FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > MPs cash donations
MPs cash donations
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ackal1 OP Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
So Boris has declared £1m donation to fund his political activities. This is on top of the virtually free £20m house in London along with holiday homes for free and private jets for free. Keir Starmer has received £799k in financial donations to his personal office.
At what point are we going to call this for what it is and that’s Bribes!
MPs receive full expenses to run their offices and Ministers travel, accommodation etc is all covered by government funds. There is no need to add further funds to MP’s offices for their work. It’s back handers in what should be a public service role. Can you imagine a senior procurement officer in industry saying oh it’s ok that cash is just to help with my procurement activities. They’d be sacked in two minutes. These MPs dictate our government spending.
How would we feel if a local planning officer received £100k from say Barrett the house builder for help to run his planning activities?
Is it time to push back and say enough is enough and along with restricting second incomes we also ban donations to help “their political activities”.
Are we to follow America with its total devotion to the money talks and money decides in politics with very little regard for the general populations view?
PS I’m sure Bamfords generosity is nothing to do with tax avoidance and certainly nothing to do with tens of millions in government support toward the new green energy bus company his family own. Definitely nothing to do with that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So Boris has declared £1m donation to fund his political activities. This is on top of the virtually free £20m house in London along with holiday homes for free and private jets for free. Keir Starmer has received £799k in financial donations to his personal office.
At what point are we going to call this for what it is and that’s Bribes!
MPs receive full expenses to run their offices and Ministers travel, accommodation etc is all covered by government funds. There is no need to add further funds to MP’s offices for their work. It’s back handers in what should be a public service role. Can you imagine a senior procurement officer in industry saying oh it’s ok that cash is just to help with my procurement activities. They’d be sacked in two minutes. These MPs dictate our government spending.
How would we feel if a local planning officer received £100k from say Barrett the house builder for help to run his planning activities?
Is it time to push back and say enough is enough and along with restricting second incomes we also ban donations to help “their political activities”.
Are we to follow America with its total devotion to the money talks and money decides in politics with very little regard for the general populations view?
PS I’m sure Bamfords generosity is nothing to do with tax avoidance and certainly nothing to do with tens of millions in government support toward the new green energy bus company his family own. Definitely nothing to do with that. "
I read this when you posted 5 hours ago and yet there is no comments.
I'm all for ZERO donations allowed.
I must day though, you mention Starmer here, that's why the thread is empty, because it shows it happening on both sides of the divide. Start again without mentioning Starmer and the thread will be very busy  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The whole system is fucked. It's not a unique problem to the UK. It's effectively legalised bribery.
As soon as you allow donations, especially donations from businesses and corporations you get a government that prioritises their needs.
People probably are more interested in it with the government, than other non-governmental parties. Because, well, they're in government, and in a position to reward their donors. PPE and fracking being some of the more recent examples.
Also, the government get away with it Scott-free. People keep voting for them regardless.
Of course it should be banned for all parties, but the system is unlikely to change itself anytime soon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The whole system is fucked. It's not a unique problem to the UK. It's effectively legalised bribery.
As soon as you allow donations, especially donations from businesses and corporations you get a government that prioritises their needs.
People probably are more interested in it with the government, than other non-governmental parties. Because, well, they're in government, and in a position to reward their donors. PPE and fracking being some of the more recent examples.
Also, the government get away with it Scott-free. People keep voting for them regardless.
Of course it should be banned for all parties, but the system is unlikely to change itself anytime soon."
I understand people are probably more interested in those in Government. Although I'd argue that Johnson is no longer in Government. As for Starmer, he is likely to be our next PM 
I made a question in a thread the other day regards Labour donations and not one person has replied |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The whole system is fucked. It's not a unique problem to the UK. It's effectively legalised bribery.
As soon as you allow donations, especially donations from businesses and corporations you get a government that prioritises their needs.
People probably are more interested in it with the government, than other non-governmental parties. Because, well, they're in government, and in a position to reward their donors. PPE and fracking being some of the more recent examples.
Also, the government get away with it Scott-free. People keep voting for them regardless.
Of course it should be banned for all parties, but the system is unlikely to change itself anytime soon.
I understand people are probably more interested in those in Government. Although I'd argue that Johnson is no longer in Government. As for Starmer, he is likely to be our next PM
I made a question in a thread the other day regards Labour donations and not one person has replied "
Sure, I guess Johnson is still influencial within the party that's in government. But I get you.
Starmer might be next PM. Personally I can't see it. But what do I know.
I didn't see your question in another thread. I don't think these donations should be happening to any political party. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The whole system is fucked. It's not a unique problem to the UK. It's effectively legalised bribery.
As soon as you allow donations, especially donations from businesses and corporations you get a government that prioritises their needs.
People probably are more interested in it with the government, than other non-governmental parties. Because, well, they're in government, and in a position to reward their donors. PPE and fracking being some of the more recent examples.
Also, the government get away with it Scott-free. People keep voting for them regardless.
Of course it should be banned for all parties, but the system is unlikely to change itself anytime soon.
I understand people are probably more interested in those in Government. Although I'd argue that Johnson is no longer in Government. As for Starmer, he is likely to be our next PM
I made a question in a thread the other day regards Labour donations and not one person has replied
Sure, I guess Johnson is still influencial within the party that's in government. But I get you.
Starmer might be next PM. Personally I can't see it. But what do I know.
I didn't see your question in another thread. I don't think these donations should be happening to any political party. "
Well at least we agree on something  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1 OP Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"So Boris has declared £1m donation to fund his political activities. This is on top of the virtually free £20m house in London along with holiday homes for free and private jets for free. Keir Starmer has received £799k in financial donations to his personal office.
At what point are we going to call this for what it is and that’s Bribes!
MPs receive full expenses to run their offices and Ministers travel, accommodation etc is all covered by government funds. There is no need to add further funds to MP’s offices for their work. It’s back handers in what should be a public service role. Can you imagine a senior procurement officer in industry saying oh it’s ok that cash is just to help with my procurement activities. They’d be sacked in two minutes. These MPs dictate our government spending.
How would we feel if a local planning officer received £100k from say Barrett the house builder for help to run his planning activities?
Is it time to push back and say enough is enough and along with restricting second incomes we also ban donations to help “their political activities”.
Are we to follow America with its total devotion to the money talks and money decides in politics with very little regard for the general populations view?
PS I’m sure Bamfords generosity is nothing to do with tax avoidance and certainly nothing to do with tens of millions in government support toward the new green energy bus company his family own. Definitely nothing to do with that.
I read this when you posted 5 hours ago and yet there is no comments.
I'm all for ZERO donations allowed.
I must day though, you mention Starmer here, that's why the thread is empty, because it shows it happening on both sides of the divide. Start again without mentioning Starmer and the thread will be very busy "
Yes you make a very good point .
I have a well known reputation for disliking Boris so didn’t want the debate to fall into accusations of bias.
I used Statmer to expose the fact we are all supporting bribes throughout our government and yet in everyone else’s real lives they could go to jail for the same action.
Reporting you’ve taken and kept money from a vested interest as a key employee won’t stop you being sacked. Yet they keep with impunity because they say I’ve declared it.
I declare I stole £10k from the bank! That’s ok then as long as you told us. Enjoy spending it.
I know stealing is against the law but so is bribery in most peoples lives.
The rules need to change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The whole system is fucked. It's not a unique problem to the UK. It's effectively legalised bribery.
As soon as you allow donations, especially donations from businesses and corporations you get a government that prioritises their needs.
People probably are more interested in it with the government, than other non-governmental parties. Because, well, they're in government, and in a position to reward their donors. PPE and fracking being some of the more recent examples.
Also, the government get away with it Scott-free. People keep voting for them regardless.
Of course it should be banned for all parties, but the system is unlikely to change itself anytime soon.
I understand people are probably more interested in those in Government. Although I'd argue that Johnson is no longer in Government. As for Starmer, he is likely to be our next PM
I made a question in a thread the other day regards Labour donations and not one person has replied
Sure, I guess Johnson is still influencial within the party that's in government. But I get you.
Starmer might be next PM. Personally I can't see it. But what do I know.
I didn't see your question in another thread. I don't think these donations should be happening to any political party.
Well at least we agree on something "
Is it the "but what do I know" ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The whole system is fucked. It's not a unique problem to the UK. It's effectively legalised bribery.
As soon as you allow donations, especially donations from businesses and corporations you get a government that prioritises their needs.
People probably are more interested in it with the government, than other non-governmental parties. Because, well, they're in government, and in a position to reward their donors. PPE and fracking being some of the more recent examples.
Also, the government get away with it Scott-free. People keep voting for them regardless.
Of course it should be banned for all parties, but the system is unlikely to change itself anytime soon.
I understand people are probably more interested in those in Government. Although I'd argue that Johnson is no longer in Government. As for Starmer, he is likely to be our next PM
I made a question in a thread the other day regards Labour donations and not one person has replied
Sure, I guess Johnson is still influencial within the party that's in government. But I get you.
Starmer might be next PM. Personally I can't see it. But what do I know.
I didn't see your question in another thread. I don't think these donations should be happening to any political party.
Well at least we agree on something
Is it the "but what do I know" ? "
no it was definitely that no parties should be receiving donations.
I can't agree with your predictions for the next GE. We definitely disagree on that one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's awful, regardless of party.
The whole political system is just an enrichment scam.
It's hardly surprising.
If you create a system where power is concentrated in the hands of the few, you lay a foundation where people will seek to take advantage for their own personal gain.
The easiest way to stop this is to remove all expenses, and ban all donations/gifts of any type whatsover.
Close the loopholes, reduce the opportunity.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1 OP Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
As I’ve mentioned before I think it would be a good idea to have non political constituency offices . So whoever gets the local vote can use that office and it’s manned by civil servants for the MP to use as admin.
There would be no need for donations and no need to employ family.
I still can’t understand why a back bench MP would need a million pounds to help run his back office ?
If civil servants were used they could in fact manage any donations so if the MP didn’t use it specifically for constituency business the office could give the excess cash to the treasury. Watch the donations plummet then.
That money is definitely not for admin is it!!
