FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

MPs cash donations

Jump to newest
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oubleswing2019Man
over a year ago

Colchester

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes

Isn't one of the problems that the only people who can change this awful situation are the same people that benefit from it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Isn't one of the problems that the only people who can change this awful situation are the same people that benefit from it?"

Yep

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top