Is this another Tory scandal brewing? (Part 1)

by **astradt1** Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:52 pm

First topic message reminder :

Justice minister stripped of powers

Ken Clarke to take charge after Djanogly failed to declare family interest in claims management companies

The justice minister, Jonathan Djanogly, has been stripped of his responsibility to regulate firms that "ambulance chase" the public following a Guardian investigation that revealed how he and his family could profit from controversial changes to legal aid he was piloting in parliament.

Djanogly, the heir to a £300m family business, had failed to declare that his teenage children were minority shareholders in his brother-in-law's businesses – two firms that advertise claims and are part of an industry that Djanogly regulated in government.

Do you get the feeling that after each Revelation about members of this government you just have to shout NEXT

by **Ivan** Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:38 pm

The 'Panorama' programme about Ashcroft, who has donated £10 million to the Tories, has been moved by the BBC to here:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01c2h4t

Is this another Tory scandal brewing? (Part 1) - Page 3 Ashcroft1a

Is this another Tory scandal brewing? (Part 1) - Page 3 Ashcroft1a

Source: MyDavidCameron.com

by Scarecrow Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:43 am

Adam Werrity it would seem has vanished from the media spotlight , no more Labour probing , wonder why , well the fact that there is the Gould connection speaks volumes as to what the real story regarding Werrity is. He was privy to top meetings with the head of Mossad along with Fox , Cameron was in full knowledge of his role , read the blog to fill in the gaps. Very Happy

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/02/gould-werritty-the-deleted-papers/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Gould

by oftenwrong Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:08 am

The Iceberg analogy fits Whitehall activities nicely. Only one-fifth is visible.

by Stox 16 Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:58 am

Scarecrow wrote:Adam Werrity it would seem has vanished from the media spotlight , no more Labour probing , wonder why , well the fact that there is the Gould connection speaks volumes as to what the real story regarding Werrity is. He was privy to top meetings with the head of Mossad along with Fox , Cameron was in full knowledge of his role , read the blog to fill in the gaps.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/02/gould-werritty-the-deleted-papers/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Gould

I think there will be some report's coming out into this Scarecrow, that is why

by **Ivan** Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:11 pm

I have been given permission to post in full this article by Lisa Nandy MP (which first appeared in 'Tribune'):-

Just what is going on in Government Departments? The row over the publication of the NHS risk register is only the latest example of Ministers attempting to avoid publishing information requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

For nearly two years Andrew Lansley has fought to prevent publication of the NHS risk register despite overwhelming public pressure to reveal whether, in the NHS's own assessment, the Government's reforms will compromise patient quality, safety and efficient use of scarce resources.

Open Government was a central theme of the Coalition Agreement, which stated "the Government believes that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account.” Yet Ministers have failed to reveal information about a number of questions of public importance. My Parliamentary Questions to the Department for Education, for example, remained unanswered for several months until, in response to a complaint, Ministers were ordered by the House of Commons Procedures Committee to answer them.

It was well beyond the statutory deadline that responses to FOI requests told us that Ministers had handed a Government grant to a new organisation, run by one of Gove’s former special advisors, to handle free school applications without a tendering process. Latterly it took several months after the first free schools were opened before their funding agreements were published - again after an FOI request.

These issues go to the heart of democratic accountability. Ministers have relied heavily on arguments about empowering the public to defend their radical and controversial health and education reforms. By denying information about how and why decisions are taken they deny the public the right to make an informed decision about whether those reforms are justified or even helpful.

Recently this situation has become even more complicated, as it has emerged that a Minister and his advisors have been using private email addresses to conduct departmental business that they wrongly considered not to be subject to the FOI Act. Last month, at a session held by the Education Select Committee, Michael Gove refused to confirm whether he or his advisers had ever deleted emails from personal accounts in order to avoid the Act. Some of the emails in question have since been revealed by the Financial Times and the Guardian and relate to Government decisions around Building Schools for the Future and the award of public contracts. The Information Commissioner is currently investigating the Department.

