QED

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

...i am more and more troubled by the timing of that Glaxo announcement on Budget Day about new investment because of the budget ..... the discussion on these boreds about Maude on Today and the expose of Cruddas in the STimes [thanks to Ams and 8thO for links initially]


does the case against Murdoch Brooks et al boil down to they got it for free?

who is behind reopening the third runway debate ... at which leaders group dinner did that come up

if you are not in on it you can pay to get an in on it

Boris is not in on it .... he may be the only honest Tory

and yes i also think that the Labour funding from the TUs is wrong as well ....

i am a puritan i believe it is the parties responsibility to build a mambership platform that finances them on the basis of subscriptions and jumble sales .... the low level of membership is an indictment of our democracy ... and too few parties ...

it's crook it's gangster ...still

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

not even a bonus sized fine

£875m would have made their eyes water and knocked a few quid off the deficit eh

[Serial_Apologist]

and yes i also think that the Labour funding from the TUs is wrong as well ....

i am a puritan i believe it is the parties responsibility to build a mambership platform that finances them on the basis of subscriptions and jumble sales .... the low level of membership is an indictment of our democracy ... and too few parties ...

it's crook it's gangster ...still

Yes but calum there's a world of difference between billionaires paying to get their own interests met in policy-making and individual trade union members contributing to LP political funds - though I do agree that amounts paid to all parties for electioneering expenses are gross and unacceptable.

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/10-817-trade-union-political-funds-guide.pdf

[aeolium]

Yes but calum there's a world of difference between billionaires paying to get their own interests met in policy-making and individual trade union members contributing to LP political funds - though I do agree that amounts paid to all parties for electioneering expenses are gross and unacceptable.

But there's no reason why those members could not contribute directly to any political party if they choose. And in any case Labour and the Libdems also take large donations from wealthy people.

Although I like calum dislike the idea of public funding of political parties - not least as I think party has too much influence over politics rather than having individual representatives who are able to make up their own minds on the merits of policy - I have come round to the view that it is the least worst option and far better than the present setup. Having major parties funded by rich people makes it effectively impossible to have any really progressive tax system. And alongside the corruption of influence, there is the insidious corruption of lobbying (which Cameron had argued against in opposition but which he has done nothing to tackle) and the 'revolving door' system which is so regularly exposed by Private Eye: the system by which people in the media or government move in to business positions which lead one to suspect that their earlier position was effectively compromised (for instance Brian Wilson who was Energy Minister for the last government 2003-2005 then became a non-executive director in AMEC Nuclear Holdings - this kind of thing happens time after time).

[Lateralthinking1]

.......And in his time Yvette Cooper's Dad was Mr Nuclear UK. Some more ordinary people - nurses, shelf stackers, etc - in Parliament would be helpful. Across the board, it is too much of a club.

[amateur51]

.......And in his time Yvette Cooper's Dad was Mr Nuclear UK. Some more ordinary people - nurses, shelf stackers, etc - in Parliament would be helpful. Across the board, it is too much of a club.

In 1968, I was in the last year in my North Wales Grammar School to take an examination in English Language including sentence analysis etc. We also had a thriving after-school Literary & Debating Society which taught us how to string an argument together and how to respond in kind.

Have young people had this sort of experience in the years since, I wonder? I ask in all sincerity, not being a parent.

[amateur51]

.......And in his time Yvette Cooper's Dad was Mr Nuclear UK. Some more ordinary people - nurses, shelf stackers, etc - in Parliament would be helpful. Across the board, it is too much of a club.

From John Harris in the Guardian today:

"Note also the words of backbencher Nadine Dorries, whose Liverpudlian dad was a bus driver: "The problem is that policy is being run by two public schoolboys who don't know what it's like to go to the supermarket and have to put things back on the shelves because they can't afford it for their children's lunchboxes. What's worse, they don't care, either." "

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i recall the old days [welll the 60s & 70s] and block votes and mandatory affiliation fees ....

it seems to me that if we believe in democracy we should behave like active democrats and join parties go to meetings stand serve etc ... in our millions, then the establishment would have a nightmare

[Lateralthinking1]

No 10, the PM's flat there, and every square inch around them, are covered 24/7 by security cameras. It should therefore be relatively easy for the police and the secret services to reveal truths behind any fictitious recounting of the events.

Third runway is an interesting question. Among other things, I have eleven years of experience in central aviation policy. First, there is quite a strong economic case for it. Mainstream Labour have always supported it even if the Labour Left does not. The Civil Service has huge amounts of work that effectively support it, much of it very good indeed, and all undertaken under Blair. When you combine that public sector position with big business, it is almost a no brainer unless you are a resident or a green.

I could never really accept that the Conservatives' opposition was believable beyond constituency and electoral interests. It fitted in policy wise with their couple of years of appearing to be green but was wholly against their natural business instincts. If you look at Stansted and Gatwick, both areas are solidly Conservative, apart from Crawley. Heathrow is more mixed - some seats are Tory and Lib Dem but a lot of the constituencies are Labour - so on balance the Tories would want expansion there.

