would need to be well regulated or we could see even more abuse of that system.

[MoscowMatt]

angusrae wrote: AKAMad wrote: If our political parties are so corrupt, why are they in debt ? Better than the US, where you have to raise 1/4 billion to become President.

It's time for public funding.

Because they keep getting caught at it by the British Media and other political parties but I agree we need public funding of political parties but it would need to be well regulated or we could see even more abuse of that system.


Well the public funding should be voluntary. I'm damned if I want to be taxed to fund political parties that do not represent my views and opinions.

[antonio62]

MoscowMatt wrote: angusrae wrote: AKAMad wrote: If our political parties are so corrupt, why are they in debt ? Better than the US, where you have to raise 1/4 billion to become President.

It's time for public funding.

Because they keep getting caught at it by the British Media and other political parties but I agree we need public funding of political parties but it would need to be well regulated or we could see even more abuse of that system.


Well the public funding should be voluntary. I'm damned if I want to be taxed to fund political parties that do not represent my views and opinions.

Or you can keep letting corporations decide what happens in Britain. They'll be damned if your allowed democracy.

[MoscowMatt]

antonio62 wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: angusrae wrote: AKAMad wrote: If our political parties are so corrupt, why are they in debt ? Better than the US, where you have to raise 1/4 billion to become President.

It's time for public funding.

Because they keep getting caught at it by the British Media and other political parties but I agree we need public funding of political parties but it would need to be well regulated or we could see even more abuse of that system.


Well the public funding should be voluntary. I'm damned if I want to be taxed to fund political parties that do not represent my views and opinions.

Or you can keep letting corporations decide what happens in Britain. They'll be damned if your allowed democracy.

What and you reckon with public funding that it will somehow give the people power!!!! Erm yeah sure it will!!!! :roll: :lol:

I have no wish whatsoever to fund any political party, and don't see why it should be forced on me and other like minded people.

[antonio62]

MoscowMatt wrote: What and you reckon with public funding that it will somehow give the people power!!!! Erm yeah sure it will!!!! :roll: :lol:

I have no wish whatsoever to fund any political party, and don't see why it should be forced on me and other like minded people.

Itll give them a lot more power as government policy wontbe decided by corporations.

[MoscowMatt]

antonio62 wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: What and you reckon with public funding that it will somehow give the people power!!!! Erm yeah sure it will!!!! :roll: :lol:

I have no wish whatsoever to fund any political party, and don't see why it should be forced on me and other like minded people.

Itll give them a lot more power as government policy wontbe decided by corporations.

Corporations will always hold the power as they control the money. Public funding will make not a blind bit of differnece to the voice of the individual.

[bob.appleyard]

They ceased to be the Labour party with the abandonment of Clause 4.

[antonio62]

MoscowMatt wrote: Corporations will always hold the power as they control the money. Public funding will make not a blind bit of differnece to the voice of the individual.

They wont hold the power of winning elections and so the politicains don't have to listen to them the way they do now. It also means we will have more than two partys that can actually win an election.

[AKAMad]

The thought of giving my taxes to political parties doesn't fill me with joy, but if I don't, who will ? It is not free speech, it is paid speech, and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Let's pay them on a formula based on unemployment figures.

[DSwain]

MoscowMatt wrote: antonio62 wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: angusrae wrote: AKAMad wrote: If our political parties are so corrupt, why are they in debt ? Better than the US, where you have to raise 1/4 billion to become President.

It's time for public funding.

Because they keep getting caught at it by the British Media and other political parties but I agree we need public funding of political parties but it would need to be well regulated or we could see even more abuse of that system.


Well the public funding should be voluntary. I'm damned if I want to be taxed to fund political parties that do not represent my views and opinions.

Or you can keep letting corporations decide what happens in Britain. They'll be damned if your allowed democracy.

What and you reckon with public funding that it will somehow give the people power!!!! Erm yeah sure it will!!!! :roll: :lol:

I have no wish whatsoever to fund any political party, and don't see why it should be forced on me and other like minded people.

It's just another use for public funds. I don't like the idea of hypothecation, otherwise I'd be saying that I don't want my money being spent on Chavvy single mums.

Personally, I would be in favour of public funding. For little money, the political environment could be cleaned up considerably. Of course there are drawbacks, particularly the insulation of political parties from economic realities that other 'businesses' have to face day-to-day. I think this would be a small price to pay for the removal of the risk of graft.

[Ra]

I always wondered how bad Britain really had it when it came to political corruption. If you didn't know about ours I'l briefly bring you up to speed.
There is 2 columns, column A for the corrupt politicians and column B for the less corrupt. People here in Ireland use to look at this and say "my my there's certainly alot in column A". Now recently as you may have heard (probably didn't but how and ever) things got a tad sticky for old Bertie and now we have the situation where people are looking and saying "ah b***** column B is empty, they're all in column A".
So as now should be apparent we are up to our ears in back handers and brown envelopes. So perhaps someone could answer a question and that is, Is it worse in the U.K. or is it worse in ROI. 8:)

[Lord Hargreaves]

MoscowMatt wrote: antonio62 wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: What and you reckon with public funding that it will somehow give the people power!!!! Erm yeah sure it will!!!! :roll: :lol:

I have no wish whatsoever to fund any political party, and don't see why it should be forced on me and other like minded people.

Itll give them a lot more power as government policy wontbe decided by corporations.

Corporations will always hold the power as they control the money. Public funding will make not a blind bit of differnece to the voice of the individual.

Exactly right.

As for public funding of political parties, i firmly believe even current levels go too far. That a single penny of my wage should find its way to supporting the Labour party is a complete travesty of justice. Remember of course that parties are not part of government, put groups merely geared toward it - public funding is precisely the involuntary funding of voluntary organisations whose views completely, perhaps violently, oppose everything one may hold dear. An appropriate analogy would not be asking a religiously pro-life person to fund state abortions on the NHS, it would instead be asking said person to fund the Family Planning Association in the interests of "letting all sides be equally heard".

Public funding as an idea is completely disgraceful.