Tory donors switching to Ukip, says party treasurer

[andygardener]

I'm more worried by the fact that some CEOs of big companies give money to the Tory Party without asking their shareholders if they agree that decision. The Trade Unions have to ask their members, why shouldn't CEOs?

 

Is this causing a problem? Which companies have shareholder concerns about donations to the Conservatives?

[El Cid]

Is this causing a problem? Which companies have shareholder concerns about donations to the Conservatives?

 

I have shares in a number of companies, and I would not want any of my profits going to the Tories.

[andygardener]

I have shares in a number of companies, and I would not want any of my profits going to the Tories.

 

Have any of them donated your profits to the Conservative Party?

[Mister M]

Is this causing a problem? Which companies have shareholder concerns about donations to the Conservatives?

 

Lots may have - they should be on an equal footing as far as the law is concerned.

Individual trade unionists have to give their consent to money going to the Labour Party, why shouldn't shareholders?

[green]

UKIP are taking votes from all parties. Chat to your colleagues & friends and prepare to be shocked.

 

Lab/Lib/Con all stated in their party manifestos at the last election that they would welcome a referendum on the EU. When it came to the vote, that was forced by a petition, the 3 of them reneged on their promises, stating now wasn't the time for a referendum.

 

UKIP welcomes big business. Farage is an ex financier, who has lately been smoozing with Murdoch. The right wing press wont scrutinise him or UKIP, they want him causing trouble.

 

If we end up at the next election with a UKIP/Con coalition i would fear for this country.

 

Germanys elections in a few months is a big deciding factor on the future of the EU. There is a backlash now to Austerity & propping up insolvent banks.

 

It will be an interesting 2 years.

[andygardener]

Lots may have - they should be on an equal footing as far as the law is concerned.

Individual trade unionists have to give their consent to money going to the Labour Party, why shouldn't shareholders?

 

I think they are on an equal footing as far as the law is concerned. The law defines what individuals and entities may donate to political parties. How those entities validate donations is a matter for them. As it stands the vast majority of Tory donations are from individuals and the small change corporate donations are overwhelmingly from private companies with unanimous shareholder approval (mainly the shares are all held by the owner who makes the decision to donate).

 

The way it's being presented suggests huge donations by big PLCs against shareholder wishes, that's simply not the case.

[s2 blade]

You may be right, the cold light of the media hasn't really descended on UKIPs policies just yet, but I'll wait and see how that pans out.

 

UKIP's policies are there for all to see , that's why the "big 3" are all worried and so they should be . It's time to put Britain first and the British people are starting to realise this .

[Mister M]

UKIP's policies are there for all to see , that's why the "big 3" are all worried and so they should be . It's time to put Britain first and the British people are starting to realise this .

 

I've read their policies, I disagreed with most and agreed with just a couple.

However I don't understand one of their policies:

"End support for multiculturalism and promote one, common British culture" - How would they go about this, and what is the one common British culture that they will promote?

[green]

UKIP's policies are there for all to see , that's why the "big 3" are all worried and so they should be . It's time to put Britain first and the British people are starting to realise this .

 

http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies

 

Policy lite?

[MrSmith]

It did start to hurt. I have no idea what you are babbling on about and I suspect neither do you either. The point I am making is much simpler. The bankers are the root cause of the debt we have so they should be the ones paying it off. Or are you happy that the ones paying are the poor, the less fortunate and the disabled? Yes or no please, no going off into babbleland.

 

But they don't pay anything towards the cost of anything; they are a net drain on the country and contribute nothing. I'm not saying we shouldn't support them but to make the claim they are the ones paying for the banks is lunacy.

 

---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 23:10 ----------

 

Whenever I read this sort of claim, I always point people to this Guardian page, and in particular the first graph of the page which shows the deficit EXCLUDING FINANCIAL INTERVENTIONS.

 

As you can see, Gordon Brown started off with a nice surplus, then built it up to a record deficit, and remember, it's excluding financial interventions. This was at a time of a booming economy, the surplus should have grown rather than going into deficit.

 

But I don't think there really was a boom, it just felt like one. There was low unemployment, but many were employed by an expanded public sector, hence the increasing deficit.

 

Ah yes Gordon Brown the great illusionist.