Donate SIGN UP

A Russian and The Conservative Party

Avatar Image
shomer42 | 13:51 Wed 22nd Oct 2008 | News
22 Answers
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?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 22rss feed

1 2 Next Last

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.
Ecclestone is British, so is Rowling.

You cannot accept donations from someone who is not British.
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
Question Author
But they didn't accept a donation
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.

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 ?
But who are teh 'authorities' Bottler is on about?

Lets face it he was in such a rush to twist the knife he didn't think it through.

And lets not forget Mandy was in there too.

Mind you that probably is not in Georges favour given Mandys reputation for sleaze.
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.
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 .
Question Author
Ok some interesting views.
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.
kempie

Peter Mandelson was not an elected MP or MEP while in Brussels. He was a paid official, like a top Civil Servant. Not saying he should not be above board, but he held a top job, not High Office.
I think a cabinet minister is fairly high office Gromit, I think you may have not read what Kempie said entirely.
So , alleged impropriety by a politican who aspires to hold 'High Office ' , is different to alleged impropriety by a politican who holds ' High office ' ?
R1Geezer

Any impropriety brought on by a conflict of interest occurred when Mandelson was Trade Commissioner in Europe. His past misdemeanours, when he was a Cabinet Minster have been dealt with previously and do not relate to this present case.
Has anyone else noticed the strange abscence of a particular poster , on this subject of Mr Osbourne ?

His / her silence is deafening
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"...
EU Commisioners hold power over no one.

MEPs hold power over 500 people. They are the people who decide policy and vote on it. EU Commisioners decide nothing. Their function is to formulate policies which MEPs can either agree with or throw out.
Should read:

MEPs hold power over 500 million people.
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.

1 to 20 of 22rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

A Russian and The Conservative Party

Answer Question >>