Cameron is a prat

[longfingernails]

The idea that the Tory treasurer is hawking Cameron around like Blair is just disgusting.

What are they thinking? They have the opportunity to destroy the last vestiges of socialism in this country, and thereby open up opportunities for millions - and instead, they get involved in the age-old pathetic donations circus.

This is just too depressing.

Yeah, they should destroy the last vestiges of socialism. It's a good way to hasten the demise of Capitalism. :)

The trouble with politics is rarely the policies; it's the politicians...

This is exactly the sort of reason I have never joined any party (in particular, the Tory party or UKIP) - I have wanted to get more involved for a long time, but what's the point?

Ah well - at least we'll get a lower donation limit - and neither the Tories nor Lib Dems should miss the opportunity to remove the immoral union funding of the Labour party at the same time.

Does anyone think that MNHQ should be asked to change the title of this thread to something more reasonable and realistic such as "Cameron is practical politician"?

No, because that would be misleading, because he isn't.

Unless by practical you mean exacerbating and prolonging the economic recession and attacking the poor and middle class to give to the rich.

We could change the title to Cameron is a practising prat

Still, if anything can invigorate our sense of moral zeal, it is the utter shock and dismay of both the Labour party, and the wider institutional left, such as the Guardian and the BBC, at the Gove school reforms.

Despite the best efforts of "mastermind" Lammy, ideas for new free schools and academies are abounding even in Haringey. The left are in despair. It is this noble aim - of giving parents choice, and children equality of opportunity - so cruelly denied by a Labour party only chasing equality of outcome - which makes it all worthwhile, which gives politics its purpose. The whining by the teaching unions is just the icing.

choice schmoice, it was a lot better when everyone just went to their local school. You didn't have house prices being skewed by catchment areas, and state schools had mixed intakes - results weren't biased by having all the bright kids in one school.

Don't know whether you noticed but Tony Blair was obsessed by choice as well. That's why you've got choose and book in the NHS, where you are supposed to choose where you want to go for your operation. Despite most of us just wanting a good local hospital, where there are enough nurses to look after you properly.

edam Without competition there is complacency, lack of innovation, loss of productivity, and unionisation.

You can defend the Labour model of education, as seen in Haringey, if you really want - no doubt you think that more money thrown at school buildings is the answer. In the meantime, parents are voting with their feet. The more Labour attack academies and free schools, the more Labour-leaning parents become Tory-leaning parents - all to the good in marginal constituencies... And however much Twigg might want to champion choice, he is hobbled by Red Ed and the Brownites in the Labour party who, just like you, detest choice.

crazynanna thanks, you've made a grumpy old woman laugh. Totally agree with you!

Years of Tory government had left many schools with buildings that were in disrepair - the Labour government had to do something about it. Sadly they were just as much in thrall to stupid 'markets are great, private sector is better' propaganda and threw money at the private sector in the hugely expensive Building Schools for the Future programme, instead of just using taxpayer's money, which would have been far cheaper.

CES linked to the other thread on this a report about the Labour MPs similarly in trouble for selling access to Blair.

This event is deplorable, but it is no a uniquely Tory phenomenon.

Nor are any reports saying that Cameron was aware of what Cruddas was doing (story would have been dynamite if he had), nor that any snake oil selling actually made any difference at all to policy - the journos would have been looking hard for the slightest evidence. They didn't find any.

It is a pity that politics (of all hues) is riddled with charlatans.

he'd only been in the job 3 weeks according to the BBC so the Times were on to him like rats up a drainpipe (scuse mixed metaphors)

how did they know???

Ponders I guess the ones who are new to this are the easier targets... Cameron is still a prat. He should be laying the foundations for a new Conservative century - instead, he hires this dunderhead.

And Osborne is losing his allure too. Instead of targeting benefit scroungers, quangocrats, public sector non-jobbers and other Labour voters, he chooses to piss off pensioners - the most reliable Tory bloc, with the highest turnout in elections. Utterly inexplicable - if that was a Lib Dem demand (as seems likely), then there should be Tories out there shouting it from the rooftops.

www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx

This is not new and Scameron is complicit in this. Have a look at what your donation buys for you on the party website. It might not explicitly say you can influence policy but the implication is clear.

Osborne, what allure did he ever have? Why should the Torrys attack labour supporters. Their remit is not to attack individuals who didn't vote for them and suck up to those that did, that is little better than accepting cash for policies.

longfingernails - it's not the only massive hiring error Cameron has made. He employed Andy Coulson, despite being warned about phone-tapping.

I read the Donors' Club website but I couldn't find anything about changing or influencing policy, just stuff about helping the party get its message across.

I can't see it being the case that a progressive millionaire would be able to change Conservative policy by paying £250,000. Do you think progressive bin fines on pensioners would be reinstated just because a progressive could afford to join the Dinner Club?

It's not news though that money gets you into dinner, although it used to be a breakfast club.

Claig, I did say that the website doesn't explicitly say that you will be able to influence the party leadership, although it doesn't take a genius to work out why a rich business owner would want to cough up money to a political party. It's also not news that making large donations is quite likely to see you handed a title and a seat in the lords.

I have mixed feelings, is Cameron very naive or just astoundingly arrogant? he either has very bad judgement, in which case he isn't fit to appoint members to the cabinet either or be PM, or he is so bloody arrogant and entitled he doesn't give a stuff what the electorate think. Either way the prime minister isn't fit for purpose.

I think some of this is a bit overdone. All parties treat their large donors well and listen to them. But that doesn't mean that they do what they wish.

Do you think that Scrapyard Harry, a scrap metal millionaire, would be able to change the policy on Trident just because he could afford to join the Dinner Club?

You just try to fit in the word 'progressive' whenever and wherever possible, eh, claig?

Do you think that Scrapyard Harry, a scrap metal millionaire, would be able to change the policy on Trident just because he could afford to join the Dinner Club?

Nice straw man.

Only where the shoe fits

Quite clearly, not, claig. You just like to babble incoherently about 'progressives' like some kind of drunk.

Babble maybe, incoherently no.
To paraphrase Churchill. I may be drunk, but in the morning I will be sober, but you will still be a progressive.

See, there you go again.