Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Tory co-treasurer Peter Cruddas offers access to PM and chancellor for £250,000


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 112 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 24 Mar 2012 23:08:36 GMT
ezpz says:
Conservative Party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas offered access to the prime minister and chancellor for £250,000, the Sunday Times has alleged. It has footage of him apparently making the offer to undercover reporters.

I wish more papers would get stories like this about how sleazy top Tory politicians are when they get in power.

Posted on 25 Mar 2012 02:21:24 BDT
He's bin fired

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 07:17:38 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Mar 2012 07:37:16 BDT
Molly Brown says:
Have you seen the Sunday Times video yet?
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-03-25/cruddas-video-allegations-revive-political-sleaze/
And apparently D.C. and the rest knew NOTHING about all of this? Big Business running the country, as always, their idea's apparently passed to Tory Policy committees, or the Tory "think tanks". Sure there has been plenty of discussion, cheap at £250,000, to get the contracts for the privatised NHS. 1948-2012 R.I.P. Blair was no different though, or those before him. Democracy?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 08:14:47 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Molloy- do you think any politicians are honest?

Labour are ruled by the unions, Torys big business. Lib dems no-one feels are worth bribing ( I agree).

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 08:22:40 BDT
Labour are no longer ruled by the unions. Increasingly, Labour doesn't represent the interests of union members, and there are those unions who have considered reducing their contributions to the party. Labour are more in bed with big business and finance.

Posted on 25 Mar 2012 08:41:04 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Sam- try being in business in Britain, the various employment laws are crippling business, especially small and medium sized ones.

What no-one in government or the unions has worked out is that by making it hard to dismiss people, it makes employers think hard before employing someone, the disablity discrimination act is a nightmare. Also the lack of retirement age will cause employers to think twice before employing an older person.

The unions still have far too big a say -look at the Milliand brothers fiasco. The labour party have a leader ( yet again) who is unelectable ( shades of Michael Foot).

One of my god -daughters ( for want of a better term- we have used pagan daughter, and non-existant deity daughter) is studying at Oxford, she might have a flat by the time she is mid thirties. A friend of hers from school has a flat, nice new t.v. and furnishings etc, all bills paid by the simple expedient of getting pregnant at 17. Is this fair? Is it a good way to discourage teenage pregnancy?

My neighbours daughter did the same, but wanted a bigger house, she was told that with one child she only qualified for a flat, so she got pregnant, and got a house in the road I lived in. I was working a sixty hour week being self employed to cover all my bills. Fair?

Until someone in government stops the welfare bandwagon, and makes employers able to employ and dismiss to suit the market conditions, we are in for a rough ride.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 08:51:19 BDT
I'm a member of a union, and I can say that without them we'd be up a certain creek without a certain implement. At the moment, the company I work for is trying their hardest to demolish our pensions and terms and conditions. Without the union involvement, the company would be able to just dictate to us as they can and do in the US. It would be a disaster. It would lead to worker exploitation. It's also very shortsighted. If you screw your employees over, you're not going to encourage talented people to work for you.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 09:22:20 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Mar 2012 09:31:35 BDT
yeah coz labour politicians never did anything sleazy did they

they were a beacon of honesty.......NOT!!!

selective memory from the left as usual.

WAKE UP!!!!! they are all self serving pigs

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 09:57:13 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 Mar 2012 07:50:11 BDT
Molly Brown says:
Labour, left? Where have you been for the last 30 years? Had to laugh at the response from PM's office regarding there being no donation from the "Financiers" involved in this set-up. No David, they were undercover reporters from the Sunday Times! Is this pay-back time now from Rupert Murdoch for his friends abandoning him in his hour of need? Now he's not running the show I mean.

CA Small, I think you are contradicting yourself in your post regarding employment laws, and not being able to fire people more easily. You mean you WANT them to go on benefits where they can get a house in your road?

Posted on 25 Mar 2012 10:01:14 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 10:51:08 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Molly, no I want to employ and keep the decent hard working element, not get stuck with people who know how to milk employment law- currently skewed so far towards the employee it is counter productive. I would like to give another person a job, but the risk to us is to high in the current climate. We have to pay ever higher rates of employers N.I. ( just so Gordon Brown could keep his promise of no income tax rises), which makes it less likely we will employ another person.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 10:52:38 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Sam, reading between the lines you may be on a final salary pension scheme, which is totally unaffordable and virtually bankrupting many companies , large and small.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 11:00:04 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Luke,
So!!! Do you think this will stop it?
Do you think for one moment that tnhey are not all in it for themselves?
Regards
M

