[Closed] David Cameron on the rocks......

Politicians and sleaze? Amazing coincidence.

is this murdochs revenge?

Well that was certainly my first thought.

£250,000 for a meal with cameroooon,i knew it was expensive in london town , but not that much. 😯

"this is not how the conservative party raises funds..."

Err, yes it is, that's what the fuss is about...

from the Conservatives website

The Leader's Group

Annual membership: £50,000 Chairman: Howard Leigh

The Leader’s Group is the premier supporter Group of the Conservative Party. Members are invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches.

Would seem quite appropriate for £250,000 to buy quite a bit more. The I'm shocked and outraged approach from Cameroon is a bit much. Who does he think these strange people are he has to have lunch with and what do they want from him ?

and not forgeting the prompt payment methods

We encourage all members to pay by direct debit. This allows the Party to collect regular income that we can rely on when we plan our campaigns.

surprise surprise the unexpected hits you between the eyes. 🙄

Unexpected ? Certainly. That's why it's the top news story at the moment.

The story clearly suggests that if a businessman/woman is prepared to pay a quarter of a million pounds in return for access to David Cameron, then they can expect to financially benefit sufficiently for the quarter of a million pounds to be more than reimbursed. Otherwise it's hard to imagine why anyone would do it.

The whole thing stinks of corrupt third world dictatorship type dodgy dealings. Certainly not what I expect from elected politicians. And not least from one who said the following :

[i]"there is another big issue that we can no longer ignore. It is the next big scandal waiting to happen. It’s an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes [b]the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money[/b]. I’m talking about lobbying – and we all know how it works. [b]The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear[/b], the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism. [b]We believe in market economics, not crony capitalism[/b]. So we must be the party that sorts all this out."[/i]

What the Tories influenced by money? Is anyone actually surprised by this? What next for bleeding obvious headlines - "Tony Blair believed in God and thought the war in Iraq was a good thing"?

Some people on here have either got remarkably short memories or are still in their formative years if they think corruption was invented and flourished under this or the previous government. I'm wincing at this latest example of the greasing of political palms just as much as I may have been laughing when it was exposed in the previous government but neither of them invented it and if you were to definitively research the last fifty years, you would come up with a fairly extensive list of the supposedly great and good of every political persuasion who could be pursuaded to nod and wink in the right places for a modest or even a very generous donation to the party coffers. From banks to pharma industry to unions and lords and on to the people who run certain sports.

It's blatantly wrong but sadly proven to be timelessly endemic and unless someone introduces clear guidlines that have penalties attached to them that deter people from doing it, say by introducing large fines on party funds and possible prison sentences for those involved, it will continue to crop up now and again.

The only place where those rules/legislation can happen is in Parliament with the support of the government of the day so plainly, it isn't going to happen anytime soon if ever.

To be honest, I am the first to criticise the press for so much in this country that I think they try to influence but in this instance, they did a good job of exposing this corruption, as with the expenses, and they could do a further good service to us all by running a public campaign and getting the public behind them to force politicians to finally after all these years act decisively to stop this kind of corruption by introducing the kind of penalties that are deserved - which they failed to do after the expenses scandal, where the majority of those responsible simply carried on, or decided not to stand next time, whereas in any other profession they would have been drummed out the gates within hours, just as any employee who drunkenly attacked and headbutted a fellow employee would have lost his job.

Z-11, although we do differ on certain issues, I'm in full agreement with you on this one. Good call.

i think i mostly agree with z11, mostly

Some people on here have either got remarkably short memories or are still in their formative years if they think corruption was invented and flourished under this or the previous government.

Well British politics is not corrupt. Any British politician who is caught engaged in corrupt practices can expect to be punished. This isn't a case of "corruption", as far as I'm aware no laws have been broken, despite this being the sort of behavior which you might well expect from a corrupt third world dictatorship.

This is "lobbying", and I think we can safely assume that people were fully aware of the existence of lobbying by businesses and the influence this can have on government policy, hence Cameron's remark two years ago:

[i]"there is another big issue that we can no longer ignore. It is the next big scandal waiting to happen. It’s an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money. I’m talking about lobbying – and we all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism. We believe in market economics, not crony capitalism. So we must be the party that sorts all this out."[/i]

[i]"Has tainted our politics for too long"[/i] clearly reveals that it was a known established problem. The shocking thing is that it now exists to such a staggering degree under a government committed to stamping it out. I certainly didn't expect it - not to that degree.

