Peerage for sale!

#1
Tony is sharper than we think. He gets these cronies to pay up big style for the peerages, which they obviously need to put an extra shine on their careers. Yet he would appoint these people for nothing! All he wants is people who can vote Aye or No with him as required. Pure crooked genius...

How much for an Imperial Service Order??
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#2
Maybe if peeps gave a donation they could get their Telic medals!
 
#6
New York New York, so good they said it twice. It's worth a three posting John, it'll be nice to see somebody eventually squirm as the sleaze mounts up. Since I get such a bad interest rate from the Royal National Westminster Bank of Leicester and Halifax (Scotland), I'm considering putting my substantial regimental bar earnings into an institution where the rewards are high and would dearly love a peerage to add to my EPC and army swimming certificate.
 
#7
Saw Michael Portillo on Sky News yesterday talking about this. When asked by the newsreader "why doesn't the Labour Party just borrow the money off a bank" Portillo replied "because then they'd have to repay it". Hit the nail on the head - and nice that he is frank enough to say it.

Latest one on this story: Labour government are going to unveil new legislation today which will prevent anonymous loans to political parties. They hope to get this on the statute books by the summer.

So, the PM is quite happy to fleece the system using loopholes in his own laws about political donations, but as soon as he gets rumbled it's "oh dear, this isn't right at all - I think we'll have to change the law to make things more transparent to the electorate". Makes me vomit. Do you think he's going to do the decent thing and repay the £14M he sneaked under the nose of his own party treasurer - I think not.

(Vote Country Bumpkin for PM - the Forces friendly and criminal hating politician).
 
#8
The newspapers are currently asking how Brown can claim not to know about the cash, despite spending it all on the election campaign? Or is that just what we want in a socialist Chancellor, someone who spends cash but has no idea or care where it comes from (explains a lot actually)? Two Jags is also claiming that he was kept in the dark, but then he was probably eating too many beans to pay attention if the issue was ever discussed at a northern pie eating competition (what? you didn't seriously believe they let that northern monkey into Cabinet meetings did you?)
 
#9
Maundy Gregory would be turning in his grave...
 
#10
In defence of Brown :roll: it is likely that he keeps himself seperate from party funding issues, to avoid any compromise of his role as Chancellor. As for Two Jags, would anyone trust him with money matters?!? 8O

The finger of blame points directly to one person, who decided to disregard his party's own procedures for accepting money, and who realised the practice of supplying honours for loans (later to be written off as donations) was so corrupt it needed to be kept under wraps.

Bliar cannot wriggle out of this one.
 
#12
Make them non-voting peers as the Hereditary Lords who were all dis-enfranchised and no one would care what the Labour Party did.

The issue is that the donors in question would be purchasing a vote in the House of Lords, without having to put themsevles forward to the electorate.

This is surely another reason for having a wholly elected Upper House?
 
#13
Mr_Relaxed said:
Make them non-voting peers as the Hereditary Lords who were all dis-enfranchised and no one would care what the Labour Party did.

The issue is that the donors in question would be purchasing a vote in the House of Lords, without having to put themsevles forward to the electorate.

This is surely another reason for having a wholly elected Upper House?
No, it isn't. It is reason to have an honourable Prime Minister. I notice from the BBC that Tonees old flat mate 'Fat Cnut' Falkner (another unelected crony and an incompentent shite to boot) is now warbling on TV that he will ban such loans in the future. Another classic piece of New Labour spin desperately trying to use smoke and mirrors to take attention away from the current loans.

Hopefully New Nazi err Labour will be forced to reveal the identity of all the donors (Lord Sainsbury has already come forward and stated that he has given 2 million).

Why are the Tories keeping quiet? Because for the last election they raised almost 20 million through this little scheme. The only difference is that they have not (apparently) tried giving any of their donors a peerage.
 
#14
Leaving aside the traditional reasons for the HoL, I thought the pragamatic approach was that the Lords were 'experts' in their own fields, (Lords Temporal, Spiritual etc), which is needed in these days of the professional politician (whereas they used to be farmers, businessmen, ex-forces et al) and thus can be relied upon to cast the proposed the legislation in the light of their own particular area of expertise. For example, Lord Sainsbury would be well placed to comment on bills concerning retail, an area in which he has more experience say than the MP for Waltshire-under-Hyde.

However, there should always be an impartial appointments committee (to prevent Tonie's Cronies), which is why I agree with the PM's proposal (shock horror) to make the Cabinet Secretary responsible for peerages, not the PM. How this is implemented remains to be seen.

Apologies if this has been off-thread :D
 
#15
Country_Bumpkin said:
Saw Michael Portillo on Sky News yesterday talking about this. When asked by the newsreader "why doesn't the Labour Party just borrow the money off a bank" Portillo replied "because then they'd have to repay it". Hit the nail on the head - and nice that he is frank enough to say it.

I heard on the wireless that another reason for not going to the banks was that it had been made clear that Neu Arbeit's borrowings were already on the limit. Propaganda clearly doesn't come cheap.
 
#16
SCoy: it appears that you have fallen for a B.Liar trick: do you seriously believe that he will no longer control the nomination of peers if he 'gives' the duty to the Cabinet Secretary? He has already succeeded in politicising the Civil Service, and he controls the Cabinet Secretary. He will stand, hand on heart, bleating that a controversial nomination is nothing to do with him, when actually he will still be 100% responsible.

Just because B.Liar is a cnut, doesn't mean that the duty (not privaledge) of nominating peers should be left to a functionary. Think of his title: Prime Minister. To whom? The Crown. What few duties can be more important than giving sound and honest advice and recommendations to the Crown? The answer is not to remove the duty from the Prime Minister, but to remove the current Prime Minister and replace him with someone with integrity.
 
#17
There's one other thing in all of this that interests the audit accountant in me - the loans are all taken out on a commercial basis, so that's say 1 percent above base? Perhaps half a percent if the donor is in a good mood. Base rate of 4.5%, so they're paying interest of at least that, and for it to be lent on a commercial basis, it has to be higher.

Does no one in the Labour Party organisation take a look at their interest rates payment line and question why there's £700k extra sat there?

Jack Dromey ignored that? Asked no questions along the lines of "Why are we paying so much interest?!?"
 
#18
Oh and one other thing.

Did the extra loans not break any of their banking covenants on debt?

What are their current bank loans secured on? Property I presume?

The only income the Labour Party (and any other party for that matter) get is Membership dues, money they make from property and perhaps investments.

How did they think they were going to repay £14 million?

Does the phrase "Going Concern" ever get uttered by the people auditing their accounts?
 
#19
SCoy said:
For example, Lord Sainsbury would be well placed to comment on bills concerning retail, an area in which he has more experience say than the MP for Waltshire-under-Hyde.

Lord Levy should be well placed to comment on pop music, but is instead Bliar's adviser on the Middle East....

A look at the list of Labour peers shows that it is as full of ex-lawyers, professional trade-unionists and professional politicians as their parliamentary party - except for the cronies and donors, obviously.
 
#20
Say they got it at 4.5% on a total of 13.9million. Assume that the youngest loan was 3 months old, the oldest over 1 year, average age 6 months= 312,000 GBP interest for six months.

Assuming that they have not yet been repaid, then the annual interest on the loans is at least 625,000 GBP.

So the real questions is why Jack Dromey didn't say "wtf? WTF? WHERE THE HELL DID THAT COME FROM?" before hurrying to change his underpants.

Edited to add: if I could find enough tw@ts to lend me that amount of cash I would walk into my bank (Guernsey or IoM) and demand a 10% rate of return. They would give it without blinking. I would then pay off the loans a little bit at a time while managing to scrape by on maybe 500,000quid a year income (which I would keep offshore so Gordon cannot get a penny).
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top