Overseas aid used to fund Labour?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Office_Linebacker, Jan 15, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I have noticed that when the debate on defence spending is discussed here a lot of people mention cutting the overseas aid budget. I thought I might post this story for those that might be interested.

    I havent seen it make the MSM and I have seen it being called Tory Idiocy but does anyone have any thoughts/insights?

    Story Here


    Edited to add, its made the times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6982999.ece
     
  2. Essentially using the unions to launder government money to finance the Labour Party?
     
  3. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Why the surprise? Labour have been doing it for years. They introduced the 'Parliamentary Communications Allowance' to allow MPs to propagandise or free.

    And, as raised on the Ian Dale blogsite earlier this week:
    "Government spending on advertising has rocketed in each year before the last two general elections. And what has the National Audit Office done to ensure it doesn't happen again this time? Sweet bugger all. In 2008-9 Labour spent £232 million telling us how wonderful they are, up from £167 million the previous year. Before the 2001 election spending went up from £113m to £191m and the figures before 2005 were £189m and £203m.

    They have to use taxpayer's money to do this because their management of their own finances has been so catastrophic that they haven't got
    any left to spend on posters. And we're the mugs who pick up the bill."

    Why should you be surprised? Is there any depth that Labour would not stoop to?
     
  4. It is interesting that the TUC response has been that "The TUC doesn't fund Labour". It's like me belonging to a club called "Business Supporters for Islam4UK" and then claiming that the club doesn't support a proscribed organisation because any donations go direct from the members.

    The Labour Government (and they're not the only ones) believe that our money is their money - this is just the second most blatant example after the expenses fiasco.

    You'll note, also, that Labour proposals for 'reform' of party funding would ban large donations from rich individuals or from businesses but not from the unions? It's not exactly gerrymandering, but at best it's morally equivalent.
     
  5. "Subsequently, IPN discovered that the TUC was recently granted a further £2.4 million by DfID for the period 2009 - 2011. The new support to the TUC comes from funds intended for large international development NGOs with a track record in poor countries. It’s unclear why this trend has been broken to fund a British trades union".

    It doen's look too unclear from here!
     
  6. But they're arguing the semantics of the charge - appropriate, possibly, in a legal case but hardly good PR. You see, it hasn't been broken to fund a "British trades union." That is completely correct - the TUC isn't a Trades Union - it is a co-operative of trades unions, which now needs less money from its members (because DfID don't require it to account for how this grant is spent), who can then give the money the TUC would have needed to anybody they want. As long as it is the Labour Party.

    As the sage says, "Simples!"
     
  7. Absolutely spot on. It's a game politicians love to play. The dying days of the Major government saw a massive emphasis placed on driving PFI/PPP legislation through. Yes, a lot of ex-Ministers got jobs but the Tory party had also received a lot of donations from - purely coincidence, of course - companies which stood to benefit.

    Mass graves, people. It's the only way.
     
  8. I refer your good self, Sir, to my comment on another thread:

     
  9. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    Every time I read this or something similar on Arrse it makes me cringe with embarrasment. we're a civilised country where the rights and dignities of people should be respected. The "mass graves" solution would show us to the rest of the world as barbaric outcasts from humanity.

    Individual graves, just lots of them.
     
  10. If you want to be really offended take a look at the Union Modernisation fund, paid for be us hard pressed taxpayers.
    Then compare it to the amount then given directly back to the Labour Party in donations from the recipients of the funding.

    The Labour Party uses public money, launders it through the Unions (for which the Unions get a fee) and put that money straight back into Party coffers. Its the only reason the Labour Party is still afloat and its because they are stealing our money

    Its called corruption.
     
  11. Well posted. So many do not realise that this dishonest deception has been going on for years.

    It is seriously to be hoped that someone, someone very near the top of the Labour Party, will eventually go to prison for this and other disgraceful acts of fraud and theft perpetrated by this dishonest and failed government.

    Remember the Labour Party had a Treasurer who did not know that one million pounds had been donated to it! Any Squadron/Battery/Company second in command ever been ten pounds/marks/dollars short in the cash box upon the auditors pouncing? Yes? Then you will understand that it is NOT POSSIBLE TO MISS ONE MILLION POUNDS!!!
     
  12. Much better with the Mass graves idea. Means we spend less money on the bast**ds :x
     
  13. Mass graves, individual graves - they all need diggging. That's jobs - how can the Unions and Labour Party object?
     
  14. I seem to recall that there was thought to be KGB funding of the TU movement in the Cold War, and Labour funding and policy was possibly influenced from Moscow.

    If the 'Bruvvers' were willing to take Red money then, what would their position be if someone offered them large sums of cash today? Would they take the loot and then pull Labour's strings in accordance with their new paymaster?