And the problem is far from people having short memories, but people have rather good memories, and that what Cameron said two years ago has come back to haunt him.

The other particularly shocking aspect of this story is the staggering amounts involved - "bung us a quarter of a million quid and the PM will do you a quarter of a million quid's worth of favours, just whisper in his ear what they are".

No one objects to above board party donations, but this is clearly not what this is.

I'm a bit baffled, I was under the impression that this is pretty much what ALL politics is in the west (and I rarely get involved in thoughts of politics) regardless of [i]country[/i] and [b]party. [/b]Anyone who thought otherwise must be one deluded idealist or completely blinded by their own bullshine.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17508271 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17508271[/url]

Dave sees nowt wrong with the old boy's network - they pay him money, he helps them to make more.

Human nature, or do we expect polititians to be above all this?

Cameron was happy to spout the bullshine when in opposition

and yes id like to think government policy wasn't determined by those who pay toward keeping the Tory party pantry stocked with bollinger and quails eggs

its particularly worrying when our current government is selling off every national asset they can

I'm a bit baffled.......

So it would seem.

And I'm a bit baffled why some people are commenting that this is all just perfectly normal human behavour which is to be expected unless you are a one deluded idealist or completely blinded by your own bullshine...... It isn't.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that they are playing down the significance of this scandal in an attempt to minimise the damage to the Tory Party it's having - something which even the leader of the Tory Party isn't prepared to attempt.

I really can't think of any other explanation except possibly they are just blindly following like sheep the latest fashion of saying [i]"all politicians are completely corrupt, they'd sell their own grannies, blah, blah"[/i]

Which would make you wonder what all the fuss over Rupert Murdoch is about eh ?

You've got to give that guy some credit - he certainly knows how to manipulate public opinion. And those who like to leave their thinking to others certainly seem happy to get suckered, it saves them having to bother.

Murdoch is taking his revenge.

Murdoch may well be taking his revenge, but he wouldn't be able to were not the whole political machines so corrupt.

To be honest, I'm quite disappointed by the glaring lack of ambition.

Given the company they keep, £250,000 doesn't seem like an awful lot of money to influence government policy. Most present cabinet members could find that with a quick root around down the back of the sofa. Along with some Gold-plated Faberge eggs and a couple of Rolex

And proportionally it'll be a drop in the ocean next to the salaries they'll be picking as non-exec directors of the various private healthcare companies, private education providers, and all the other beneficiaries of the latest privatisation frenzy. That's how it works isn't it?

The worst thing about this whole thing situation is that this presents Ed Milliband with an open goal. I look forward to watching him, once again, spoon it into row Z 😥

Tis true binners, to a bunch of millionaires like Osbourne and Cameron, £250k is just pocked change.....

Again I'm surprised that anyone is surprised.

And of course Labour policies are completely unaffected by the money they get from the trade unions, and the million quid Bernie Ecclestone gave them in no way caused F1 to be exempted from the laws about tobacco sponsorship.

I'm no supporter of any political party, but I think Labour need to be very careful about getting too "outraged" about this.

I don't think labour take a blind bit of notice of the unions any more, they are just as dependant as the Tories on private money.

But just because they have been tainted by the same brush, doesn't mean they shouldn't push to put it right while in opposition.

Cameron on the rocks? No, we are. He'll brazen it out knowing that his tame liberal pets will stay schtum and labour are about as threatening as a loofah.

The Bernie Ecclestone was in sone ways glaringly transparent. He gave the Labour party a million quid. They changed the law for him. The simplest transaction ever.

The unions (recent) relationship with the labour party I think of as like the Lib-dems in the coalition. Its ridiculously one-sided. They give them loads of cash and get absolutely eff all back. Witness the labour leaderships rush to distance themselves from them at the mere mention of the 'S' word.

But like the Lib Dems: where the **** else are they going to go?

Proof of Clegg's incompetence in agreeing to a coalition. If the Lib-dems wern'tt in a coalition at the moment they'd be able to turn the screw and extract more policy concessions from Cameron, but they are in too close an embrace and having the life squeezed out of them.

They give them loads of cash and get absolutely eff all back

Thats unfair - via the block vote in the leadership election they got their candidate of choice into power.