While refusing to publish information that ought to be in the public domain is poor governance, seeking to unravel the principle of open government is dangerous. Last week Gus O'Donnell the outgoing Cabinet Secretary argued the FOI Act ought to be repealed as it prevents frank and open discussion. It is unclear why this should be the case when the Act explicitly entitles public bodies to withhold recorded information for a number of reasons, including that related to policy advice.

The Justice Select Committee recently announced an inquiry into the operation of the Act which is timely. There are real issues with the FOI Act, particularly the time and resources organisations may spend on dealing with requests and 11 years after its introduction a review is positive. But to suggest its repeal would leave the UK as one of the only democratic countries in the world without a similar commitment to open Government.

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister responsible for the Act and latterly a critic, said ‘for political leaders, it's like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, 'Hey, try this instead', and handing them a mallet.' For any decent Minister that should surely give pause for thought about why publishing information about how decisions are reached is the equivalent of handing over a political mallet. That is something Lansley should reflect on this week. If publishing the NHS risk register hands such a gift to opponents of his NHS reforms, perhaps it is time to listen to them and change course.

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:17 pm

Part of the current malaise is due to the fact that the House of Commons has very little to do. There are actually very few Bills to debate.

by **Ivan** Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:41 am

"One of Steve Hilton's legacies is one he would not want to advertise to his new US friends: how he was personally involved in appointing Emma Harrison as the Prime Minister's back-to-work tsar. She resigned as No 10 adviser and chairman of A4e just over a week ago over allegations of fraud at the company. It is understood that Mr Hilton recommended her to Cameron.

And in more evidence of the links between Ms Harrison and Cameron, 'The Independent on Sunday' has learnt that A4e is advising No 10 on the next wave of privatisation. It will offer advice on 'value for money' in contracting out, including writing guidelines on future privatisations. The firm will hold a seminar in Whitehall explaining how to design welfare contracts with private firms. The contract, worth £250,000 was agreed last September."

More details and reader comments:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/further-no-10-link-to-a4e-7534757.html

by oftenwrong Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:15 pm

We shall not be worse off by the departure of Mr. Hilton, eminence gris behind the Cameron throne. Among his recommended proposals were "The Big Society", Cameron's "hug a husky" photo-opportunity in the Arctic, abolition of Job Centres, scrapping paid maternity leave and suspending Consumer rights against sellers of faulty goods.
His wife Rachel Whetstone is head of Communications for Google, another organisation only concerned with the Public Good.

by bobby Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:37 am

In effect the Tories have anything Murdock owns, The BBC through fear of fragmentation, and Google. Is it any wonder we don't get any negative news from this Tory heavy media. It seems the Daily Mail is publishing most of the anti Tory stories.

by **Ivan** Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:24 pm

Robert Quick, formerly Britain's top counter-terrorism officer, told the Leveson Inquiry that his senior Scotland Yard colleagues buckled under pressure from the Tories, even though they were in opposition at the time. He alleges that they withdrew their support for the investigation of a Tory immigration spokesman, Damian Green, who had not just received leaks but encouraged a civil servant to pass on information (stolen from the safe of the then Home Secretary's private office) that might have endangered national security.

Source:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/07/leveson-inquiry-tory-pressure-damian-green-leak?CMP=twt_gu.

It's now emerged that when Green was arrested, he used his right to make one phone call to ring - Andy Coulson!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/leak-arrest-tory-made-phone-call-to-coulson-7546115.html

Isn't it time that Green was sacked and prosecuted for aiding and abetting the endangering of national security?

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:28 pm

Murdoch evidently believes that the only honest Policeman is the one who stays bought.

by Redflag Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:27 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Murdoch evidently believes that the only honest Policeman is the one who stays bought.

