Friday, 20 July 2007

Cash For Honours: Innocent or Unproven?

Having insufficient evidence is not the same as innocent.

We will now witness a concerted campaign to enable the State to relieve us of our hard-earned so a bunch of self-interested sorts can be paid to pester us.

With this will come the ability to classify which parties get funding and which do not. It will be biased in favour of the incumbents and any remaining Euro-poodles.

It will be preparing the way for a one party state with badge engineering to make people think they are buying into something "different".

5 comments:

Mark Wadsworth said...

Depressing but accurate, as per usual.

Phil A said...

If I actually want to contribute to a party I am perfectly capable of doing so - all on my own.

If I do not want to contribute I know how to do that also. I really do deeply object to the possibility of being forced to fund parties I oppose.

If they can justify and force through state funded parties, how long after that will it be illegal to fund parties except via the state?

Remember, remember the fifth of November...

Roger Thornhill said...

Indeed.

I made a posting about this earlier.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Rog, the best rule is disclosure.

Political parties are bodies who want to run the country, and should be made to disclose every single penny they receive, whether as donation or loan, as well as disclosing every single penny of expenditure. They can take money from the Mafia as far as I am concerned, as long as they disclose it.

As to having a cap, forget it, too many loopholes.

W G Gruff said...

Not Innocent, nor unproven, just untried.