Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 27, 2012


the conservative party has given into pressure to release the names of the people who have had 'kitchen suppers' with david and samantha cameron. the 'cam dine with me' scandal (as some wags have called it) is still causing some tremors about the place. i am still not sure why, as most of us have always believed that the conservative party is hand in hand with the rich and wealthy. and we have always known that the rich and wealthy want to influence government in order to make sure that they stay rich and wealthy, so that they can become richer and wealthier. let's be honest it's a no brainer of a relationship. the list of people who have rocked up to dine with dave and to sup with sam seems to be dominated by people who are involved with finance or property. just the industries that will get the country back on its feet again. of course a few commentators have pointed out that the labour party isn't in a better position as it is beholden to the trade unions, who not only contribute a large chunk of change to the party but also have block votes at events such as the labour conference. shall i tell you what the difference is? shall i? we know the trade unions have a measure of influence on the labour party. it is all above board and it is there for all to see. the right wing press may not like it - but they haven't had to do a sting operation to find out about it. not that this matters to some as they see the current conservative scandal as a way to hobble the labour party while not really damaging the conservative party. how? by arguing for a cap on individual contributions to the political parties. this will weaken the labour party more than it will the conservative party by the simple fact that there are more rich people who want to curry favour and influence decisions than there are unions. given that these are also the same people who hire people to make sure they pay the least amount possible in tax it isn't going to be hard for them to work out schemes to allow them to contribute as much money as they want through various proxy donors. the important aspect of unions that is overlooked in this is that they are an amalgamation of their members and capping them as 'individuals' goes against the principle of them being a union. you have to credit the right wing commentators of taking a shitty situation and turn it into a serious and potential devastating attack on the finances of the labour party. a bit like the dining arrangements at 10 downing street - i am not surprised.

No comments: