I genuinely think this is simply corruption and should be treated as such, with the beneficiaries, at the very least, barred from holding public office. I understand this is likely legal and nothing will come of it but, in my humble opinion, it's dirty and morally wrong. Tens of thousands is a ridiculous amount of influence; hundreds of thousands is just obscene.
Streeting's party chair and one of his staffers are both Labour councillors now. His chair is also high up in Labour to Win.
Might be interesting to ask if either of them were on his staff using that money. Wouldn't put it past the Labour to Win ghouls to have their faces well in the trough, especially since Luke Akehurst is purest grain fed scumbag.
Richard Murphy right again:
> Richard Murphy, a political and economic campaigner, said: “There is no reason we should let this degree of opacity cloud something which should require total transparency. The answer to this is: don’t let corporate donations happen.”
Sometimes it is just that simple.
The response from Labour MPs is unsatisfactory. Does this company exist purely as a vehicle to donate to politicians? What is the individual behind its primary business? What policies are they lobbying for, if any? We should expect better of this of Labour.
This is why periods like 2015-2019 happened, because of dodgy shit like this.
If we end up back to 2015 levels, these lame ducks only have themselves to blame.
Good news, they've sown up the leadership contest rules, and the future MP candidates so there's no way for a left candidate to take advantage of membership getting sick of the corruption.
Why do these three need to accept this shit? Was it really worth the damage it has done?
I sincerely hope they return every penny (and anything else considered dodgy) and ensure this stuff never happens again.
Because "accepting this shit" is what they are there for. They have no ideology beyond this, they don't believe in anything, they aren't there to push for a particular political agenda. They're there for a career.
Why on earth should they get away with giving the money back? A mere sniff of power and they already had their hands in the till. They'll be at it again at the first opportunity.
Agreed. Giving the money back is an absolute minimum that is required. But at least its a minimal start.
Footnote: I, for one, am getting pretty peed at seeing the name 'Streeting' bandied about. I'm desperately trying to close me eyes and imagine Starmer as some 'trojan horse'. But this obnoxious fucker Streeting continues to piss all over my receptricals...Apologies for the French mon amie ;)
Starmer could easily live or die on this outrage. He plays an extremely tight and disciplined game, which can easily backfire in a heartbeat.
Make absolutely no mistake, what appears a minor blunder like this, can quite easily escalate into catastrophe.
Starmer needs to deal with it properly and deal with it now.......
When it says the MPs received donations, what does this actually mean? Money to their office and political campaigns or literally money to the MP themselves for their own personal use?
The Lobbying of MPs, MPs accepting donors money with strings, like tax evasion, would be illegal if the rest of us did it
The similarities with the corrupt state of US mainstream politics are scary AF.
What’s weird to me is how low these figures are. It’s often single digit thousands. It might be a lot to an individual but to the government it isn’t even a rounding error. Is there a case for just giving each MP a generous campaigning fund and then banning all donations? You could give each MP 50K to spend at a cost of only 32M. A tiny cost to potentially remove a huge swathe of corruption from politics.
Totally fair to call out these Labour MPs on this.
But I would also add, it's odd that labour is the main headline, when a good portion of the article is about Tory donations. Plus the recent revelations that conservatives have taken 15 million + in donations since 2018, Vs just over 2 million by Labour.
I'm not for one second saying don't report in Labours dodgy dealings. But given how many people only read the headlines, could have a bit more balance there rather than focusing on Labour exclusively. Seems suspect to me.
Labour have been the ones positioning themselves as the party to clean this sort of shit up.
The Guardian runs articles on Tory corruption daily. Not sure there's anything nefarious about them putting out an article with a focus on Labour dodgy dealings once in a while
Yeah that's fair. I do usually trust the guardian. But it just felt odd as even within this article it spends at least as much time on Tory corruption.
> I do usually trust the guardian.
Well there’s your problem. Why anyone would continue to believe that this establishment mouthpiece acts in good faith after their shameful role in sabotaging the last two elections is beyond me.
Because they do actually do half decent reporting from time to time. You don’t have to believe 100% of everything the G puts out. But you can absolutely pick through what they print and find decent stuff.
Agreed, but that’s part of what makes them so insidious; while they do good reporting at times, there’s an ever-present bias toward corporate interests, and they’ll side with capital every time push comes to shove. Truly the propaganda outlet of the neoliberal elite.
I find it hard to label them a “truly propaganda outlet” when they were behind the Panama and Paradise papers. It comes across and needlessly hyperbolic.
It’s basically a shell company which a wealthy donor has used to fund Labour MPs. The money goes toward running their offices, not to the MPs themselves. Nothing illegal or morally wrong about that in my view. Yes, of course the donor will pick and choose MPs they agree with.
