Jump to content

Dinner with the Prime Minister ?


malc d

Recommended Posts

pelmetman - 2012-03-26 10:17 AM

 

You can have dinner with me Malc ;-)..............I only charge 250 quid...............a bargain :D

 

 

 

I was very tempted by your offer, then remembered that you're not the prime minister.

 

 

 

:-|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
malc d - 2012-03-26 10:34 AM

 

pelmetman - 2012-03-26 10:17 AM

 

You can have dinner with me Malc ;-)..............I only charge 250 quid...............a bargain :D

 

 

 

I was very tempted by your offer, then remembered that you're not the prime minister.

 

 

 

:-|

 

Picky picky.......................can I tempt you with a free pouffe? :D.................besides I thought you were one of the idle classes................so what do you want to go buying favours from the PM for :-S

 

Funny how in the recent budget big business seem to be the biggest winners? 8-)........and big business's are the only ones who can afford a quarter of a million bung? ;-)....................HMmmmmmm.....makes you wonder if our politicians and our system could be corrupt? 8-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should I pay to dine with somebody who is there to serve the people who voted them into power.

 

If they are not paying, then they don't get my company.

 

Besides, I couldn't bear to hold a conversation with anyone who is so out of touch with the reality of living in the country that the government have all but abandoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tracker

Maybe the day that the Labour party stop raising funds by bleeding money out of the trades unions as well as their own supporters it will be time for the Tories to stop accepting donations from their supporters too?

 

At least party supporters donate voluntarily unlike many union members who, as far as I know, still 'donate' whether they want to or not and are only allowed to opt out of contributing a 'political levy' by requesting to opt out instead of opting in by request.

 

I see nothing wrong with a big donation getting you a dinner with the PM - hearing someone's point of view is hardly going to change the world is it when any changes have to get through scrutiny from both houses of parliament?

 

Personally I would rather see the country run by big business than by union dogma from the extreme left.

 

I bet we would not be in the debt ridden state we are now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracker - 2012-03-26 1:36 PM

 

Maybe the day that the Labour party stop raising funds by bleeding money out of the trades unions as well as their own supporters it will be time for the Tories to stop accepting donations from their supporters too?

 

At least party supporters donate voluntarily unlike many union members who, as far as I know, still 'donate' whether they want to or not and are only allowed to opt out of contributing a 'political levy' by requesting to opt out instead of opting in by request.

 

I see nothing wrong with a big donation getting you a dinner with the PM - hearing someone's point of view is hardly going to change the world is it when any changes have to get through scrutiny from both houses of parliament?

 

Personally I would rather see the country run by big business than by union dogma from the extreme left.

 

I bet we would not be in the debt ridden state we are now?

Funny this, isn't it?

 

Cruddas was selling access to the PM, not the leader of the Tories, yet the issue has successfully been turned into a party funding issue, and no-one questions the difference.

 

Cameron wears two hats. One as leader of the Conservative party, in which capacity I really don't care what Faustian plots he enters into for party funds. The other as Prime Minister, in which capacity I care very much who he dines with in private, and even more so when he dines with them in the Prime Minister's (note not the Cameron's) private apartment at 10 Downing Street. I see two very clear and distinct roles for the same person, and a person carrying out both who is unable to distinguish properly between them. This is Cameron's faulty judgement again, and the quality of his judgement is becoming rather a concern.

 

People paying to gain access to a party leader, in order to whisper in his ear about their sectional interests - and no-doubt gain assurances that their concerns will be smiled upon in office - in exchange for large sums donated to party funds is bad enough. However, when those people are paying baksheesh to be allowed into the state owned official residence of the Prime Minister, who by definition is in office, and so in a position to directly influence government policy to their advantage, and then they shell out large donations to the governing party's funds, at the very least the spectre of corruption rears its head.

 

Whether or not it is all true may be in some doubt, but consider. At least the baksheesh seems to have been true (or why did Cruddas fall on his sword?) so, presumably, those who paid got what they paid for and were duly dined (but at whose expense - state or party?) in No 10, so that too seems to have been true and, as the Tories have been so quick to deflect the true argument into one about funding, I assume donations were made, leaving in doubt only the question of whether the donations bought influence. Since we are not (yet! :-)) being told who attended these dinners behind the Downing Street security barriers, how can anyone judge whether policy might have shifted as a result?

 

I also have to say I think you have a touching faith in the power of parliament, Rich. :-) Governments with absolute majorities can only properly be held to account if they annoy enough of their own side, as well as the minority in opposition, to lose them their in-built majority. Otherwise, the party whips just deliver them the verdict they want. It might break with the Lib Dems as coalition partners, but only if they have a quarrel with what the Tories did. If they've been at the same game with Clegg as deputy PM, to gain donations from their benefactors, they will be unlikely to pipe up.