You could be right there OW I wonder if Murdoch is worried about what else is going to come out of the Leveson inquiry?

by **Ivan** Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:11 pm

For anyone who hasn't yet seen the video of Peter Cruddas boasting about access to Cameron in exchange for a large donation to the Tories:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17503116

Ignore the above link. The Tory-controlled BBC has removed the video and put it behind 'The Sunday Times' paywall. Here it is on You Tube:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bcTZjqn8MwM

by Mel Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:39 pm

Ivan,

I am amazed that we as yet have had little response from our Labour supporters here on this potentially very distructive and damaging for Cameron exposure of the Cruddas secretely taped video. Perhaps all are out in the out in the sunshine.

This revelation, not only opens accusations of dirty doings aimed at Cameron, but at Gideon Osborne to boot. Cameron will not be able to deny the evidence put before the people. Add this to the Murdoch, the Andy Caulson and the Mr and Mrs Brookes saga, makes one wonder how many other unsavoury close associations raving Dave has in his cupboard.

IMO Cameron is in a very difficult situation here in this case. If he is in denial about his involvement in the Cruddas issue he will be labelled as a liar. If he keeps silent he will be seen to be guilty and if he ownes up he will have commited political suicide.

Now is the time for Ed and Co to raise the bar and crucify these sleazy arrogant toffs once and for all.

I see brother David is getting involved now. It could be the case that Ed may step down at some later stage and David take over as leader of the Labour party. That happening IMO would be the nail in the coffin for the Coalition. I am saying my prayers in ernest.

by Scarecrow Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:51 pm

Mel , what intrigues me more is that Murdoch's Sunday Times blew the lid on the story . I think Murdoch is on the attack as far as the parties are concerned , he has no friends in the open , anyway , in private that's another matter.

by **Ivan** Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:18 pm

Cameron wasn't able to keep his part of the deal, in no small part due to Ed Miliband. Murdoch tried every trick in the book to discredit Gordon Brown and get Cameron elected (or nearly elected as it turned out), but Cameron couldn't hand him the rest of BSkyB on a plate, though not for want of trying. Then Cameron tried to distance himself from Coulson and Brooks, when it was quite obvious that he's up to his ears in the sleaze, and so Murdoch has now set the dogs loose. Hence today's revelations in 'The Sunday Times', with rumours of more to follow next week.

The past week will probably be remembered as the moment when the Tories lost the next election. The privatisation of the NHS - the very opposite of Cameron's promise at the election - coupled with a £40k tax cut for millionaires, a granny tax, VAT on cornish pasties and now the proof (as if we needed it) that Cameron's evil regime is more corrupt than even John Major's.

I can't and won't celebrate 60 years of the same toothless head of state, a monarch who has signed the NHS Bill into law against the wishes (in a so-called democracy) of everyone except Tory ideologues and their party donors. We need a democratically-elected head of state with the power to tell a PM: "You don't have a mandate for this - drop it or call a general election." Instead of that we have a very old lady who is just a rubber stamp for tyranny.

by oftenwrong Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:47 pm

If Mrs Queen were ever to stop rubber-stamping the Tory Government's frauds on the public, she'd find herself made Governor of Saint Kilda.

by Redflag Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:17 pm

Ivan wrote:Cameron wasn't able to keep his part of the deal, in no small part due to Ed Miliband. Murdoch tried every trick in the book to discredit Gordon Brown and get Cameron elected (or nearly elected as it turned out), but Cameron couldn't hand him the rest of BSkyB on a plate, though not for want of trying. Then Cameron tried to distance himself from Coulson and Brooks, when it was quite obvious that he's up to his ears in the sleaze, and so Murdoch has now set the dogs loose. Hence today's revelations in 'The Sunday Times', with rumours of more to follow next week.

The past week will probably be remembered as the moment when the Tories lost the next election. The privatisation of the NHS - the very opposite of Cameron's promise at the election - coupled with a £40k tax cut for millionaires, a granny tax, VAT on cornish pasties and now the proof (as if we needed it) that Cameron's evil regime is more corrupt than even John Major's.

