Tory co-treasurer 'selling' access to PM and influence on policy

[bananaistheanswer]

Story here

So, wealthy people i.e. those who can afford to pay £250K for the privilege of meeting the PM, can also have the 'opportunity' to influence policy if they cough up the dosh and donate to the conservative party. Allegedly.

Remind me again, who was it that benefitted from the drop in tax band in the budget this week? Or am I being wildly speculative here...

Here>> Two hundred grand to 250 is Premier League? what you would get is, when we talk about your donations the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron/Osborne dinners seems to suggest that I'm not too far off the mark though...

I'm glad the man has been sacked. There was a similar story in 2010 Four MPs Caught Selling Access To Tony Blair Always a risk when parties rely on big donors.

Yes, Cogito. Of course all parties do this, it's part of the problem of modern politics.

It's just a shame that you so quickly jump to point out New Labour did it, not because you realise the problem is systemic, but because the original criticism related to your 'team'.

--

The reality is that we don't live in a democracy. We live in a plutocracy. Influence is decided by how much money you have.

Democracy means one man == one vote. The system we have now means that most peoples votes mean very little, while money is what sets the agenda and policy.

This needs to be fixed. It won't happen if we (the public, Cogito) keep reflexing supporting our own 'team' and pointing fingers at the other team whenever it happens.

Sleaze needs to be stamped out whoever is committing it. And it isn't just one party or attitude that is prone to do it.

Cruddas appears however to be a snake oil salesman - bigging up what "access" to an individual could possibly mean in terms of influencing policy. For the journos will have been looking hard for who "benefited" from this "access" as any insinuation that there were links would make the story so much more important and explosive. As they don't seem to have been able to unearth anything, then it does appear to be once again the tired old well-worn sleaze path.

It is a pity UK politics (of all hues) currently attracts such charlatans.

@Ttosca. Off your high horse love. I said it was a risk when 'parties' (plural, see, means 'more than one party') rely on big donors. That does mean I think the problem is symptomatic of the current system

Cogito, it is symptomatic of the current system of party funding, do you have any suggestions for how this could be overcome? Under Blair there was some talk of reforming the system but I don't think anything changed.

I don't think the press are likely to look very hard to find actual proof of any individual/company gaining from making donations. We all know this has been happening with the 3 major parties and over a long time.

Years ago I looked into making a donation to the Torries (I was rebelling!) I was sent lots of info including an invite to have dinner with Hague then leader of the party, so that would be 1997 ish. (I couldn't scrape a fiver together these days!) It was made explicitly clear that a large donation would give you access to ask questions and raise issues directly with Hague.

The choices seem to be either public funding or some kind of cap on donations. I can't see any taxpayer thinking that funding political campaigns is a good use of their cash. A cap on donations probably means that serious donors will spread their donations through a few different names. A third option would be zero funding beyond basic party membership fees. I think the crux of the matter is how much influence the money given buys ... and to make a reasonable judgement we need information showing who is giving what, how much time they spend where & with whom, and what decisions have been made that benefit particular individuals.

I agree, the problem is proving a correlation between donation/size of donation and the influence gained/contracts gleaned, gongs awarded etc,, We know instinctively that money is influencing central policy.

I think that all parties should be funded only by party subs, labour would lose out on union money too, which wouldn't be a bad thing really. (I basically support the union movement although I wouldn't pay subs to fund grand lifestyles !)

I think each party that could prove a certain base line level of support through membership should be given the same size pot of tax payers cash to fund (only) election campaigns. We might then see candidates fielded from other parties. Here I have a choice of Lib Dem or Conservative, that's it.

The Conservative blogger Tim Montgomerie was touring the TV studios yesterday and the gist of his argument was: 'is anyone surprised this happens? Move along, you naive people.'

No I'm not surprised that corruption exists but I have the right to be angry about it. That goes for all parties.

Parliamentary rules and possibly criminal laws have been broken and we must have an inquiry which looks at every donor to every party and the origin of their money.