D'oh! 😀

A fair point Z-11. Given the result of that, thank Christ they don't have more influence. It'd be like letting a 6 year old drive your car 😀

If they think corruption was invented and flourished under this or the previous government. I'm wincing at this latest example of the greasing of political palms just as much as I may have been laughing when it was exposed in the previous government but neither of them invented it and if you were to definitively research the last fifty years, you would come up with a fairly extensive list of the supposedly great and good of every political persuasion who could be pursuaded to nod and wink in the right places for a modest or even a very generous donation to the party coffers. From banks to pharma industry to unions and lords and on to the people who run certain sports.

Thats unfair - via the block vote in the leadership election they got their candidate of choice into power.

OH my god is this next 😯

[img] [/img]

I'm rather disappointed in this thread.

Given TJ's stance that most STWers are loaded, we could easily raise £250k and then meet with CMD and get some radical new countryside access laws passed - mtbs to get priority on all countryside trails/paths, All tax funding for NHS pensions to be diverted to building and maintaining new trails, that sort of thing - you know, the kind of stuff that's only reasonable 🙂

Lack of ambition and clear thinking that's STWs problem

Clubber has a point.

I'll stick a quid in the pot, who else is in?

Not really a surprise that this has come out or indeed that the press are making hay with it. I suspect that the truth is somewhat less salacious and that what was going on was someone trying to big up what you get for a "sizable" donation. Listening to the clip it is both hlarious and utterly cringeworthy at the same time. Sounds like a wide boy salesman trying to tie up a sale and promising whatever comes into his head that makes it sound like a good deal you are getting. Embarrassing for all involved? Too right. Indicative of widespread and damaging corruption? No, I don't think so.

In for a fiver as long as we introduce him to the concept of [s] the breakfast pie [/s] bombers anbd wee

Can we have Surfmat back to help us with the PR angle of this?

Bikingcatastrophe - I reckon you're bang on.

I'm sure everyone who's worked for a big company has experienced some sales gimp, desperate to hit his bonus, has promised a client that [i]you[/i] (not them, obviously) can deliver the moon on a stick. By tomorrow morning.

Same fing innit?

Do I think you should be able to buy your way into influencing government policy? No and generally speaking I think most people agree; but I'm not surprised, it how I understand it works, indeed Call-me-Dave flagged up the issue himself a couple of years ago. So what's the big furore? The fact he hasn't done anything about it? But we know that. If he had fixed it we would have been told all about the tories cleaning up politics. Not sure what the 'fix' is though. If we accept that political parties serve a useful function, and that parties cost money to run then those parties have to be funded somehow. Are the british public keen to subsidise them with tax payers money? I wouldn't have thought so.

Agree with bikingcatastrophe.

Businessmen with the ability to influence policy are more likely to be promising to deliver something- jobs, infrastructure, regeneration, in return for profitable breaks- planning, taxation, contracts. That's the kind of influence that sways decisions.

we could easily raise £250k and then meet with CMD and get some radical new countryside access laws passed - mtbs to get priority on all countryside trails/paths, All tax funding for NHS pensions to be diverted to building and maintaining new trails, that sort of thing - you know, the kind of stuff that's only reasonable

I'm in for £25. (although i also want to add on some minor tax amendments)

Only minor ones? You see, once again, thinking too small 🙄

I pitch in a tenner if he scraps hereditary peers and the Conservative Party. Just thinking big for a mo 😉

floundering now, forced to publish a list.

whats the difference between 1 bloke stumping up 250k for lunch and 250 blokes stumping up a quid each and thier representative going round for beer and sandwiches?

the day the unions decide that thier money can go to the party that offers what they want rather than the one chosen because of historical reasons is the day the unions will actually have some power..

It was ridiculously arrogant of dave to assume he could get away with not publishing a list

can anyone trust the list of donors now that hes had time to redact any damaging names

ultimately it MIGHT lead to a cap on donation sizes, personally id like to see an end to them entirely that way the shady investment funds/private interest companies/unions/ecclestones of this world would just get a vote like the rest of us..............i know im a dreamer

whats the difference between 1 bloke stumping up 250k for lunch and 250 blokes stumping up a quid each and thier representative going round for beer and sandwiches?