I can't and won't celebrate 60 years of the same toothless head of state, a monarch who has signed the NHS Bill into law against the wishes (in a so-called democracy) of everyone except Tory ideologues and their party donors. We need a democratically-elected head of state with the power to tell a PM: "You don't have a mandate for this - drop it or call a general election." Instead of that we have a very old lady who is just a rubber stamp for tyranny.

Hi Ivan did you hear that when Scam..er..on took over as leader of the Tory party they where £28 Million in debt as a party, now Im wondering if that 5p tax cut was that a pay back for the top 10% helping to pay down Tory debt or was the pay back giving 49% of the NHS to the private health sector ?

Scam..er..on says he will do an internal inquiry to find out if there was any more £250,000 paid to the Tory party so Rich Backstuds would have the ear of the PM in the hope or knowing that they would change policy for there large Donations, Ed Miliband has said that the inquiry should be done by someone outside of the Tory Party it will be very interesting tomorrow in the H.O.C and these where the people that flung it up in Labours face there donations came from the Unions I do not think the Unions would have that sort of Moneybut the ones he gave the 5p tax cut do have that amount of money.

by AwfulTruth Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:17 am

In the current Cruddas resigning scandal, that has just hit the fan like the mouldy old leftovers from a very public private banquet, we have been told by Mr Cameron that the man is not for turning-in his guest list; even though some of the guests paid up to a quarter of a million quid for the controversial privilege of rubbing shoulders with Dave and his fragrant wifey!

Do you think Dave is justified in refusing to disclose these crucial details and do you think he was offering punters the chance to influence policy - bearing in mind the 5% max tax rate controversy?

Personally I think he has no choice, and that prevarication will simply increase the stink that is now wafting around our PM with such extravagant gusto; as is the disingenuous cant that he issued forth when he actually said he knew nothing of what Cruddas was doing?

After the recent budget (complete with lovely 5% redcution in top tax!), as many newspapers are highlighting, is this scandal manifesting serious issues of impropriety? Is the post of PM being denigrated and besmirched by a series of scandals, let alone Mr Cameron's notably poor performances (complete with excremental 'ad hominem' insults galore) at PMQs, where he has chosen on so many occasions not to answer even the most simple questions?

Obviously, the opponents of the Tories and Cameron will have a field day focusing on this latest scandal, but for me what really is at stake is the surety of government and therefore the confidence the people of this country will have in the independence of governance.

That the access of wilful inveigling tentacles of outside influence might be purchased, in an apparently clandestine below-the-table-kind-of-way, will do nothing to elevate or exalt the post of PM, the Tory party OR the reputation of politics and politicians, is for me, an indictment of the leadership of Dave Cameron, and calls into question, directly, his competence in a government marked by abject incompetence.

by witchfinder Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:45 am

Recently, a local Conservative councillor took ill and ended up in hospital, when I saw this councillors wife in a local shop I asked how he was doing.
As a person this councillor is a decent bloke, I know his family and he knows my family, but he also knows that I do not support the Conservative Party and that I would never vote for him.

There is a dividing line between a person as a private person, and as a politician, even politicians have families, private friends and a personal social life.

The reason why David Cameron will not publish his guest lists at so called "private" dinner parties is because in his view, these events are personal and private.

If these so called "personal and private" dinner parties consist solely of family, personal friends, perhaps old school friends etc, then thats just fine.
Any dinner party hosted by David Cameron which includes Conservative Party colleagues, members, donors or potential donors is not "private and personal", it has crossed the line, it is open to question and scrutiny.