The only thing I'm surprised at is that Cruddas and Southern were so crass and inept as was Conservative Party Central Office in allowing these chancers within a million miles of party donors.

Cruddas is well known in "such circles" as being a chancer and an a*. The Torys' biggest error here was appointing him as a fundraiser. He used to do a lot of stuff for the Prince's Trust (all in the cause of his coveted knighthood) - they probably got sick of him and decided to palm him off onto someone else...

What wounds Cameron is that yet again his judgement is being called into question. This is someone who's supposed to be an expert in PR and image.

'Twas ever thus... This is not new, sadly. Does anyone believes the changes to NHS policy/funding weren't similarly influenced?

I also don't believe that Cameron and co didn't know.

The third runway at Heathrow has risen from the grave too.

I wonder how that happened?

'Twas ever thus... This is not new, sadly. Does anyone believe the changes to NHS policy/funding weren't similarly influenced?

Nope. It's all about contacts/influence and who has the biggest wad to wave under the nose of politicians.

Scameron had said that the issue of lobbying would be the next great scandal to hit UK politics. What he didn't disclose is Torry activity and their connection to McKinsey and the fact that his party had been in talks with American health insurance firms as far back as 2007.

He predicted the scandal because he is complicit in this. The real question now is why are they so arrogant and why do we allow these politicians to show such contempt towards the electorate.

I think we are going to see some seriously damaging disclosures on this and similar issues as Leveson progresses onto the policital section of the inquiry. It's no co-incidence that it was The Times who broke this story. The press have been slaughtered so far in the inquiry, and it's a certainty that the 'press' will have plenty on a number of politicians who will be called to give evidence, or who avoid it while being completely up to their necks in all sorts of questionable behaviour. Just a hunch of mine.

Murdoch has been playing this game for a long time. He'll be doing his best to frame the agenda with the politicains and their evidence as things progress, as I'm sure he has plenty of unpublished info on many, many politicians. This story is just the tip of the ice berg IMO.

I don't see why anyone is surprised that the greedy dishonourable scum that rule us partake of the worlds oldest profession in such a way, It has been that way for many years, Ministers being courted by the high flyers of industry, thats why they have been shitting on us for years.

the only shocking point of this story is how brazen they are about it now, they have spent so long screwing over the majority of voters behind closed doors, they have forgotten what is and isn't acceptable in the eyes of the public. Not that they care anyway as no one ever holds them to account and that guy who resigned will be back within 5 years, you can never get rid of them they are like cockroaches.

I don't see why any of this is shocking or surprising. If you give shed loads of money to an organisation, you usually expect something in return. At the very least you are going to be invited to some high profile events, where the leaders of the organisation you have donated to are likely to be present & pretty bloody glad to see you!!!

As to the influence that should be gleaned - while that is a whole different question. What is the story with the Unions & Labour these days? Do they still have influence?

What if you are a professional organisation that contributes to a party on behalf of all your members - should you have influence then?

Whilst on the one hand, it seems wrong that you can buy influence just by handing over a big cheque - it seems naive to think that influence isn't traded in powerful circles on an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" basis all the time.

For what it is worth, I think the UK is less corrupt & nepotistic than most countries.

banana I'm not sure Murdoch is behind this. I think this Govt is so arrogant and inept that things are piling up.

I follow Damian Thompson's columns

That's from Nov 11 but there are plenty more where it came from. He's Dave's age, he's cleverer and sick of being despised.

It's the only explanation I have for the reason Dave authorised those clowns Cruddas and Southern to get within a million miles of Tory donors. I think he thinks that's the way 'common' people operate and no one would be shocked at their shoddiness and greed. Just chuck them a knighthood and a few 'grand' and that'll be okay.

I'm amazed that Dave still entertains the company of that shady person David Rowland.

And yes I am shocked, if not surprised. Are we playing at being sophisticated now? Time to roll over and get shafted then.

So was Cruddas telling porkies to potential donors? Or was he telling the truth?

Inquiring minds need to know norky

ISWYM about Murdoch's comment yesterday banana. He's enjoying it, isn't he? And why not?