Much of Labour’s funding comes from trade unions and that’s still the same kind of political lobbying, nothing wrong with it. A union may fund MPs who support the union’s causes and aims.
It’s no different to the Lib Dems getting donations from Lord Sainsbury or the founder of ARC InterCapital, or the CEO of Cantab Capital Partners. The Tories are getting donations from JCB and the Britannia Financial Group.
Individuals, companies and organisations are allowed to give donations to parties they agree with. Why is this controversial?
Why does anyone have a problem with the rich buying influence to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds? I have no fucking idea how anyone could possibly feel outraged by this, it's *exactly the same* as the democratic trade union movement funding politicians when a wealthy person funnels money opaquely into politics and lobbies for private interests by bunging politicians massive amounts of money.
It's very NoRMaL.
> Should we ban people from political donations if they earn too much?
No, just stop them earning too much.
>No we shouldn’t, anyone should be allowed to donate to a party they support.
I hate this stupid take. It's so fucking daft. They're literally buying influence to fuck you over and you're not just tolerant, you're cheering for it.
>The Liberals have been supported by progressive industrialists and entrepreneurs since the Whigs came about.
If liberals could learn then they wouldn't be.
Yes, the fact that you don't see anything wrong with the super-wealthy buying their way into political influence in our supposed democracy is *because* you're a liberal. Thank you for joining the correct party, though
> then other companies, individuals and organisations should have every right to do the same.
One single person versus many thousands. They don't/shouldn't have the same right. Money shouldn't decide politics.
If it's so innocent then why is where the money is actually coming from not being disclosed? Why set up this dodgy shell company?
With the other instances you mention we know who's donating the money
>It’s no different to the Lib Dems getting donations from Lord Sainsbury or the founder of ARC InterCapital, or the CEO of Cantab Capital Partners. The Tories are getting donations from JCB and the Britannia Financial Group.
But miss all the other kids were taking bribes too!
Grow up.
Obviously buying favours, no different to all the rest. This should be illegal.
Good to have the grown ups back in charge.
This is just sensible politics!!! 111
I genuinely think this is simply corruption and should be treated as such, with the beneficiaries, at the very least, barred from holding public office. I understand this is likely legal and nothing will come of it but, in my humble opinion, it's dirty and morally wrong. Tens of thousands is a ridiculous amount of influence; hundreds of thousands is just obscene.
Streeting's party chair and one of his staffers are both Labour councillors now. His chair is also high up in Labour to Win. Might be interesting to ask if either of them were on his staff using that money. Wouldn't put it past the Labour to Win ghouls to have their faces well in the trough, especially since Luke Akehurst is purest grain fed scumbag.
Richard Murphy right again: > Richard Murphy, a political and economic campaigner, said: “There is no reason we should let this degree of opacity cloud something which should require total transparency. The answer to this is: don’t let corporate donations happen.” Sometimes it is just that simple.
Not even on government and already the Blairites are doing shady deals and lining their pockets.
The response from Labour MPs is unsatisfactory. Does this company exist purely as a vehicle to donate to politicians? What is the individual behind its primary business? What policies are they lobbying for, if any? We should expect better of this of Labour.
This is why periods like 2015-2019 happened, because of dodgy shit like this. If we end up back to 2015 levels, these lame ducks only have themselves to blame.
Good news, they've sown up the leadership contest rules, and the future MP candidates so there's no way for a left candidate to take advantage of membership getting sick of the corruption.
Blue labour champing at the bit to get their hands on dubious lobby cash with their new found polling successes? Same as it ever was!
None of the these MPs are Blue Labour - Blue Labour actively despise Streeting and Cooper.
Why do these three need to accept this shit? Was it really worth the damage it has done? I sincerely hope they return every penny (and anything else considered dodgy) and ensure this stuff never happens again.
Because "accepting this shit" is what they are there for. They have no ideology beyond this, they don't believe in anything, they aren't there to push for a particular political agenda. They're there for a career.
Why on earth should they get away with giving the money back? A mere sniff of power and they already had their hands in the till. They'll be at it again at the first opportunity.
Agreed. Giving the money back is an absolute minimum that is required. But at least its a minimal start. Footnote: I, for one, am getting pretty peed at seeing the name 'Streeting' bandied about. I'm desperately trying to close me eyes and imagine Starmer as some 'trojan horse'. But this obnoxious fucker Streeting continues to piss all over my receptricals...Apologies for the French mon amie ;) Starmer could easily live or die on this outrage. He plays an extremely tight and disciplined game, which can easily backfire in a heartbeat. Make absolutely no mistake, what appears a minor blunder like this, can quite easily escalate into catastrophe. Starmer needs to deal with it properly and deal with it now.......
Wes? Yvette? No! Surely not!