I am afraid that Mr Cameron is onto a loser here, he cannot continue to justify that these events are private, because its not private, there are questions, and he must answer them.

by **Ivan** Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:17 am

Is this another Tory scandal brewing? (Part 1) - Page 3 Access-to-the-PM

Source: http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2012/03/25/access-to-the-prime-minister-the-menu/

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:34 am

by AwfulTruth Today at 6:17 am

In the current Cruddas resigning scandal, that has just hit the fan like the mouldy old leftovers from a very public private banquet, we have been told by Mr Cameron that the man is not for turning-in his guest list; even though some of the guests paid up to a quarter of a million quid for the controversial privilege of rubbing shoulders with Dave and his fragrant wifey!

Sorry. Haven't quoted whole post for space reasons.

So. Apart from the posting you have made you think the government is doing OK? Wink

Was the idiot who was being interviewed and made these stupid offers working on his own initiative? Do we know that this sort of thing actually happens? How do we equate this with the influence the Unions have on the Labour Party? The recent suggestion by one Union leader of withholding support for Labour by the Unions is simply the reverse of the problem we are discussing.

We need a real overhaul of out political system. One way would be to limit the total amount of money donated to each party. Enough to cover expenses and support a limited political campaign at election times. I realise there are problems with this. IE When, after the next election, the current government will have many less MPs as the opposition, so need less money. Smile

And vice versa

I'm not skilled enough to know how. That would have to be worked out. But these would have to be open to public scrutiny.

The problem of 'directorships' and ''backhanders' is a difficult one. I believe that if you are to become an MP, that is your occupation. FULL TIME. No outside financial positions, advisory positions etc.
I know outside interests must be declared. Not good enough. You cannot serve two masters.

THAT is what our MP's are put into Parliament for. To work for us.

We need an inquiry. Independent and from outside. The problem is who would be independent enough not to be 'influenced' by their bias for either side. This is so serious perhaps someone from outside the UK who has an understanding of British Politics.

To ask the PM to disclose his guest list at all his dinners does no good at all. We all have our friends and choose with whom we consort. I guess many of the PM's guests are rich. So what. We can only speculate on the conversations at those dinners. And despite our speculations, that is all they are - speculations.

If an inquiry proves 'misdoing' then all options are open.

I am as much against this government as you are. But I await the response as to an inquiry, and the result of any such open inquiry.

One of the beauties of English Justice is simply that the condemned man has a right to speak Laughing

by **Ivan** Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:40 am

Haven't quoted whole post for space reasons.

Good, please don't! I wish that others would just quote one or two sentences to indicate the post to which they're referring, rather than keep repeating entire messages over and over again.

Labour receives more money from individual members than it does from the unions. Anyway, the union contributions consist of very small amounts of tax-paid money from thousands of union members, none of whom will be entertained in Downing Street as a result. That's far safer - and far more democratic - than these massive donations from millionaires who have stashed money overseas and now want something in return for their contributions to the Tories.

by Mel Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:55 am

"for me what really is at stake is the surety of government and therefore the confidence the people of this country will have in the independence of governance."

There is no surety nor confidence in the existing so called governence AT.
The Tories come out on top on sleaze and greed and that nobody can deny
is the truth, except of course the Tories themselves.

Cameron is continually in denial along with Gideon Osborne and continue to do so even when cornered with the truth of the matter. They rely upon the distraction of other news/events and this being backed by the bias media /press ensures that the damaging revelations are swifty brushed under the carpet, in the hope that they will be forgotten.
The fact is that it works and arrogance, denial,greed, sleaze and power prevals regardless, just as it did in Cromwell's time and even he didn,t cure it for it remains after all those centuries gone by.

by AwfulTruth Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:28 pm

Ivan wrote:Labour receives more money from individual members than it does from the unions. Anyway, the union contributions consist of very small amounts of tax-paid money from thousands of union members, none of whom will be entertained in Downing Street as a result. That's far safer - and far more democratic - than these massive donations from millionaires who have stashed money overseas and now want something in return for their contributions to the Tories.

Good one - and I agree with you (and other posts are also good reading). The unions are at least democratic and the money they give to Labour is also a direct engagement with the historical significance of the Labour/trade union partnership which saw the true blossoming of the welfare state that saved so many from hell and high water.