Well, the maths don't work for a start.

whats the difference between 1 bloke stumping up 250k for lunch and 250 blokes stumping up a quid each and thier representative going round for beer and sandwiches?

The second example would be representing the interests of 250 times the people. Or if its a quid each, then 250,000. Are you familiar with the concept of democracy?

Are you familiar with the concept of democracy?

the principles the same.. using the donation as a means to achieving a lunch with a policy maker.

i have to put my hand up i ve had lunch with mrs kinnock and very nice it was too and only 45p but i'm fairly sure she got extra portions cos there normally fairly puny at work. i was also on a plane once sat two rows behind haigh and fionn cant remeber if they had the inflight meal but would that count if only for balance?

No ice with my Cameron please, just a drop of water to release the natural oils!

No ice with my Cameron please, just a drop of water to release the natural oils!

Well, the maths don't work for a start.

I don't think DC would change his Tie for £250 let alone highway laws!

ooohhh its like scientology ....

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/26/conservative-website-offers-donors-cameron-dinner ]The Conservative party openly offers donors the opportunity to attend dinners and other events with David Cameron and senior Tory figures.

Its website invites supporters to join one of its "donor clubs", each with different benefits.

They include:

• The Leader's Group (annual membership £50,000), described as the "premier supporter group" of the Conservative party, with members "invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches".

• The Treasurers' Group (£25,000), whose members are "invited to join senior figures from the Conservative party at dinners, lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches".

• The Renaissance Forum (£10,000), pitched at the party's "closest supporters to enjoy dinners and political debate with eminent speakers from the world of business and politics".

• The Front Bench Club (£5,000), whose members are given "the opportunity to meet and debate with MPs at a series of political lunches and receptions held throughout the year".

• The City and Entrepreneurs Forum (£2,500), aimed at professionals, executives and entrepreneurs to hold "discussions with leading industrialists, parliamentarians and prominent City figures".

• Team 2000 (£2,000): "The principal group of donors who support and market the party's policies in government, by hearing them first hand from the leader and key Conservative politicians through a lively programme of drinks receptions, dinner and discussion groups".

• Fastrack (£250), for young professionals under 40 to attend networking and social events, with events hosted by "key figures in politics, business, industry, the arts and beyond".

• Party Patrons (£50 a month), for "committed Conservative supporters" who are prepared to support campaigning[/url].

"Team 2000" 😆 , 😆 and indeed 😆

Do/did nuLab have a similarly enticing sounding 'menu'?
I'll have a "Rising star royale with cheese at 75 quid please Alistair". 😀

http://www.cash4access.com/

Arf.

thats ace mrstoast

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/cameron-begins-search-for-new-pimp-201203265054/ ]the daily mash take[/url]

Mr Cameron last night defended his job, insisting he gave his clients something they could not get at home such as an implicit veto on tax policy and swallowing.

boriselbrus - Member

Again I'm surprised that anyone is surprised.

And of course Labour policies are completely unaffected by the money they get from the trade unions,

What a truly ridiculous comment.

This scandal is not about a political party receiving donations. All political parties receive donations, it's their life line, and without it they wouldn't exist.

This is about a wholly unacceptable practice which involved secret deals and secret meetings whereby extremely large amounts of money would guarantee favours which it was claimed, quote, [i]"It will be awesome for your business".[/i] Presumably these favours would not be forthcoming if large amounts of money were not coughed up.

The person who made the offer has now publicly announced that his offer was in fact totally unacceptable, and is attempting to suggest that he was actually misleading the undercover reporters with "bluster" and that he had no intention of honouring this commitment.

The leader of the political party involved has also very publicly announced that the offer was totally unacceptable. How anyone can suggest that it is in fact no big deal and a lot of fuss about nothing, is quite frankly bizarre. Unless of course you are a supporter of the party which has been caught out, in which case it is totally understandable that you might want to play down the significance of this scandal. Although even David Cameron clearly recognises the futility of that.

Diverting attention away by attempting to blame the trade unions for somehow being involved is equally absurd. If the trade unions were responsible for simular scandals then you can be sure that our rather anti-trade union press would have unearth them by now - I certainly would be interested in hearing about them.

And it smacks of breathtaking hypocrisy that those who have been caught up in this latest sleaze, and are up to their necks in yet another cash-for-access scandal, should attack the open and democratic finances of the trade unions. Every single aspect of the finances of trade unions, including political donations, is above board, open, and transparent.