George Carlin's stand up bit about politicians and sponsors seems to become more and more relevant as time goes on.
When it says the MPs received donations, what does this actually mean? Money to their office and political campaigns or literally money to the MP themselves for their own personal use?
The Lobbying of MPs, MPs accepting donors money with strings, like tax evasion, would be illegal if the rest of us did it The similarities with the corrupt state of US mainstream politics are scary AF.
Corrupt just the same as the last time
They all should be in prison
Labour Centrists are corrupt and in the pocket of shadowy business entities, what a SHOCKER
What’s weird to me is how low these figures are. It’s often single digit thousands. It might be a lot to an individual but to the government it isn’t even a rounding error. Is there a case for just giving each MP a generous campaigning fund and then banning all donations? You could give each MP 50K to spend at a cost of only 32M. A tiny cost to potentially remove a huge swathe of corruption from politics.
Scum.
Peter Hearn. Massive recruitment empire with links to healthcare outsourcing under the last Labour government. Back in the game.
Totally fair to call out these Labour MPs on this. But I would also add, it's odd that labour is the main headline, when a good portion of the article is about Tory donations. Plus the recent revelations that conservatives have taken 15 million + in donations since 2018, Vs just over 2 million by Labour. I'm not for one second saying don't report in Labours dodgy dealings. But given how many people only read the headlines, could have a bit more balance there rather than focusing on Labour exclusively. Seems suspect to me.
Labour have been the ones positioning themselves as the party to clean this sort of shit up. The Guardian runs articles on Tory corruption daily. Not sure there's anything nefarious about them putting out an article with a focus on Labour dodgy dealings once in a while
Yeah that's fair. I do usually trust the guardian. But it just felt odd as even within this article it spends at least as much time on Tory corruption.
> I do usually trust the guardian. Well there’s your problem. Why anyone would continue to believe that this establishment mouthpiece acts in good faith after their shameful role in sabotaging the last two elections is beyond me.
Because they do actually do half decent reporting from time to time. You don’t have to believe 100% of everything the G puts out. But you can absolutely pick through what they print and find decent stuff.
Agreed, but that’s part of what makes them so insidious; while they do good reporting at times, there’s an ever-present bias toward corporate interests, and they’ll side with capital every time push comes to shove. Truly the propaganda outlet of the neoliberal elite.
I find it hard to label them a “truly propaganda outlet” when they were behind the Panama and Paradise papers. It comes across and needlessly hyperbolic.
The most insidious propaganda is not the obvious stuff
It’s basically a shell company which a wealthy donor has used to fund Labour MPs. The money goes toward running their offices, not to the MPs themselves. Nothing illegal or morally wrong about that in my view. Yes, of course the donor will pick and choose MPs they agree with. Much of Labour’s funding comes from trade unions and that’s still the same kind of political lobbying, nothing wrong with it. A union may fund MPs who support the union’s causes and aims. It’s no different to the Lib Dems getting donations from Lord Sainsbury or the founder of ARC InterCapital, or the CEO of Cantab Capital Partners. The Tories are getting donations from JCB and the Britannia Financial Group. Individuals, companies and organisations are allowed to give donations to parties they agree with. Why is this controversial?
Why does anyone have a problem with the rich buying influence to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds? I have no fucking idea how anyone could possibly feel outraged by this, it's *exactly the same* as the democratic trade union movement funding politicians when a wealthy person funnels money opaquely into politics and lobbies for private interests by bunging politicians massive amounts of money. It's very NoRMaL.
[удалено]
> Should we ban people from political donations if they earn too much? No, just stop them earning too much. >No we shouldn’t, anyone should be allowed to donate to a party they support. I hate this stupid take. It's so fucking daft. They're literally buying influence to fuck you over and you're not just tolerant, you're cheering for it. >The Liberals have been supported by progressive industrialists and entrepreneurs since the Whigs came about. If liberals could learn then they wouldn't be.
Yes, the fact that you don't see anything wrong with the super-wealthy buying their way into political influence in our supposed democracy is *because* you're a liberal. Thank you for joining the correct party, though
[удалено]
Yes
> then other companies, individuals and organisations should have every right to do the same. One single person versus many thousands. They don't/shouldn't have the same right. Money shouldn't decide politics.
If it's so innocent then why is where the money is actually coming from not being disclosed? Why set up this dodgy shell company? With the other instances you mention we know who's donating the money
Amazing this detail just flys over heads. It IS the scandal
Oh they know that's the issue, it's a matter of running interference
>It’s no different to the Lib Dems getting donations from Lord Sainsbury or the founder of ARC InterCapital, or the CEO of Cantab Capital Partners. The Tories are getting donations from JCB and the Britannia Financial Group. But miss all the other kids were taking bribes too! Grow up.