Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Mr Bean, the illegal donations, and taxpayer funding

There have been countless reports about this in recent days, but here's one of the latest. Says the Beeb; "Gordon Brown's competence as PM has come under fire during heated Commons exchanges following the donations row. David Cameron said there had been 'disaster after disaster' since Mr Brown took over, and asked if he was 'cut out for the job'. Lib Dem acting leader Vincent Cable said Mr Brown had gone 'from Stalin to Mr Bean' in a matter of weeks. Mr Brown said he would be judged on his record for delivering low inflation and investing in the NHS and education." Click here for more detail...

Now, let me declare this from the outset. As someone who loathes this government with a passion, nothing makes me happier than seeing Gordon Brown and his cronies limping from one crisis to another. However, I think that Vincent Cable's characterisation of Brown as Mr Bean was off the mark. At least Mr Bean was funny. Judging by yesterday's performance at his press conference, where Bean... sorry I mean Brown, repeatedly claimed that "I know nothing", I'd say he seems more like Manuel from Fawlty Towers.

Anyway, with all this going on, how on earth should political parties be funded? Should taxpayers, for example, have to prop up political parties in order to avoid this kind of sleaze? Or is the responsibility down to the parties alone? Are these sorts of scandals just a normal part of politics, or is there a better way forward? What do you all reckon?

Over to you, ladies and gentlemen. I'll be back a little later with my own verdict.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Let's see...

    The Tories had Asil Nadir
    The Lib Dems have Michael Brown (in prison)
    The SNP have the Marbella resident former Bond.

    Everyone accepts donations which are a litte shifty at time.

    But TBH I don;t really want to hear from any party come the next election, let alone fucking pay for the priviledge.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Regarding Gordon Brown, I suspect things will even up a bit in the coming months. He is neither a super efficient great PM who could deal with any crisis with breathtaking ease (foot and mouth, terrorist attacks, floods) nor a useless muppet totally incapable of running a government.

    How far away his initial 100 days in power must feel though :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Now, let me declare this from the outset. As someone who loathes this government with a passion, nothing makes me happier than seeing Gordon Brown and his cronies limping from one crisis to another. However, I think that Vincent Cable's characterisation of Brown as Mr Bean was off the mark. At least Mr Bean was funny. Judging by yesterday's performance at his press conference, where Bean... sorry I mean Brown, repeatedly claimed that "I know nothing", I'd say he seems more like Manuel from Fawlty Towers.

    I'll start by outlining for the record that I'm not intending for this to be a personal attack or stab at you in any personal sense whatsoever - simply giving my view as part of a structured debate (As I noticed that you feel you have a certain group of members will rubbish anything you say as part of a bullying subculture - which I don't wish to be a part of), but I think that the idea of someone taking happiness from a government performing badly is a very negative train of thought - one of the fundamental ideas of choosing your political party is that you can change parties, or appreciate some of the fundamentals of a particular party based on their performance and the change in the policies they implement over a period of time, whilst still supporting the general ideologies of a particular party's general fundamental perspective. I dislike the conservative party, and would love to see the Lib Dems gradually rise into power - but for now I'm quite happy with Labour's performance over the past few years in areas such as the NHS and certain aspects of law introduction / changes. As I say, I've got favoritism towards the Lib Dems, but I will support labour out of the 'big two' because I feel they haven't done a bad job of running the country. If the Conservatives took power, for example, and made some changes that I thought were really good, I'd support them over labour.

    General point summarised: I think every citizen should be rightfully disheartened when the government in power at the time goes through a problematic period, and should support them when they make good decisions, regardless of allegiances. Governments are in power because a large proportion of the population believed they could do the job well, and it's a sad world when people treat such powers like rival business competitors, enjoying the downfall of the opposition. It's fair to criticise the things you think they're doing wrong, but to wish failure on them is wishing failure on the whole country.

    *Breathe* In my opinion! :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doofay wrote: »
    ...Governments are in power because a large proportion of the population believed they could do the job well, and it's a sad world when people treat such powers like rival business competitors, enjoying the downfall of the opposition. It's fair to criticise the things you think they're doing wrong, but to wish failure on them is wishing failure on the whole country.
    Wishing failure on New Labour is wishing failure on the country? That's the most ridicilous thing I've heard this week, and there's no shortage of competition. Aside from my aforementioned hatred of this government, another reason I enjoy seeing them squirm like this is because of Gordon Brown. He waited ten years to become PM, bottling several opportunities to force Blair out in the meantime. Now that he's got the job, everything's turning to dust.

    Now, as for large proportions of people believing they could do the job well, this is even more silly. Turnouts at General Elections are getting lower and lower every single time one is held. Secondly, more people voted Tory than for Labour in England back in 2005, yet Labour still got in with a majority. Why? It's thanks to Labour's rotten boroughs in the North of England and Scotland. I'm just glad that Labour's power in Scotland is getting weaker, mainly because of the SNP's brilliant leader, Alex Salmond. If Scotland goes its own way, Labour will be spent as a political force - no wonder they're so keen to keep the UK in one piece!

    In any case, if this government was indeed a private company, imagine how different things might be. For example, the Chief Executive, one Gordon Brown, spent ten years at the Finance department plundering the nation's pensions in a way that would have made even Robert Maxwell blush. In a private company, half the talentless morons who make up this government would be out on their ear - with massive pay-offs, naturally. I'm actually starting to miss Tony Blair now - say what you like about him, but at least he could make a decision.

    As for the party funding issue, I'm completely against taxpayers money being used to prop them up. Successful political parties should have no problem whatsoever in getting money to fund their activities. Besides, maybe politicians should stop spending so extravagantly at election time. Labour's already got around £20m in debts - perhaps Gordon should send his old friend, Prudence, in to sort things out. Taxpayers should not have to prop up political parties on the grounds they're too incompetent to do it themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Simple - no group, individual, club or anything other collection of humans should be able to give, loan or give in kind (advertising space for example) more than £50K - unless it is secured against a physical property (mortgage) and even then it should be listed in the public accounts as soon as it happens.

    All donors must be named from £50 upwards.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    All donors must be named from £50 upwards.
    Everyone will just start donating £49.99 if you brought that in. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Everyone will just start donating £49.99 if you brought that in. :p

    If they can raise millions with lots of donations of that size then they are obviously doing something right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    If they can raise millions with lots of donations of that size then they are obviously doing something right.
    Indeed. Anyway, it now transpires that the cops are getting involved. Click here for story.
    Here we go, cash for honours mark two. I wonder whether the CPS would prosecute this time...

    2003FlyingPig.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.