UKC

Considering the fact that chumocracy and cronyism have been so prominent and yielded so many spectacularly profitable contracts, I can only presume that even more CEOs will see the advantages of becoming a Tory donor. It seems more effective than any advertising campaign could ever be. By the time of the next election, Tory coffers will be at bursting point........how depressing! 

Surely that's the whole point of such a club/clique/freemason setup: to preference insiders to the exclusion of 'others'?

The fact that it is morally reprehensible and either is or should be illegal seems to be of little interest to the current administration.

If I give them a tenner do you think they will let me re-open?

I think if word got out that you'd done so, much of your customer base may choose to vote with their feet 😉

I was just thinking that it has become more widespread and that if the Tories are flush with money, they will have a bigger war chest than normal to fight Labour at the next election. Even bigger lies on more buses and billboards!

Yes, but also to increase the numbers of insiders, as the OP points out.

jcm

Hasn't it always been so?

If anything it's a more egalitarian level of corruption. You don't need the old school tie, just £50k or so. And of course it works both ways. When the MP's leave office, they can ask their donors if they have any jobs going. They are, after all, experts in the area that the donors wanted to change, so an ideal employee.

There's one less as of today, one of the Barclays has gone.

I find it hard to regret his passing, not a nice man by all accounts.

Well don't expect anything better from Labour now they are letting donors call the shots. 

https://evolvepolitics.com/scottish-labour-leader-richard-leonard-quits-jus...

Labour had healthy finances due to the large membership but the ongoing Stalinist purge of the left leaves them reliant on wealthy donors. 

Frankly I would like wealthy donors to either be struck off from the electoral roll, or for donations to be anonymous to the parties and made via the electoral commission with a lifetime limit per person.

"Expert" in the most generous sense of the word. The job offers are normally a way of giving backhand donation after the event based on how much access and or contracts the company gained what said person was in office.

Chris Grayling stands out as someone who shouldn't be allowed to advise, let alone manage, on transporting anything more serious than a cup of tea. Yet depressingly he's on a very cushty number before even leaving parliament.

I would be happy if MPs got paid, say, £200K pa but it was illegal to take other jobs, consulting fees etc with a possible exception for things with a clear public good like qualified doctors etc. I'd also make it impossible for PMs to appoint cabinet posts to people who can't pass DV security clearance.

I guess another funding option open to Labour is libel damages from whining Corbynistas. Definitely some untapped potential there!

I don’t think Len McCluskey fancies being disenfranchised 😂

Brave man putting that about Barclay on here. 

There's a twin left alive to sue you... 

Sue him for what?

Should we ban political parties from taking money from donors/unions/members and instead centrally fund them all?

That has some potential benefits with reducing a source of influence, but also means that taxpayers fund fringe parties that some find unpalatable (UKIP, Greens, Monster Raving Loonies).

And that tells you why Labour have no chance in Scotland.   Richard Leonard is useless but if 'Scottish Labour' is to mean anything it needs to assert itself and tell Keir Starmer to f*ck off and they'll choose their own leader.    Stuff like this only proves that their leader is a branch office tea boy who can be fired by the English.

How does Union funding of the Labour Party fit in amongst this. Also if a lot of Labour voter chipped in what they could afford, be that £1K or £5 would that not give them a huge war chest.

Genuinely interested as I am not impressed with any political party at the moment, its just all far to ideological and shouting at each other, rather than trying to reach a consensus and accord.

A trade union is a collective of individuals joining together democratically to address the situation where the employer has a monopoly on power and can impose oppressive conditions on workers.

A democracy is also a system whereby power is held collectively and democratically, to address the situation where small groups of people have a monopoly on power and can impose oppressive conditions on the population. 

Based on these first principles there shouldn't be any question, union funding couldn't undermine democracy it could only extend it. 

The issue comes when not enough people understand or care about how democracy works and the levers of power become captured by the small unrepresentative groups again. This can and has happened in any setting including within trade unions, within the Labour Party, and within our wider democracy. 

Your point about having a huge war chest if lots of individual members chip in is exactly how has been for the last 5 years.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/22/labou...

Healthy for democracy which is why it's sad to see Labour begging for corporate paymasters now.