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 11:19:42 BDT
Pipkin says:
Spot on Molly,
Absolute proof that Ca'moron' and all the rest of the supposed Governments are ''puppets'' of the same puppet masters.
More fool us for voting, eh? Independent for me in future.
What do you think of George Galloway? I know all about the propaganda, but what do you think about what he says?
Regards
Margaret.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 11:24:10 BDT
Molly Brown says:
The thing is though Clive? I think, many decent hard working "elements" don't now have a job, it's easy to fire people if you too know how to "milk" the employment law. Quite honestly, if someone is running a business, and they can't make a profit without paying a decent fair living wage to the people who work for them, perhaps they should not be in business at all? I hear so many small and medium business men, not saying you, that moan about how hard they work and what scum their workers are, I am sick and tired of it. Usually these so called hard working businessmen are on the Golf Course, or similar, definitely not rolling their sleeves up with the workers, you must know the type I mean. My own experience, since Maggie Thatcher reign is of greedy small/medium sized companies, exploiting their honest hard workers, have nothing but contempt, and are not concerned that they have a responsibility to them, as without their labour, they wouldn't be able to be on the Golf Course all day.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 11:27:15 BDT
Molly Brown says:
I vote, you vote, trouble is, a large minority do not. But what is there to vote for? I hear that some GP's, (retired ones I hope), are going to be standing against prominent Lib Dems at the next election, hope they will call themselves the NHS Party. George Galloway, the least said the better imo.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 11:31:59 BDT
The alternative isn't to treat employees with contempt and rip them off while lying to them. I have no problem with change, but the sort of change that companies bring in or wish to bring in are tilted totally in that company's favour at the expense of their workers. Compromise is possible, but experience shows that businesses are only out for themselves. I recognise the need for businesses to succeed, but they must start to realise that they are nothing, literally, without their employees.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 11:46:15 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Mar 2012 11:47:34 BDT
TomC says:
A pension is an arrangement whereby part of the employee's wage is deferred until retirement; at the time final salary schemes were set up, they suited the employers very well, since they were a powerful incentive for recruiting staff. Subsequently, many of them were wrecked by the companies who set them up, who liked the benefits but not the associated costs. The companies concerned decided that there was no point in continuing to contribute if the stock market could work its magic on their behalf, so they awarded themselves "contribution holidays". (Needless to add, these were only available for the company, not the employee.)

It turned out that the companies concerned were placing a one-way bet with the future pensions of their employees. If the stock market had really been the perpetual fountain of wealth it was supposed to be, they would have won, since the pension scheme would have cost them very little. Since it wasn't, the companies started squealing about the unaffordability of the schemes and changing the terms and conditions; the result was that the employees lost.

You can imagine what would happen to someone who placed a losing bet in the gambling world and attempted to evade the consequences in this way. I can't help feeling that some of the same treatment meted out to some of the senior executives of these companies would have been entirely justified.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 12:03:08 BDT
TomC says:
"Lib dems no-one feels are worth bribing"

Turner and Newell, the asbestos products manufacturer, thought otherwise.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-cyril-smith-should-be-stripped-355451
Your reply to TomC's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 12:58:58 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Molloy- have you ever run a business? Care to work a ninety hour week? Feel like not getting paid for months? Like the idea that you have to pay a layabout to sit at home with "stress" whilst someone you want to employ is unemployed and on the dole because you cannot afford to pay another member of staff? Feel like putting your house on the line to get a business overdraft? I have had five days holiday in three years.

People like you make me sick.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 13:03:40 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Unions have no interest in a business succeeding or their demands being affordable, which is one of the reasons why manufacturing in this country is virtually non -existant. You and I are both old enough to remembers the 1970's and what unions did to the docks, the mines, the car industry, the motorbike industry.....

Look at the tubes workers, the fire brigades, British Airways,- heavy unionised and all overpaying the workers by huge amounts.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 13:09:58 BDT
TomC says:
It seems that it's all too hard for you.

Why don't you get a job, old boy? Then you can put your feet up.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 13:15:13 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Mar 2012 13:16:20 BDT
I can't agree. I have no idea whether you've ever worked in a unionised industry, but I do. The workers and the union all want the business to succeed. So do management. No-one benefits from the business failing. It's in the way to achieve that success that there's disagreement.
I will concede that at times in the past the unions have been, shall we say, overzealous. But I'm sure that we could both come up with examples of management failure that has led to widespread disaster coupled with corruption and the exploitation of workers.

I can't speak for tube workers, fire brigades, or BA, but when management try living on the same wages as the rest of us (without their bonuses and privileged pension schemes) , then we'll talk about who is overpaid.

Posted on 25 Mar 2012 14:07:15 BDT
J. Mcarthur says:
Okay, a question for any liberals, conservatives etc. out there who are appalled by this example of "corruption": why does it perturb you that single individuals can gain access to politicians through wealth/bribery, but the fact that wealth automatically gives one a disproportionate political influence, regardless of whether you make a payment, not? Is this not just a symptomatic, albeit excessive, example of how politics is constituted in a capitalist society? Is the legitimacy of the latter based on some spurious distinction between the "substance" and "form" of political access? If he was selling the right to meet someone, surely that it is okay to make a profit from that - lets say he sold the ability to meet David Cameron, the "private" individual, rather than the "public" Prime Minister, would that be okay? My point is that it is incoherent to get up in arms about the influence of particular capitalists and wealthy individuals and not capitalism and inequality per se.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 14:28:56 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Sam, I worked for the NHS briefly, the level of union threat was huge. I refused to join and then left. Unions do not distinguish between who is genuinely being put upon by management, and a lazy incompetent. They both get the same level of protection regardless of how valid the complaint is.
A friend of mine is very senior at one of Britains flagship companies, she earns and gets paid a good salary. The hours she works are immense, the stress also, on call 24/7 ( as am I). I do not have a pension scheme, I stopped paying into it and used the funds to support the business. The recession has hit all businesses hard, some harder than others, but due to Government incompetence over many years, management laziness and fear at taking on the unions for the last forty years, and overly powerful unions, we now have an economy with almost no manufacturing, with a dichotomy between the public and private sector on pensions, and no-one really willing to take on the difficult issues of how a bankrupt country can survive with the level of state handouts ( national and international) that our beloved leaders think is correct.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  112
Initial post:  24 Mar 2012
Latest post:  3 May 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions