Senior Tories earn thousands from banks they criticise

#21
Parliament is nearly empty as it is most days. If you make those with a vested interest leave there will be no-one left.


Hmmm - a bit of an idea forming here!
 
#22
Does not surprise me, this is par for the course for c*ntservative party.
 
#23
Grey24-7 said:
Non story IMO
Precisely the attitude from all Government ministers. It won't be long before such 'non stories' as this will be exactly that if they get their way and twist the FOI Act in their favour... and they will. It may not be illegal but it's wrong but they are not concerned.
 
#24
Rumpelstiltskin said:
Wouldn't it be more of a story if they took the money and didn't criticise them?
If Tory front-benchers would say that they were wrong, that they are very sorry, that they would never repeat such mistakes then, well, as they didn't violated any law the case would be closed. Also they could send money to charity funds.

Now the Conservative politicians blame banks for actions where they actively participated themselves.

Rumpelstiltskin said:
But thanks for pointing up the failings of our democracy, comrade. I for one welcome our new Putinist overlords.
If you mean that Russian MPs are more corrupted that British ones then you are wrong. Noble servants of British people are innocent angels in comprison with Russian legislators. Many if not a majority are being covertly fed by big business.

But Russian lawmakers are more sly. They passed a law that prohibits any payments to MPs (except payments for lectures in univercities that are very low anyway).
 
#25
KGB_resident said:
Rumpelstiltskin said:
But thanks for pointing up the failings of our democracy, comrade. I for one welcome our new Putinist overlords.
If you mean that Russian MPs are more corrupted that British ones then you are wrong. Noble servants of British people are innocent angels in comprison with Russian legislators. Many if not a majority are being covertly fed by big business.

But Russian lawmakers are more sly. They passed a law that prohibits any payments to MPs (except payments for lectures in univercities that are very low anyway).
I meant, an imperfect democracy is better than a smoothly-running dictatorship.
 
#26
Rumpelstiltskin said:
I meant, an imperfect democracy is better than a smoothly-running dictatorship.
Yes, of course Russian democracy is imperfect. But unlikely New Labour regime could be called smoothly-running.
 
#27
KGB_resident said:
Rumpelstiltskin said:
I meant, an imperfect democracy is better than a smoothly-running dictatorship.
Yes, of course Russian democracy is imperfect. But unlikely New Labour regime could be called smoothly-running.
Badoom-tish! :D
 
#28
Herrumph said:
Oh FFS - even Vince Cable who is probably the best of the left leaning politicos in this country takes payments from the Daily Mail.

How far do we need to take this? Politicians get other pay, pretty RMPs do likewise. Everyone earns money somehow, don't they?
But the whole point of paying MPs a salary (1832 Reform of Parliament, if I remember my 'O' level History correctly) was so that they DIDN'T have to have other jobs. This meant (a) that those without independent means could become MPs, and (b) MPs weren't open to corruption.

My first task when elected would be to stop absolutely and totally all MP income from sources other than Parliament, and also to stop them taking directorships with outside companies for ten years after losing their seats. Their salary is already four times the average wage. Do they not recognise the word 'ENOUGH'?
 
#29
PandaLOVE said:
Grey24-7 said:
Non story IMO
Precisely the attitude from all Government ministers. It won't be long before such 'non stories' as this will be exactly that if they get their way and twist the FOI Act in their favour... and they will. It may not be illegal but it's wrong but they are not concerned.
It's a non story because these are declared earning from speeches and roles which do not present a conflict of interest, they are not in positions which have lead to the crisis in the banks that have been paying them, nor has the fact that they've recieved money stopped them from criticising the banks for their total f*ck up.

And what the f*ck does this have to do with the FOI, these are things found on the register of members interests which is published to the public every year, such that a freedom of information act request is not required.

It's not illegal, or wrong, grow up
 
#30
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/11/alanduncan-conservatives

Duncan angered the Tory leadership team last year by defending the right to hold outside interests after David Cameron let it be known that he was considering scaling them down. The shadow minister told reporters: "Better to be part-time wise than full-time ignorant."
Indeed it would be wise to be part-time servant of the rich than full-time servan of the people.

