ChatterBank5 mins ago
A Russian and The Conservative Party
Why the fuss over this? It was regarding an alleged request for �50,000. The money was never donated. Ecclestone gave Labour �1 million and this changed Government policy on tobacco advertising. Rowling gave Labour �1 million because she wants them to help single parents. Why not make a fuss about the bigger donations?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by shomer42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Rowling and Ecclestone are British
The Russian (obviously is not)
It is against the rules governing political parties to accept donations from foreign nationals.
The accusation is that there was a suggestion that these rules could be circumvented if the donation came via one of his British companies.
The fuss is because it appears that the shadow chancellor tried to fiddle the financial rules to finance his party.
Let me know if there's anything else you're unclear of
The Russian (obviously is not)
It is against the rules governing political parties to accept donations from foreign nationals.
The accusation is that there was a suggestion that these rules could be circumvented if the donation came via one of his British companies.
The fuss is because it appears that the shadow chancellor tried to fiddle the financial rules to finance his party.
Let me know if there's anything else you're unclear of
Brown stood up in the Commons and said: "This is a very serious matter and I hope it is investigated by the authorities."
But the Premier�s intervention raised fresh questions about who he believes should conduct a probe.
No laws were broken by the Tories and any offer of cash from Deripaska was rejected.
Number 10 aides were immediately unable to say what the PM meant.
Bottler has definitley lost the plot ! Even his own MP's were astonished. What a prat.
But the Premier�s intervention raised fresh questions about who he believes should conduct a probe.
No laws were broken by the Tories and any offer of cash from Deripaska was rejected.
Number 10 aides were immediately unable to say what the PM meant.
Bottler has definitley lost the plot ! Even his own MP's were astonished. What a prat.
Just goes to show what a bunch of amatuers the Tories are when it comes to sleaze. The labour party would have bunged him a peerage for a million quid, 50k that won't pay for the leaflet drops. Ok OK the press are having a field day and old charisma bypass thinks it's his birthday but really this is a storm in a teacup.
Yes , but this is also a matter of integrity regarding the party who aspires to govern us ; who have recently accused the labour party of sleaze , and have tried to paint themselves as whiter than white .
If the accusation is correct that they tried to circumvent the rules to get hold of this money , via one of the russian's British companies , then this is more than a storm in a tea cup .
Also why did the tory's chief fund raiser cut short his holiday , to join Osbourne on the russian's yatch ?
If the accusation is correct that they tried to circumvent the rules to get hold of this money , via one of the russian's British companies , then this is more than a storm in a tea cup .
Also why did the tory's chief fund raiser cut short his holiday , to join Osbourne on the russian's yatch ?
youngmafbog
An investigation would hope to find if Osborne broke the rules. Rather that lost the plot, Brown is clearly more clued up than his officials. Obsborne would be investigated under
Section 61 of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The act states: "A person commits an offence if he, knowingly enters into, or knowingly does any act in furtherance of, any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of any concealment or disguise or otherwise, the making of donations to a registered party by any person or body other than a permissible donor."
From his own vague admissions, Obsborne would appear to have a case to answer. Rather than doubting Osborne's judgement, this affair calls into question Cameron's suitability to lead the country.
An investigation would hope to find if Osborne broke the rules. Rather that lost the plot, Brown is clearly more clued up than his officials. Obsborne would be investigated under
Section 61 of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The act states: "A person commits an offence if he, knowingly enters into, or knowingly does any act in furtherance of, any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of any concealment or disguise or otherwise, the making of donations to a registered party by any person or body other than a permissible donor."
From his own vague admissions, Obsborne would appear to have a case to answer. Rather than doubting Osborne's judgement, this affair calls into question Cameron's suitability to lead the country.
They're all crooks, liars & charlatans . Why any of this is news to anyone is a mystery to me . Makes ****** all difference to my life . I was talking to a neighbour of mine recently who's well into his 70's who says whichever party has been in power at any time in his life has made no difference to him at all .
How quaint that the focus of allegations has moved from impropriety by a person in High Office (then European Trade Commissioner Mandelson, who historically also acted improperly whilst holding various High Offices as a Cabinet Minister) to impropriety of a person who does not hold High Office, namely Shadow Chancellor Osbourne.
Not quite sure that the definition of high office precludes heads of EU officialdom, especially those decision makers of the EU Commission. Even so...
an EU Commissioner effectively holds power over 500 million people.
a British Cabinet Minister effectively holds power over 60 million people.
a Shadow Minister effectively holds power over himself (however badly that may be managed).
It does appear that "top job" trumps "high office"...
an EU Commissioner effectively holds power over 500 million people.
a British Cabinet Minister effectively holds power over 60 million people.
a Shadow Minister effectively holds power over himself (however badly that may be managed).
It does appear that "top job" trumps "high office"...
Ahh, so the role of the European Commission to enforce legislation (that they themselves may have proposed) is not in any way to be construed as power over anybody.
The powers conferred by the European Council upon the Commission which elevate it to an executive branch of the European Union, not to mention that it is in its entirety the executive branch of the European Community, may be sufficient in scope to warrant a name change to that of "European Government".
BTW Commissioners do hold office, unlike their underlings in the European Civil Service. I seem to recall Cabinet Ministers also receive payment for their sterling endeavours but would surely blanche at such an epithet as civil servant.
The powers conferred by the European Council upon the Commission which elevate it to an executive branch of the European Union, not to mention that it is in its entirety the executive branch of the European Community, may be sufficient in scope to warrant a name change to that of "European Government".
BTW Commissioners do hold office, unlike their underlings in the European Civil Service. I seem to recall Cabinet Ministers also receive payment for their sterling endeavours but would surely blanche at such an epithet as civil servant.
