Wildcat Posted March 4, 2010 Author Share Posted March 4, 2010 So should we have a god clear out? Yes a good clear out. In fact, I would not shed a tear if the Lords was shut completely. Replaced perhaps by a chamber elected by PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Replaced perhaps by a chamber elected by PR. Now there is an interesting and practical idea. So interesting and practical that it could never happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted March 4, 2010 Author Share Posted March 4, 2010 It's interesting to see how Labour are putting so much effort into making Ashcroft a major political issue. Harriet Harman couldn't get off the subject in PMQ's yesterday even when it wasn't the question. Today's line of attack is that Ashcroft didn't keep his promise to William Hague from ten years ago. Well whoopie do - hold the press - a politician didn't keep a promise, what a revelation. But, I detect that pretty much nobody outside political circles really gives a stuff about it and this thread is hardly brimming with indignation since it was started over two weeks ago. It seems that that the real reason that New Labour are so uptight is that they don't have a Michael Ashcroft to fund and manage the Labour Party campaigns. I wonder why. Because Labour represents a wider support base than super rich tax avoiders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted March 4, 2010 Author Share Posted March 4, 2010 Now there is an interesting and practical idea. So interesting and practical that it could never happen? Even better than PR, allotment essentially appointment by lottery the same as for jury service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_House_of_Lords#Allotment On probability you will have to read the wiki article on its progress I don't have time.. I am late for work already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Because Labour represents a wider support base than super rich tax avoiders? Not according to voters it seems. Just remind us what Ashcroft has done that is illegal? Or what he's done that is different to Lord Paul - apart from being better at it ? Labour would kill to have somebody like Ashcroft in their ranks. This fuss is only because he's doing stuff in constituencies that they can't. Labour are reduced to stealing using taxpayers money for party political purposes, which I recall actually is against the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Because Labour represents a wider support base than super rich tax avoiders? Super rich Union leaders then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 It seems that that the real reason that New Labour are so uptight is that they don't have a Michael Ashcroft to fund and manage the Labour Party campaigns. I wonder why. They have regular income from dozens of trade unions though which donate £millions, I doubt none of which give their members any say in where their Union subscriptions are directed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 And in spite of those millions, they don't have any single individual with the talent, drive or ability to deliver the results that they crave. You can imagine the mantra in New Labour Ivory Tower - "Ashcroft is too good, he has to go" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 BBC: Donation probe 'clears Ashcroft' The Electoral Commission has cleared as legal £5.1m of donations to the Conservatives from a firm belonging to Lord Ashcroft, the BBC understands. The commission has ruled that the donations by Bearwood Corporate Services were "legal and permissible", sources have told the BBC. Firms must be "carrying on business in the UK" to be allowed to donate money to British political parties. The donations probe is separate to the row over Lord Ashcroft's tax status. Bearwood Corporate Services made a total of 173 donations to the Conservatives totalling £5.1m between February 2003 and February 2008, according to Electoral Commission figures. This is in addition to £111,726 in personal donations made by Lord Ashcroft and £569,439 from his wife, Susan Anstey, over the same period. Much of the money has been spent in marginal seats which are seen as being key to the result of the forthcoming general election. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8549243.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted March 4, 2010 Author Share Posted March 4, 2010 They have regular income from dozens of trade unions though which donate £millions, I doubt none of which give their members any say in where their Union subscriptions are directed. Utter nonsense. The use of TU political funds are based on democratic decisions and beyond that any member can decide to withold their contribution to a political fund. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_6#pt1-ch6-pb3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.