The more things change.

[colonel c]

The more they remain the same.

The Indipenednt On Sunday said:

Two major donors to the Conservative Party have been handed places in the House of Lords as part of an honours list that will see the creation of 56 new peers.


More than £500,000 has been handed to the party by Dolar Popat, a multi-millionaire business tycoon, and Simon Wolfson, chief executive of the clothing chain Next. Both are now heading to the Lords. The peerages have emerged as David Cameron prepares to make a series of policy announcements that will highlight his championing of "government transparency".

The peerage handed to Mr Wolfson will cause disquiet as the Next boss was understood to be pivotal in encouraging business figures to sign a letter opposing Labour's plan to increase National Insurance. The letter, released during the election campaign, provided a major boost for the Tories. He has also given the party £293,000 since 2006.

More:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-...

[OnTheOverrun]

Far less disturbing than all the labour peers who then immediately joined the cabinet unelected and started running the country IMHO.

[mybrainhurts]

OnTheOverrun said:

Far less disturbing than all the labour peers who then immediately joined the cabinet unelected and started running the country IMHO.

Not to mention Prescott...

Oh...I did..

[colonel c]

mybrainhurts said:

Not to mention Prescott...

Oh...I did..

OK Prescott is a bit of a joke. Like it or not though he was deputy PM and he did pull the left of his party behind Blair. So a peerage was likely to be a forgone conclusion.

The Tories under Cameron promised 'New Politics'. But just like
Blair he's already flogging off Knighthoods for around half a million quid each.

[colonel c]

OnTheOverrun said:

Far less disturbing than all the labour peers who then immediately joined the cabinet unelected and started running the country IMHO.

That is not exactly the same thing. I think we should Wait and see on that one. Lord David Laws perhaps.

[turbobloke]

Nowhere near comparable as yet.

Click

[colonel c]

No but they are off to a good start.

[turbobloke]

colonel c said:

No but they are off to a good start.

It does look that way, but the situaiton needs more analysis than an abacus can provide.

Did one side systematically seek donations from wealthy sources in return for an offer of 'a K or a P'

Did one side receive donations from like-minded people without inducement.

It's the how bit that matters more than the how many bit.

[Engineer1]

Or they are taking advantage of the system to redress the balance before they change the rules, with a coalition I'd be putting as many of my supporters into the Lords as I could.

[colonel c]

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

No but they are off to a good start.

It does look that way, but the situaiton needs more analysis than an abacus can provide.

Did one side systematically seek donations from wealthy sources in return for an offer of 'a K or a P'

Did one side receive donations from like-minded people without inducement.

It's the how bit that matters more than the how many bit.

Are you implying the fund raisers of the current ruling party just sat in their offices and waited around for individuals to come along with half a million quid in their back pocket asking if there was a knighthood going.

Analise all you like. Cash changed hands and honours were handed out. At least nowadays it is much more open than in the past.

[Engineer1]

The Question is it a case of staunch supporters who have been rewarded or opportunistic rich men who want an honour?
Labour did seem to favour the rich men.

[turbobloke]

colonel c said:

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

No but they are off to a good start.

It does look that way, but the situaiton needs more analysis than an abacus can provide.

Did one side systematically seek donations from wealthy sources in return for an offer of 'a K or a P'

Did one side receive donations from like-minded people without inducement.

It's the how bit that matters more than the how many bit.

Are you implying the fund raisers of the current ruling party just sat in their offices and waited around for individuals to come along with half a million quid in their back pocket asking if there was a knighthood going.

Analise all you like. Cash changed hands and honours were handed out. At least nowadays it is much more open than in the past.

I've already analysed enough but you seem to need to do a bit more. Cash changing hands, honours being handed out - that's not the whole picture. It's a simplistic view, somebody wanting to portray equivalence might try to paint it as the same but it's not. It's different if the honours were a sale item discussed as such prior to the donation and deliberately sold.

Those making donations might in general expect a reward but not all will receive, this is totally different to any K or P sale negotiation that might or might not have happened with the previous administration depending on who you believe.

[colonel c]

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

No but they are off to a good start.

It does look that way, but the situaiton needs more analysis than an abacus can provide.

Did one side systematically seek donations from wealthy sources in return for an offer of 'a K or a P'

Did one side receive donations from like-minded people without inducement.

It's the how bit that matters more than the how many bit.

Are you implying the fund raisers of the current ruling party just sat in their offices and waited around for individuals to come along with half a million quid in their back pocket asking if there was a knighthood going.

Analise all you like. Cash changed hands and honours were handed out. At least nowadays it is much more open than in the past.

I've already analysed enough but you seem to need to do a bit more. Cash changing hands, honours being handed out - that's not the whole picture. It's a simplistic view, somebody wanting to portray equivalence might try to paint it as the same but it's not. It's different if the honours were a sale item discussed as such prior to the donation and deliberately sold.

Those making donations might in general expect a reward but not all will receive, this is totally different to any K or P sale negotiation that might or might not have happened with the previous administration depending on who you believe.

My viewpoint may be simplistic. However you dress it up nobody spends hundreds of thousands of pounds of either personal, corporate or indeed union funds without expecting a return, be it legislative or for personal gain.

To imply one party's fundraising activities to be in anyway more honourable than others it either being incredibly naive or cynically partisan.

A Letter to The Times by Nathaniel Rothschild and reprinted in the Indipendent said:

Sir, Not once in the acres of coverage did you mention that George Osborne found the opportunity of meeting with (Oleg) Deripaska so good that he invited the Conservatives' fundraiser Andrew Feldman, who was staying nearby, to accompany him on to Mr Deripaska's boat to solicit a donation.

Since Mr Deripaska is not a British citizen, it was suggested by Mr Feldman, in a subsequent conversation at which Mr Deripaska was not present, that the donation was "channelled" through one of Mr Deripaska's British companies. Mr Deripaska declined to make any donation.

Nathaniel Rothschild, Klosters, Switzerland

(Mr Rothschild was a fellow member of the hell-raising Bullingdon Club
along with George Osborne and David Cameron.)



I believe Mandelson was also hanging Mr Deripaska looking for a donation around too.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/osbo...

[turbobloke]

colonel c said:

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

No but they are off to a good start.

It does look that way, but the situaiton needs more analysis than an abacus can provide.

Did one side systematically seek donations from wealthy sources in return for an offer of 'a K or a P'

Did one side receive donations from like-minded people without inducement.

It's the how bit that matters more than the how many bit.

Are you implying the fund raisers of the current ruling party just sat in their offices and waited around for individuals to come along with half a million quid in their back pocket asking if there was a knighthood going.

Analise all you like. Cash changed hands and honours were handed out. At least nowadays it is much more open than in the past.

I've already analysed enough but you seem to need to do a bit more. Cash changing hands, honours being handed out - that's not the whole picture. It's a simplistic view, somebody wanting to portray equivalence might try to paint it as the same but it's not. It's different if the honours were a sale item discussed as such prior to the donation and deliberately sold.

Those making donations might in general expect a reward but not all will receive, this is totally different to any K or P sale negotiation that might or might not have happened with the previous administration depending on who you believe.

My viewpoint may be simplistic. However you dress it up nobody spends hundreds of thousands of pounds of either personal, corporate or indeed union funds without expecting a return, be it legislative or for personal gain.

But they might not get it, and if there is no sale negotiation prior to the donation the situation is indeed different.

If you think I somehow approve of the overall situation over donations and peerages etc then to be clear, I don't. However the situation with nulab prior to them losing the election is different as there is evidence from individuals who say they were involved in donation negotiations where the terms K and P were used, rather than donating and expecting. So neither can I approve of blurring different situations as a means of scoring political points. Even if it were Labour on the receiving end i.e. the roles were reversed, I would dispute the equivalence, as there is none. In Labour's case there is so much more to be concerned about, such as bringing the country to its knees while achieveing nothing for the average man and woman and in spite of their lofty langiage and promises, nothing for the poorer members of society in particular. Gaps widened under Labour's wasteful spending sprees mainly as they are totally incompetent.

[Engineer1]

You could set a precedent that £500k gets you a 50% chance of a knighthood, or you can have a situation where before you donate you start working out what your reward will be and how much is needed to get it. One is buying an honour the other is rewarding a supporter I will leave it to you to work out which one is better.

[turbobloke]

None of the above

[OnTheOverrun]

colonel c said:

OnTheOverrun said:

Far less disturbing than all the labour peers who then immediately joined the cabinet unelected and started running the country IMHO.

That is not exactly the same thing. I think we should Wait and see on that one. Lord David Laws perhaps.

No, it's not exactly the same thing - unelected lords working as cabinet ministers like Lady Meddlesome or Adonis are far, far worse than financial donors of any party being rewarded with a peerage.

[colonel c]

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

No but they are off to a good start.

It does look that way, but the situaiton needs more analysis than an abacus can provide.

Did one side systematically seek donations from wealthy sources in return for an offer of 'a K or a P'

Did one side receive donations from like-minded people without inducement.

It's the how bit that matters more than the how many bit.

Are you implying the fund raisers of the current ruling party just sat in their offices and waited around for individuals to come along with half a million quid in their back pocket asking if there was a knighthood going.

Analise all you like. Cash changed hands and honours were handed out. At least nowadays it is much more open than in the past.

I've already analysed enough but you seem to need to do a bit more. Cash changing hands, honours being handed out - that's not the whole picture. It's a simplistic view, somebody wanting to portray equivalence might try to paint it as the same but it's not. It's different if the honours were a sale item discussed as such prior to the donation and deliberately sold.

Those making donations might in general expect a reward but not all will receive, this is totally different to any K or P sale negotiation that might or might not have happened with the previous administration depending on who you believe.

My viewpoint may be simplistic. However you dress it up nobody spends hundreds of thousands of pounds of either personal, corporate or indeed union funds without expecting a return, be it legislative or for personal gain.