However, we are witnessing the Thatcherite imperative to gradually erode the welfare state away and create a reversal of the massive social structures that provide essential services such as health care that is free at source.

As for funding, I once controversially stated elsewhere more than once, after the last election, that we were about to be governed by a spiv government created by spivs for the benefit of spivs. I have not changed that opinion one iota, although I would now add that the spivs are now showing a quickening lack of wit and moreover manifesting a plethora of moronic stupidity, that is spewing forth as the days go by in ever increasing quantities.

Truth is that Dave and his pals are not anywhere hear as clever as they think they are and are now, increasingly, finding that even their staunchest allies are questioning Dave's competency and picking over some abysmal gaffs and basic errors of judgement.

It beggars belief!

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:35 pm

Almost 90% of the Labour total - £3,138,443 - came from the unions. That figure is certain to fuel Tory claims that the party is overly influenced by the sector.
A Labour spokesman said that its biggest single source of income was membership subscriptions and small donations below the threshold requiring declaration to the commission.

Extract thanks to The Telegraph 26.03.2012

Won't argue with you. Just depends which way you look at it.

by blueturando Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:40 pm

Ivan,
I am amazed that we as yet have had little response from our Labour supporters here on this potentially very distructive and damaging for Cameron exposure of the Cruddas secretely taped video. Perhaps all are out in the out in the sunshine

Mel......Perhaps they are not all hypocrites and remember Blair's 'CASH FOR HONOURS' and Geoff Hoon's 'CAB FOR HIRE' moment

by blueturando Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:45 pm

Ahhh Trevor.....don't forget about the £1 Million paid to Labour by Bernie Ecclestone, that also got his sport exempt from the Tobacco advertising laws

by Redflag Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:19 pm

blueturando wrote:Ahhh Trevor.....don't forget about the £1 Million paid to Labour by Bernie Ecclestone, that also got his sport exempt from the Tobacco advertising laws

How many other political parties get a donation of £250,000 most of Labours money comes from membership fees and small donations, as for the Union donations that comes from Union members who agree to pay around £2.00 to £3.00 per month out of there salaries and that is what the Tories call the Union money, I wonder what else is this Rotten Tories Gov't have done things that will not come out if SCAM..ER..ON has an internal inquiry and if its not done by someone out with the Tory party we can make own minds up at why he does not want to come out but the Sunday Times is not done yet with a promise of more revelations?

by AwfulTruth Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:31 pm

Just heard that Cameron elephant

is revealing the names of the funny diners at club Cameron. Is it complete? Probably not. It does however show that Dave's penchant for cronyism a la 'old school tie' networking, is alive and well and attempting to close ranks en masse somewhere near you!

What fun! cheers

by Redflag Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:32 pm

Ivan wrote:
Source: http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2012/03/25/access-to-the-prime-minister-the-menu/

Brilliant post Ivan and I would think most of it is quite true but the Sunday Times has promised more revelations, and today in the H.O.C, after the way they have thrown up in Labour face since they came into power about the money the Unions give and yet here they are accepting donations of £250,000 and a good return on that donation to get policy change to suit there business, I would urge all Labour MPs DO NOT LET THE TORY PARTY FORGET THIS now they can give them what the Tory party has reveled in so now its there turn and lets see if the Tories enjoy a TASTE OF THERE OWM MEDICINE I doubt this very much .