 

You'd think the writing was on the wall over the sale of honours and the fiddled expenses. But no, it just seems our politicians can't find their corruption detecting spectacles most of the time, when more or less everyone else in the country can. I'm sure the same is/was/would be true of Labour, but that is neither to excuse nor condone it. In simple terms, it stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tracker
Brian Kirby - 2012-03-26 4:48 PM

You'd think the writing was on the wall over the sale of honours and the fiddled expenses. But no, it just seems our politicians can't find their corruption detecting spectacles most of the time, when more or less everyone else in the country can. I'm sure the same is/was/would be true of Labour, but that is neither to excuse nor condone it. In simple terms, it stinks.

 

I don't see dinner at No 10 as being in the same league as honours for sale or fiddled expenses and I fail to see how it can be deemed to be corruption as no one person or identifiable group of people benefits financially from this transaction.

 

Whether as a result of the dinner the donor benefits in some way that is illegal or immoral is another matter, but I don't see the event itself as corrupt?

 

As I see it, no law breaking is involved just an expensive ego trip and if those who can afford it want it - well what's the harm?

 

By the way Brian - I have absolutely no faith in any government to govern according to the needs and wishes of the country and the populace when they all have their own political party dogma and the politically correct mob dictating the show - always assuming the civil service will allow anything that is not in their own self interests?

 

To me it is less distasteful than using past position to write books, seek directorships, university posts etc and seek reward in ways that only the immediate past position would bring forth - that I do find an abuse of past power.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracker - 2012-03-26 5:53 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-03-26 4:48 PM

You'd think the writing was on the wall over the sale of honours and the fiddled expenses. But no, it just seems our politicians can't find their corruption detecting spectacles most of the time, when more or less everyone else in the country can. I'm sure the same is/was/would be true of Labour, but that is neither to excuse nor condone it. In simple terms, it stinks.

 

I don't see dinner at No 10 as being in the same league as honours for sale or fiddled expenses and I fail to see how it can be deemed to be corruption as no one person or identifiable group of people benefits financially from this transaction. ...........................

I didn't say it was corrupt, Rich, what I said was "at the very least the spectre of corruption rears its head". That is to say, it can look like corruption: favours done for favours rendered. That was the point of my quip about "corruption detecting spectacles" above. Like reading glasses (as I know all too well! :-)), one needs them to see. They don't see how it looks, only how they wish to portray it. The two don't coincide for me, and I think that is damaging for our political system. It's no use the politicians lamenting public disenchantment with, and disengagement from, politics, and then pulling strokes like this. Shoot, and foot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dinner with the Prime Minister ?

No thank you, why do something that will give me indigestion, (repeat hic !)

 

Once invited to No 10.

Who foot's the Bill, for feeding the lot of em ?

a) Not the invited guest's their cash has already gone into the Party coffers.

b) Cameron (or whoever is in residence) I don't think so.

c) Prime Minister's Office expenses ? Well that's us, the taxpayers, ain't it !!!!!!

 

If they can afford to give financial support to a political party, they can afford their own lunch.

 

There's no such thing as a "Free Lunch" for either host or guest.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tracker
Brian Kirby - 2012-03-26 8:03 PM

I didn't say it was corrupt, Rich, what I said was "at the very least the spectre of corruption rears its head". That is to say, it can look like corruption: favours done for favours rendered. That was the point of my quip about "corruption detecting spectacles" above. Like reading glasses (as I know all too well! :-)), one needs them to see. They don't see how it looks, only how they wish to portray it. The two don't coincide for me, and I think that is damaging for our political system. It's no use the politicians lamenting public disenchantment with, and disengagement from, politics, and then pulling strokes like this. Shoot, and foot?

 

Perhaps it only looks bad to many people due to the media hysteria and sensationalism used to make it look as bad as possible and the media as honest as possible to the masses who seem to be prone to believe what they are told.

 

That is strange given that the UK media system has been shown to be as dishonest and morally bankrupt as the politicians they condemn.

 

Milliband also needs to be very careful - glass houses and stones methinks, and whilst he has never had enough power to be slaughtered by the media the two 'B's before him certainly did !

 

Not that it has succeeded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest peter
pelmetman - 2012-03-26 10:17 AM

 

You can have dinner with me Malc ;-)..............I only charge 250 quid...............a bargain :D

And there's the added bonus of sleeping with his wife afterwards. :D :$
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracker - 2012-03-26 5:53 PM

 

 

......." I fail to see how it can be deemed to be corruption as no ................... identifiable group of people benefits financially from this transaction "

 

 

 

 

The identifiable group that benefits in this case is the Conservative party.