But they might not get it, and if there is no sale negotiation prior to the donation the situation is indeed different.

If you think I somehow approve of the overall situation over donations and peerages etc then to be clear, I don't. However the situation with nulab prior to them losing the election is different as there is evidence from individuals who say they were involved in donation negotiations where the terms K and P were used, rather than donating and expecting. So neither can I approve of blurring different situations as a means of scoring political points. Even if it were Labour on the receiving end i.e. the roles were reversed, I would dispute the equivalence, as there is none. In Labour's case there is so much more to be concerned about, such as bringing the country to its knees while achieveing nothing for the average man and woman and in spite of their lofty langiage and promises, nothing for the poorer members of society in particular. Gaps widened under Labour's wasteful spending sprees mainly as they are totally incompetent.

I have no concern with scoring points, political or otherwise. It interest me that after accusations of 'cash for honours' were leveled at Labour during their term in office. Now we see people who have made large donations to the Tory party being handed honers the moment Mr Cameron gets into No10. Although I see praise is given in some quarters that he has decided to honour only two this time. I guess the others will have to wait their tern. You can argue the semantics that terms and conditions might have been openly discussed or not. A nod is as good as wink as far as I'm concerned.
I return to my original assertion that nothing has changed. The whole honours system has always been corrupt, with honours being given by default to civil servants and to party supporters and workers. The whole thing undermine the honours that go to those who really deserve them.

[turbobloke]

colonel c said:

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

No but they are off to a good start.

It does look that way, but the situaiton needs more analysis than an abacus can provide.

Did one side systematically seek donations from wealthy sources in return for an offer of 'a K or a P'

Did one side receive donations from like-minded people without inducement.

It's the how bit that matters more than the how many bit.

Are you implying the fund raisers of the current ruling party just sat in their offices and waited around for individuals to come along with half a million quid in their back pocket asking if there was a knighthood going.

Analise all you like. Cash changed hands and honours were handed out. At least nowadays it is much more open than in the past.

I've already analysed enough but you seem to need to do a bit more. Cash changing hands, honours being handed out - that's not the whole picture. It's a simplistic view, somebody wanting to portray equivalence might try to paint it as the same but it's not. It's different if the honours were a sale item discussed as such prior to the donation and deliberately sold.

Those making donations might in general expect a reward but not all will receive, this is totally different to any K or P sale negotiation that might or might not have happened with the previous administration depending on who you believe.

My viewpoint may be simplistic. However you dress it up nobody spends hundreds of thousands of pounds of either personal, corporate or indeed union funds without expecting a return, be it legislative or for personal gain.

But they might not get it, and if there is no sale negotiation prior to the donation the situation is indeed different.

If you think I somehow approve of the overall situation over donations and peerages etc then to be clear, I don't. However the situation with nulab prior to them losing the election is different as there is evidence from individuals who say they were involved in donation negotiations where the terms K and P were used, rather than donating and expecting. So neither can I approve of blurring different situations as a means of scoring political points. Even if it were Labour on the receiving end i.e. the roles were reversed, I would dispute the equivalence, as there is none. In Labour's case there is so much more to be concerned about, such as bringing the country to its knees while achieveing nothing for the average man and woman and in spite of their lofty langiage and promises, nothing for the poorer members of society in particular. Gaps widened under Labour's wasteful spending sprees mainly as they are totally incompetent.

I have no concern with scoring points, political or otherwise. It interest me that after accusations of 'cash for honours' were leveled at Labour during their term in office. Now we see people who have made large donations to the Tory party being handed honers the moment Mr Cameron gets into No10.

You must have read enough posts by now to realise I don't like it either, but it's untenable to continue with a line portraying equivalence between situations where one Party allegedly negotiated donations up-front based on the price of a K or a P, and another party which has apparently continued with the tradition that all parties have followed in rewarding some donors and supporters with honours.

colonel c said:

A nod is as good as wink as far as I'm concerned.

I would suggest you need to be more precise in your analysis, the two situations are very different in that only one party has allegedly followed the media line of an up-front sale. Which is it? All parties have rewarded supporters with honours, but not via that 'new' mechanism.

colonel c said:

I return to my original assertion that nothing has changed. The whole honours system has always been corrupt, with honours being given by default to civil servants and to party supporters and workers. The whole thing undermine the honours that go to those who really deserve them.

In previous threads on honours and associated cronyism in all its forms I've made the point that rich media celebrities and already famous individuals in rewarding occupations and roles are less appropriate recipients than somebody who grafts for 40 years sweeping the streets or cleaning public toilets without a day off, or forces personnel in the lower ranks who risk their lives on a regular basis, and so on.

That doesn't mean I lose all sense of logic and reason and swallow claims of no difference between an alleged pre-award sale negotiation and an after-the-fact award.

Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 30th May 17:20

[turbobloke]

If things haven't changed but have stayed the same, let's see how long it takes for the coalition to match this list.

Click