Forgive me for missing something here but aren’t “cash for access” [Fergie style] and party donations two completely separate things? Far be it for me to support Cameron but on the donor side of matters, I can’t for the life of me see what’s wrong in dinners for donors.
A party needs funds and it needs big funds to carry out its campaign. We could argue about whether politics should be run this way or even about parties themselves but for now, parties need funds. I don’t see why they should have to be declared or if you beat me down on that, why anyone should be penalized for donations.
The faux UKIP donations row was ridiculous. So what if they didn’t declare it?
The Electoral Commission’s demand that Ukip pay back over £350,000 to a wealthy donor could spell the end for the anti-EU party, its leader claimed today. “There is a deliberate attempt being made by the authorities to put us out of business,” Nigel Farrage told the Channel 4 News Morning Report podcast.
Hell, I can’t even see the issue of Labour being funded by the global socialists and being subject to “the faceless men” in their caucus. That’s the way they’re set up, that’s the way people vote for them … or not if they don’t like that set-up. And as one commenter wrote:
The hypocrisy of Labour – evidently they’ve forgotten that their own ministers (Geoff Hoon, Richard Caborn and Stephen Byers)were all found violating Parliamentary rules of conduct on political lobbying. Let’s dig all that up again, eh. And who could ever forget the ultimate Labour kings of sleaze, Campbell and Mandelson?
All right, Cameron hosted those dinners at N10. That might be an issue but it’s a political man in N10, just as one exited N10 in 2010. And what? There’s a thing called the press and if they’re professional, they’d know who was and wasn’t there. Cameron’s policies reveal the moral compass of his backers. It’s not as if it’s some dark, hidden secret.
There’s too much faux-outrage over this matter. The cash for access is an entirely different matter.