I know Boris is an exception but big numbers are flowing into a lot of Tory MPs and what’s it needed for? It’s possibly more bribes on top of bribes.
We need to ban any donations or gifts and non vocational second jobs to any sitting MP.
The only reason Patterson was paid so much is because he was lobbying he was not being paid for pharmaceutical advice .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"As I’ve mentioned before I think it would be a good idea to have non political constituency offices . So whoever gets the local vote can use that office and it’s manned by civil servants for the MP to use as admin.
There would be no need for donations and no need to employ family.
I still can’t understand why a back bench MP would need a million pounds to help run his back office ?
If civil servants were used they could in fact manage any donations so if the MP didn’t use it specifically for constituency business the office could give the excess cash to the treasury. Watch the donations plummet then.
That money is definitely not for admin is it!!
I know Boris is an exception but big numbers are flowing into a lot of Tory MPs and what’s it needed for? It’s possibly more bribes on top of bribes.
We need to ban any donations or gifts and non vocational second jobs to any sitting MP.
The only reason Patterson was paid so much is because he was lobbying he was not being paid for pharmaceutical advice .
"
 yes to all of this. Particularly constituency offices.
I would add that if we are to maintain the charade of constituency MPs and FPTP (rather than move to PR) then the MP must live in the constituency and have done so for a minimum of five years prior to selection.
There should be a ceiling limit on annual “donations” from any person/organisation too! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1 OP Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Isn't one of the problems that the only people who can change this awful situation are the same people that benefit from it?"
Sadly yes but I believe PR may give voice to those who are fed up with the existing status quo.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is a cost above and beyond running expenses to be some flavours of MPs and to running a policitcal party.
So while I suspect the current system is sucky .... I don't think it can be scrapped entirely. Otherwise only the rich can afford to become MPs.
The issue in my mind is a) conflict of interest and b) hidden sources of funds.
I'd say only individuals should be able to donate. No companies. Cash only.
And for any donations above a certain amount, donors have to disclose any substantive interests they have... And if an MP receives a donation direct, they need to disclose the CoI before speaking on that subject in the HoC.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Isn't one of the problems that the only people who can change this awful situation are the same people that benefit from it?"
100%. And we're moving further and further in that direction.
Restrictions on the right to protest.
Restrictions on striking.
Pretty much everything to do with brexit was about moving wealth and power up from people to those at the top.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1 OP Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"There is a cost above and beyond running expenses to be some flavours of MPs and to running a policitcal party.
So while I suspect the current system is sucky .... I don't think it can be scrapped entirely. Otherwise only the rich can afford to become MPs.
The issue in my mind is a) conflict of interest and b) hidden sources of funds.
I'd say only individuals should be able to donate. No companies. Cash only.
And for any donations above a certain amount, donors have to disclose any substantive interests they have... And if an MP receives a donation direct, they need to disclose the CoI before speaking on that subject in the HoC.
"
I stated that expenses are fine to claim back from government so proven costs with receipts fine . But no foreign trips paid for by corporations or foreign governments and no taking the wife or husband along .
The costs should be purely those which are needed.
90% of foreign “fact finding” trips taken by MPs are to warm climates.
Give state funding to parties for advertising based on membership numbers . Not sure if that’s a good idea but maybe it would engage people to join parties or would exclude the middle of the road voters.
Perhaps give everyone in the country a voucher for £5 each year and they can give it to the party of their choice.
There’s your funding off you go.
Would the greens suddenly see income surge?
Less radically perhaps donations can be made to the political party by individuals up to a limit of say £10k but that money must be used for central costs not given to MPs
One last thing no freebies or gifts of any sort.
Try giving a box of chocolates to someone at the VAT office ! If civil servants across the country are excluded then what’s the reason for that? It’s because they can be influenced . So getting a £20m house for a peppercorn rent exposes extreme influence.
MPs have their food subsidised they have housing purchases part funded . They have far too many expenses claimed over and above their need. The nepotism is still rife despite an agreement to end family members being paid.
It’s a sewer of sleaze and our parliament appears to be for sale to the highest bidder.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The way politicians are funded is clearly wide open to abuse & needs to be changed. But politicians are getting lots of money from the current system, so good luck convincing them to overhaul it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Didn't Ian Hislop slaghter a load of politicians on a select commitee, over there so called gifts.
He said that he wants more clarity, on who gave the 'gift', what company they are linked to, cost of the 'gift', and details of the 'gift'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Didn't Ian Hislop slaghter a load of politicians on a select commitee, over there so called gifts.
He said that he wants more clarity, on who gave the 'gift', what company they are linked to, cost of the 'gift', and details of the 'gift'."
Oh yes he did. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1 OP Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Didn't Ian Hislop slaghter a load of politicians on a select commitee, over there so called gifts.
He said that he wants more clarity, on who gave the 'gift', what company they are linked to, cost of the 'gift', and details of the 'gift'."
Yes he did and it as a serious demolition which the MPs backed away from very quickly. Ian Hislop for Speaker please!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Normal people do call them bribes. Establishment media will of course muddy the discourse. Can't have the masses realisisong they're being taken for fools can we? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