 

That is the whole point of the donations.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

peter - 2012-03-26 8:59 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-03-26 10:17 AM

 

You can have dinner with me Malc ;-)..............I only charge 250 quid...............a bargain :D

And there's the added bonus of sleeping with his wife afterwards. :D :$

Sleep with whose wife, Blairs? god forbid, that slash of a mouth of Cherie Blair is enough to put you off wimmen fer life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
peter - 2012-03-26 8:59 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-03-26 10:17 AM

 

You can have dinner with me Malc ;-)..............I only charge 250 quid...............a bargain :D

And there's the added bonus of sleeping with his wife afterwards. :D :$

 

It might be a bit cramped Peter.........as I already have to share with Troy :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Slightly off topic but still

 

 

 

Anthropomorphic Nouns

 

 

 

 

The English language has some wonderfully anthropomorphic collective nouns for the various groups of animals.

 

 

 

 

We are all familiar with a herd of cows,

 

A Flock of chickens,

 

A School of fish

 

And a Gaggle of geese.

 

However, less widely known is:

 

A Pride of lions,

 

A Murder of crows

 

(As well as their cousins the rooks and ravens),

 

An Exaltation of doves

 

And, presumably because they look so wise:

 

A Congress of owls.

 

Now consider a group of Baboons.

They are the loudest, most dangerous, most obnoxious,

most viciously aggressive and least intelligent of all primates.

And what is the proper collective noun for a group of baboons?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Believe it or not ... a Parliament!!!

 

A PARLIAMENT OF BABOONS!

 

 

 

I guess that pretty much explains it!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Syd - 2012-03-27 9:17 AM

 

 

Slightly off topic but still

 

Anthropomorphic Nouns

 

 

I wonder what the noun would be for a group of forumites? :D

 

I suppose it would depend on which thread they were found....... ;-)

 

If it was a joke thread...................A Giggle of forumites

 

If it was a dog thread....................A Rage of forumites

 

If it was a FG thread.....................A Fight of forumites....................... (lol) (lol)

 

Or if found in the wild 8-).............A Camp of forumites........................ :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracker - 2012-03-26 1:36 PM

 

Maybe the day that the Labour party stop raising funds by bleeding money out of the trades unions as well as their own supporters it will be time for the Tories to stop accepting donations from their supporters too?

 

At least party supporters donate voluntarily unlike many union members who, as far as I know, still 'donate' whether they want to or not and are only allowed to opt out of contributing a 'political levy' by requesting to opt out instead of opting in by request.

 

I always find it odd,when folk accuse the unions of funding the Labour party?..as if it's some sort of secret... :-S

So I take it then rich',that you(or anyone else)who doesn't agree with unions(and their funding of the Labour party),have never accepted any pay rises,improvement in working conditions,paid hollidays,pension rights,employment security etc etc,that have been negotiated on your behalf then....?

:-S

 

Comparing some "face-less suit",who sits on the board or runs or owns, some big multinational,with the Unions,who represent ordinary workers(..whether they bother to get involved and vote or not),is just plain daft.. :-S

 

I've got a mate(..yeah I know,suprises me too!)and he hates unions with a passion("bl**dy trouble makers" etc).Yet he's quite happy with the fact he only works his 35 odd hr week,and has "flexy time",along with his "oodles" of annual leave,yearly wage increases(including "banding increments" etc)...None of which he'd have,without union input. *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2012-03-27 10:33 AM

 

Syd - 2012-03-27 9:17 AM

 

 

Slightly off topic but still

 

Anthropomorphic Nouns

 

 

I wonder what the noun would be for a group of forumites? :D

 

I suppose it would depend on which thread they were found....... ;-)

 

If it was a joke thread...................A Giggle of forumites

 

If it was a dog thread....................A Rage of forumites

 

If it was a FG thread.....................A Fight of forumites....................... (lol) (lol)

 

Or if found in the wild 8-).............A Camp of forumites........................ :D

 

 

 

 

Or a group name for the people who can't stop mentioning FG ?

 

 

How about " the obsessives ?

 

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not lobbying that is the problem - never was - it is that some individuals close to those in power and quite possibly those with a bit of power themselves want to sell their ear or their bosses ear to those who want a favour.

 

As for unions or business - it matters not - if either or both use their influence to gain an unfair advantage it is an abuse of the parliamentary system. In Greece you had politician selling ridiculous packages to unions (bus drivers and hairdressers were the classic examples) in return for votes. The system became so corrupt that that country is now on its knees with democracy taken away from it by the EU because frankly, their politicians could not be trusted.

 

Personally I distrust the Labour lot BECAUSE they are funded by the unions as much as I distrust the Conservatives because they are funded by big business and shady individuals. And I am not sure if the Lib Dems are worthy of any funding at all.

 

We vote in a representative and then do what?

 

Leave him or her to their own devices? - No, we expect our representatives to listen to us and take heed of our concerns. Many MP's have Surgery's where you can have a chat with them - that seems to work well as long as you have a hard working MP. If you do not them you are stuffed.

 

Just as it is wrong for an MP to demand a fee to be seen at their surgery, it should be wrong for anyone to be able to pay for dinner with the PM.

 

You have to wonder just how low in the public’s estimation politicians need to stoop before we as a population say "enough is enough".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...