by AwfulTruth Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:32 pm

Trevor - love the tulips; is this a pic of your garden? Very Happy

by bobby Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:36 pm

blueturando. Its good to see you do not deny the depths your Tory Party/Government have plumeted, I join the two together as Herr Cameron and his mate Cruddas has made it impossible to tell the difference between one and the other. Herr Cameron allegedly has been using Parliamentary facilities for the benefit of his political party, and has clearly stated in defence of this latest bit of sleaze “I will publish quarterly any meals I have with doners on the future. Then a little later the deputy Chairman of the party reiterated the same. Great that innit, they will disclose any meals they have and we should now sit back saying “well that’s OK then” but what if the meetings in future or the past for that matter didn’t include a meal, but purely a meeting to discuss what is in it for the person handing over the quarter mil, they have even left the door open for that person to have a drink, and they wont have to disclose anything as no meal was had. They in their arrogance, really think that we the electorate are stupid.
I have seen through this bit of subterfuge so obviously have many, many others, except blueturando and his party of thieves and liars it seems. Never mind even he cant be fooled 100% of the time, he has been fooled 90% of the time so he had better see them for exactly what they are soon, as he was beginning to look ridiculous some years ago, and is still coming out with the same old, same old. Poor bluey though, he may get better when he grows up.

by Redflag Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:44 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:Just heard that Cameron is revealing the names of the funny diners at club Cameron. Is it complete? Probably not. It does however show that Dave's penchant for cronyism a la 'old school tie' networking, is alive and well and attempting to close ranks en masse somewhere near you!

What fun!

AT no they will attempt to hide most of what has went on behind closed doors in No 10 or Chequers or anywhere else that COME DINE WITH DAVE AND BRING YOUR CHEQUE BOOK took place, Its up too us to make sure the inquiry is done by an outsider of the Tory party,

by Mel Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:00 pm

blue "Mel......Perhaps they are not all hypocrites and remember Blair's 'CASH FOR HONOURS' and Geoff Hoon's 'CAB FOR HIRE' moment"

With respect this is a very poor response. After all taking ALL that Tory sleaze from the 18yrs of previous Tory rule and indeed the one or two Labour cases you highlight, shouldn't Cameron have learned his lesson by now?
He is so arrogant that nothing bothers him as he wriggles and lies his way out of danger, with the help of doctored media/press coverage out of fear.

by **astradt1** Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:01 pm

Of course Ecclestone's donation was made to the Labour party in January 1997 3months before they won the General Election..........And the money was returned to him......I wonder why Ecclestone was so sure Labour would win???

The current talk is about money being paid to have a private dinners with the Camoron's at 10 Downing Street.......

by Mel Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:08 pm

Even if an independant inquiry takes place (very unlikely) unless we have the words of the fly on the wall, ALL will not be revealed.

As Cruddas (crude bastard) has said "all that is said at the dinner will be kept secret". Therefore we can have no hope of exposure of the truth.

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:25 pm

by AwfulTruth Today at 1:32 pm

Trevor - love the tulips; is this a pic of your garden? Very Happy

No. Ivan did it for me from his garden. I asked for a garden avatar as I am a keen gardener.
My garden is reasonably large but I have a greenhouse 8x6ft and a tunnel 3x2 and a smaller tunnel. Usually grow around 700-900 plants a year. Gotta keep busy in the summer. Keeps the joints moving8)

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:32 pm

It is entirely appropriate that this whole sleazy mess should be discovered because of the misdeeds of a Top Tory called Crude-Arse and similarly typical that the Peer chosen to undertake what we can be sure will be a very thorough 'investigation' ( aka: whitewash) should rejoice in the title of Lord Gold !! You couldn't make it up - although it's almost certain that they will!

The only surprise is that anyone at all is surprised. Donkeys bray; dogs bark; Tories are shifty and corrupt- what's new...? cheers

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:36 pm

Just started my own Political party. Called the Truthh party. Trust, reliability, under Trevor's honesty hospitality.

We guarantee to tell the truth - on donations of 1 grand. Little white lie's for only £10.

3 course meals in a marquee free - rent of cutlery £500.

Apply now:lol:

by Mel Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:39 pm

"what's new...? "

Nothing Phil except i'm getting more amd more angry and agressive towards these corrupt vultures. Hopefully millions of folk are feeling the same. I did say hopefully. Sad

by Sponsored content