Apart from their own internal democratic structures, trade unions have a statutory obligation to receive a democratic mandate through an Electoral Reform Society organised ballot with respect to their political funds. And everything must then be submitted for detailed inspection by the government's Certification Officer.

Can you imagine multimillionaire donors to the Tory Party having to do all that ?

To suggest that trade unions can or would want to do anything underhand with regards to their finances is plainly idiotic. And it certainly would have been uncovered, if not by the press, then by the Certification Officer, and it would have led to legal actions against the trade unions concerned.

As a general rule British politicians are not corrupt. Those who are found to be can expect to be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. However our parliamentary democracy in many ways is, as this quote nicely illustrates :

[i][b]"As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum".[/b][/i]
Tony Ben

Tony Benn was not a corrupt politician, but the parliamentary democracy which he describes in many ways clearly is. I'm sure it serves the special interests of some to equate the role of the Tory Party's (and New Labour's) wealthy supporters with Labour's traditional relationship with the trade unions. But such an equation is inaccurate, and it is comparing the arrogance of wealth and power with the open and democratically accountable provisions of funds to a party which the trade unions established to counter precisely such arrogance.

according to the Times' twitter, Cameron is to miss the next three PMQs. This after he didn't turn up to answer questions in Parliament today.

What a coward, cant even face the music. Hope the media really push this.

It is indeed pretty shameful and embarrassing but not half as bad as cash for honours. That was really the pits I thought but New Labour had the press so well covered and the Tories were so engaged in naval gazing that Labour got away with it.

Even with public funding lobbying is still permitted for the rich and corporates who get direct access and all we can do is write emails and do the odd e-petition.

Money counts in the Tory party, shock and horror, who would have thought it?
Total non story IMO, anyone with a brain knows the tories are money and status obsessed fuds, I don't really see anything newsworthy in this and it's pretty much exactly how I would expect the tories to raise money.

Even with public funding lobbying is still permitted for the rich and corporates who get direct access and all we can do is write emails and do the odd e-petition.

Well the solution is quite simple really - don't vote for candidates who represent parties that are prepared to the bidding of wealthy donors and corporations, ie, the Tories, New Labour, and the Libdems.

And if everyone did that, then the problem wouldn't exist.

No one forces you to vote for them, and the present government didn't seize power through a coup d'etat - people willingly voted for them in their millions.

If you can't imagine voting for any candidate other than those from Tory, New Labour, and LibDem parties, or you think doing so is just plain silly, then put up with status quo and try not to let it get you down/complain.

according to the Times' twitter, Cameron is to miss the next three PMQs. This after he didn't turn up to answer questions in Parliament today.

Because no one else is turning up either- parliament is in recess from today until April 16 for the Easter holidays.

binners - Member

The worst thing about this whole thing situation is that this presents Ed Milliband with an open goal. I look forward to watching him, once again, spoon it into row Z 😥

He doesn't appear to have done too badly with the last open goal offered to him by the Tories and their jumped-up LibDem lackeys, ie, the budget :

[url= http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2012/03/labour-take-10-lead-in-comres-poll-for-the-first-time-since-the-election.html ]Labour take 10% lead in ComRes poll[/url]

[i]"This is the biggest lead for Labour in a ComRes poll since the election, and indeed since March 2005."[/i]

How does a 10 point lead grab ya ?

Ernie lynch - what a brilliant post, (the long one).
Bravo.

Hes lost my vote. What an absolute berk.

Its blatant that the people who were present actually donated £10m to the Conservatives but he went on camera to deny..

This ontop of the 'war on motorists'.

Along with 'lets privatise roads. ****ing idiot.

What an absolute berk. When everything is privatised, run for a profit we all know that when you have a captive audience prices go one way.

mefty - Member
according to the Times' twitter, Cameron is to miss the next three PMQs. This after he didn't turn up to answer questions in Parliament today.
Because no one else is turning up either- parliament is in recess from today until April 16 for the Easter holidays.

I knew that, but figured The Times did too and i might have been incorrect.

Notice how there was a sudden 'RBS in talks to sell off a share' plastered over the news.

Apparently its at an advanced stage. I wonder how advanced it is, I bet it wasn't before the negative news came out about that Dinner but the info is released to try and distract....