The about change, if that is what it is, is a serious issue for democracy. Unlike some of the other broken pledges, very arguably had the Conservatives not opposed it, they wouldn't be in Government now. What they said was "no runways in the South East". No sooner had they ditched all the detailed work undertaken between 2000 and 2003-5 at considerable expense - the work that led to a White Paper - they went full speed ahead on a new long-term, comparatively basic, review so this isn't a new idea of theirs.

You now have a Secretary of State for Transport, Justine Greening, the MP for Putney, who is being told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is wanted. Again it is bad planning all round. When Fox went, Hammond took over at Defence and Greening took his place. This happened when they all knew that she couldn't easily accept it. Her background is in Treasury matters so I expect they want her to be shifted to HMT. Alexander is the stumbling block. The Lib Dems will need to work very hard to keep him there.

[Serial_Apologist]

No 10, the PM's flat there, and every square inch around them, are covered 24/7 by security cameras. It should therefore be relatively easy for the police and the secret services to reveal truths behind any fictitious recounting of the events.

Third runway is an interesting question. Among other things, I have eleven years of experience in central aviation policy. First, there is quite a strong economic case for it. Mainstream Labour have always supported it even if the Labour Left does not. The Civil Service has huge amounts of work that effectively support it, much of it very good indeed, and all undertaken under Blair. When you combine that public sector position with big business, it is almost a no brainer unless you are a resident or a green.

I could never really accept that the Conservatives' opposition was wholly believable beyond constituency and electoral interests. It fitted in policy wise with their couple of years of appearing to be green but was wholly against their natural business instincts. If you look at Stansted and Gatwick, both areas are solidly Conservative, apart from Crawley. Heathrow is more mixed - some seats are Tory and Lib Dem but a lot of the constituencies are Labour - so on balance the Tories would want expansion there.

The about change, if that is what it is, is a serious issue for democracy. Unlike some of the other broken pledges, very arguably had the Conservatives not opposed it, they wouldn't be in Government now. What they said was "no runways in the South East". No sooner had they ditched all the detailed work undertaken between 2000 and 2003-5 at considerable expense - the work that led to a White Paper - they went full speed ahead on a new long-term, comparatively basic, review so this isn't a new idea of theirs.

You now have a Secretary of State for Transport, Justine Greening, the MP for Putney, who is being told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is wanted. Again it is bad planning all round. When Fox went, Hammond took over at Defence and Greening took his place. This happened when they all knew that she couldn't easily accept it. Her background is in Treasury matters so I expect they want her to be shifted to HMT. Alexander is the stumbling block. The Lib Dems will need to work very hard to keep him there.

I seem to remember Ms Greening opposed the third runway on behalf of her Putney constituents. (Putney is pretty close to directly underneath one of the flight paths to Heathrow). If I remember correctly, this will tell badly against her at the next election.

[Lateralthinking1]

I seem to remember Ms Greening opposed the third runway on behalf of her Putney constituents. (Putney is pretty close to directly underneath one of the flight paths to Heathrow). If I remember correctly, this will tell badly against her at the next election.

It was almost unprecedented s_a. She was dogged and fearsome in her opposition. I am no fan but her work rate and determination were both phenomenal. Some would quake. I have heard comparisons made with Margaret Thatcher.

[LeMartinPecheur]

No 10, the PM's flat there, and every square inch around them, are covered 24/7 by security cameras. It should therefore be relatively easy for the police and the secret services to reveal truths behind any fictitious recounting of the events.

Assuming this is true and I have no reason to doubt it, the crucial question is then how long they keep the 'tapes'.

If they are security cameras, they are there in case of a serious criminal incident. You know pretty quickly if you've had such an incident: you then go and look at the tapes. If there's been no incident, the tapes probably get wiped a few days later. Seriously, the world just ain't big enough for permanent storage of all the outputs of all our security cameras!

[Lateralthinking1]

I wouldn't suggest that there is permanent storage of all the outputs of all our security cameras.

Osborne is widely considered to have "masterminded" the 2010 campaign. This included the statement in the manifesto " Our goal is to make Heathrow Airport better, not bigger.....we will stop the third runway".

In 2008 there was a crucial vote in Parliament on "condemning" - their word - Labour's proposal for a third runway. Osborne was absent. Unless he had good reason to be absent, I suggest that they did not make a "mistake" as claimed or at least he didn't.

Rather, he doesn't seem to have the same commitments as, say, I would to the process of democracy.

[eighthobstruction]

[QUOTE=aka Calum Da Jazbo;

Boris is not in on it .... he may be the only honest Tory
[/QUOTE]

At times like these it is always interesting which politicians are offered for media interviews, and which are not....

....with the London Mayor Election coming up some, you'd think Boris would be champing to get on programmes ....but no, it was the trusty work horse Maude who was trotted out....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well he has form [Boris] for leg over if you take my innuendo but not for leg under as in table eh ... let's hope he has not been to any pyjama parties in Chipping Norton eh ... or been riding ..


character will out [who said that?] and the naked ploy of Glaxo and Osborne is revealing of their arrogance and contempt for us muppets