Sixteen out of the 22 members of the shadow cabinet have declared remunerated employment to top up their £65,000 salary as MPs. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, earned £230,000 over the past year from speaking fees and directorships, policy chief Oliver Letwin works part-time for bankers NM Rothschild, and international development spokesman Andrew Mitchell holds six directorships with the merchant bank Lazards.
...
Duncan joined Arawak as a non-executive director last April, just weeks before the UK-Canadian oil firm raised money via a flotation on the London stock market. The company, which has offices in St James's, is part owned by Vitol, a company once fined after admitting bribing Saddam Hussein's government to obtain Iraqi oil contracts.
As I see mr.Duncan is serving to the best representatives of British business elite.
 
#31
Sergey I hope you had anice Christmas and New Year.

On the subject of earnings - I heard a little rumour this evening that Putinka has been selling paintings - his own work -for 800,000 Euros. Is that true or dezinfomacija?
 
#32
rickshaw-major said:
Sergey I hope you had anice Christmas and New Year.

On the subject of earnings - I heard a little rumour this evening that Putinka has been selling paintings - his own work -for 800,000 Euros. Is that true or dezinfomacija?
Yes it is right.

http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=97231&videoChannel=76

A painting by Russia's Prime Minister Putin is sold for more than one million U.S. dollars at a charity auction in St Petersburg.

A painting by the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was sold at a charity auction in Saint Petersburg on Saturday (January 17) for the record price of 37 million roubles (1,1 million U.S. dollars).

The picture, called "Uzor" which means "The Pattern" shows snowfall through a frozen window decorated with traditional Ukrainian curtains with Putins signature painted across the top.
 
#33
KGB_resident said:
rickshaw-major said:
Sergey I hope you had anice Christmas and New Year.

On the subject of earnings - I heard a little rumour this evening that Putinka has been selling paintings - his own work -for 800,000 Euros. Is that true or dezinfomacija?
Yes it is right.

http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=97231&videoChannel=76

A painting by Russia's Prime Minister Putin is sold for more than one million U.S. dollars at a charity auction in St Petersburg.

A painting by the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was sold at a charity auction in Saint Petersburg on Saturday (January 17) for the record price of 37 million roubles (1,1 million U.S. dollars).

The picture, called "Uzor" which means "The Pattern" shows snowfall through a frozen window decorated with traditional Ukrainian curtains with Putins signature painted across the top.
Hvala!

And if it does go to Charity - good for Him :twisted:
 
#37
Grey24-7 said:
PandaLOVE said:
Grey24-7 said:
Non story IMO
Precisely the attitude from all Government ministers. It won't be long before such 'non stories' as this will be exactly that if they get their way and twist the FOI Act in their favour... and they will. It may not be illegal but it's wrong but they are not concerned.
It's a non story because these are declared earning from speeches and roles which do not present a conflict of interest, they are not in positions which have lead to the crisis in the banks that have been paying them, nor has the fact that they've recieved money stopped them from criticising the banks for their total f*ck up.

And what the f*ck does this have to do with the FOI, these are things found on the register of members interests which is published to the public every year, such that a freedom of information act request is not required.

It's not illegal, or wrong, grow up
These earnings IMO are as immoral as the thousands of pounds MPs recieve in bogus claims each year that they intend hiding by side stepping the FOI Act they introduced. How long it is before these earnings no longer become public information? You are too trusting my dim witted friend.

It is not illegal but it is wrong on principle. If they want to talk about the jobs they get paid for then they should do it as service as an MP and the wage they earn from being an MP. If they want to give guidance on banking matters then they should do so in their paid role as a MP and not as a profiteering individual.
 
#39
Didn't a Labour MP "Forget" a chunk of cash donated to him..?

Oh yes....Permatan Haines....., Employed his 80 year old mother on £45K a year and failed to notice £103K donated to him....


Hmm. Which is worse, declaring money paid to you for giving a speech nobody remembers 5 minutes later or "forgeting" that £103K has been given to you in your bid to lead the labour party and employing your 80 year old Mother, cruel bastard, can't she take it easy at her age........
 
#40
And the long serving minister in the government Jack Straw accidentally forgetting about £3000 to celebrate 25 years as an MP, he was reminded twice by the standards and priveleges committee to declare it and it still "slipped his mind". The same Jack Straw in charge of the Justice Department, and who was also a cabinet minister when the rules about declarations of members interests came into being, he probably even had input into how it was supposed to work. I think declaring this piddly little amount was beneath him!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top