Notice how there was a sudden 'RBS in talks to sell off a share' plastered over the news.

...yet the meeja seems to be reporting it with a 'mixed to negative' slant, ie the "loss of billions to taxpayer by selling for shares for half what public money bought them for" angle. Oh, and the rather transparent "next time these mean ol' rbs bosses get enormo-bonuses, you can blame the other owners not the government" one too.

Apparently its at an advanced stage. I wonder how advanced it is, I bet it wasn't before the negative news came out about that Dinner but the info is released to try and distract....

Blimey, if it is, it's pretty desperate: "hey, here's a slightly less miserable public interest story, please forget about the most miserable one now. Errr, can we buy you dinner?"

Government (nu Labour) have a history of counter-releasing stories to distract/take the impact of a bad new day.

On the RBS sell off. I bet there will be assurances etc etc that if there was a run on RBS (or anywhere near) we'll step in with capital to help the Arabs.....

an early version of the NHS risk register was leaked last night too

Hes lost my vote.

Lifelong tory supporter but the nhs and war on motorist are starting to make me think that there is no party worth supporting.

The ironic thing is Labour got us into the mess and now the Conversatives are meddling with everything without actually fixing anything.

Increasing duty on fuel is madness. Its the one thing you see hit your pocket starkly on a weekly basis. Its a political hot topic and its going to be at the forefront of your mind.

I guess when you are rich though its just 'a small household bill'.

They are going to lose the aspirational voters in one fell swoop.

CaptJon - Member

an early version of the NHS risk register was leaked last night too

I bet that is pretty depressing reading too 🙁 .

The ironic thing is Labour got us into the mess and now the Conversatives are meddling with everything without actually fixing anything.

This mess has been brewing for the past 30 years, some aspects even longer.
What is shocking is that the "greed doctrine" is still being pushed as the solution to all the worlds problems.

Hora. Are we witnessing......

[img] [/img]

Are you actually beginning to realise that Dave and his friends haven't had your best interests at heart all along?

Binners I've been staring at the toilet bowl and only now can I actually see the **** that was floating there.

^Pure poetry^

There's an awful lot of Hyperbole here so maybe we could look at the facts which I think are as follows:

1. Labour accepted donations and are proven to have changed the law and circumvented whitehall procedures to reflect the interests of donors (Hinduja brothers, Eccleston etc.)

2. Labour said they would tighten up funding, but withdrew from cross party discussions when the Conservatives and LibDems asked that them to give up the Trade Union block grants in return for caps on contributions from single donors (most of the public don't donate to political parties thus leaving Labour at a significant advantage - party donations effectively making / breaking election performance).

3. Labour said they would publish a register of who met the Prime Ministers (Brown / Blair) but didn't get round to it.

4. Labour also said they would pass legislation to register and publish the details of lobbyists - but didn't get round to it.

5. The most recent Tory fundraiser, Peter Cruddas was recorded making stupid, unacceptable promises that in all likelihood couldn't have been honoured given the way legislation is scrutinised in Parliament and the Lords. He resigned on Sunday.

6. Labour called for the Prime Minister to publish the details of anyone who visited David Cameron's flat (which is a private residence) even if the hospitality was paid for by David Cameron himself, rather than "official hospitality". They told us it would be a long list of donors and would include the donors "promised visits to number 10 by Cruddas". They also overlooked that the official rooms at number 10 were consistently used by Cherie Blair to offer her private business interests hospitality - she regularly hosted meetings there and used the taxpayer to pay for her furniture:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1389747/Cherie-Blair-using-No-11-to-meet-clients.html

http://www.****/news/article-1348456/Cherie-Blair-tried-use-taxpayer-cash-3-500-Swedish-bed.html

7. David Cameron created a register of visitors (note Brown and Blair did not publish such lists) last year, and has this week confirmed that a limited number of visitors were offered private hospitality at the number 10 apartment in the last 18 months. None of these visitors were donors contacted by Peter Cruddas, and some of them also received hospitality from Blair / Brown:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17512814

So when we actually compare the current Labour position with what they did, there's a gap. And if I'm not mistaken, there's still no actual proof that David Cameron himself did anything wrong, or asked anyone to do so on his behalf.

Plausable deniabilty. It's been going on since Richard Nixon, yet some people still fall for it.