Blogger's block
It's come to something when a government is relieved to be announcing that it will instruct judges not to send criminals to jails when they are full. That, though, is how it is. The debate about policy kicked off by the - indeed, any debate about policy - will come as a huge relief to ministers. I know how they feel.
I have had blogger鈥檚 block in recent days. Having mastered who David Abrahams is, which Janet is which and what the law says about permissible donors I found myself feeling curiously empty. Until Mr Abrahams says more or reveals the documents he claims to have; until some other player breaks their silence, this story is unlikely to move very far. Rules have clearly been broken. Yes, laws too but let's remember that this is currently a case of "cash for what?" In other words, it is unclear what was in it for those breaking those rules and laws other than an awful lot of delayed grief.
Yesterday the Tories initiated a . They threw allegations of law breaking at Labour MPs who in return threw back re-heated allegations about Ashcroft, Chinese donors and Asil Nadir. It all made me feel like taking a long shower and is something I shall remember next time a politician lectures me about undermining faith in politics.
I'm 
Comments
Nick
Keep your guard up - asking "cash for what?" is walking into trap that lets criminals off the hook.
Taking the money left the labour party and government open to "blackmail" at any point in the future - this is far worse that cash for honours, at least in that case the terms were known up front.
What would labour total debt to abrahams have been if it had not been stopped now?
On a side issue - the government keep lowering the standard of 'proof' required in criminal trials, but still insist on the highest level of proof against itself - even a smoking gun is insufficient, it virtually needs a signed confession and a room full of expert witnesses - surely they can't have it both ways...
It sounds like a small case of burnout, Nick. You've been posting a lot of stuff regularly and for a long time. Last week stretched everyone and a change or a rest looks like a good idea. There鈥檚 plenty I could write about but I'm getting fed up with the sound of my own voice. You sound a little sensitive to the allegation of feral media but your reposte can be fair comment.
I was thinking, last night, that politics can be a serious and impersonal affair. The image of most politicians is they're distant anoraks with no life. High politics is all well and good but practicality and connecting with people is equally important. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to explore what hobbies and interests people have 鈥 something fun and apolitical.
The reason why I suggest this is politicians are ordinary folks as well and the enjoyment and learning that can come from other interests can help throw a fresh perspective on things. Not only that, it would throw some focus on ordinary people in the community. Politics can look like a corpse strewn wasteland at times but isn't its purpose to create life and hope?
I understand how you feel and I'm sure that sinking further into the cesspit wasn't very appealing. However, some coverage of Wendy Alexander's difficulties and your view of its links to the Westminster problems for Labour might have been interesting.
Your report says it all Nick.
New Sleaze are accused of ....... yet more sleaze. Breaking the law blatantly and wilfully. All the spin in the world cannot hide what they have done.
All they can say is that they don't like the publicly declared backers who support the opposition.
Strange how the 麻豆官网首页入口 makes it all sounds like an irregularity of some note but studiously refrain from publicly lynching Messrs Brown and Blair as they did John Major (a man of little public personality but immense personal integrity).
I don't wonder what the 麻豆官网首页入口 would be headlining with if this was the Tories breaking the law.
Such a pity the 麻豆官网首页入口 remains so biased. The Tories will have little choice but to butcher it.
Yeah, c'mon, Nick, undermining faith in politics is their job, not yours :P
I agree. Maybe it's letting the government off the hook, but I really can't be bothered with this story - there's just something very depressing and small-time about it.
'Cash for what?' Could the answer be as simple as donors wanting to keep their preferred party of government in power?
Nick
A few thoughts:
鈥 if the revelation that members of the governing party both nationally in the UK and in Scotland have committed serial, systemic breaches of the law leaves you feeling "curiously empty", then you are in the wrong job and should quit
鈥 if you assume that a breach of the law for which you cannot see any benefit to the offender makes it any less a breach of the law, then you are in the wrong job and should quit
鈥 if this canker at the heart of politics leaves you feeling like taking a cold shower rather than shining a very bright and public light on it, then you are in the wrong job and should quit
It doesn't matter whether it's Labour, the Tories or the Lib Dems: what has happened is both wrong and illegal. It is not your place to say I can't be bothered.
I think the main issue is that there does not seem to be much between most of them - on policy , behaviour and so on
Sure, Labour has done some questionable things but then so has the Tories and who would want to vote for the Lib Dems's given their internal fighting.
In the end it seems to me that politicians today measure their success against targets they define, number of column inches they garner. The answer to most problems seems to be more legislation when perhaps they should just make what we've got now work.
For example
the Nimrod - 7 years late and endangering their crews
Tax take rising and a perception that services are better but not as good as they could be.
A perception that although better than many countries there is an air of sleaze over the whole of government
Maybe they should not introduce any more bills / legislation for a while and just fix get right:
NHS
Public transport
Poverty
..the things people care about ..
Politicians are partly to blame, mainly for promising people things that they want, but are unwilling to pay for. No politician succeeds by telling the public the truth-they prefer not to face up to it!
As for the "Media"- well, they seem to work on the "bad news is good news" principle. Possessed of 100% hindsight, impeccable morals, integrity and a sense of fair play, they have questions for every answer, don't they? Ask THEM what will happen tomorrow and what can/should we do about it, and they are stumped. Remember, it is exactly this that we ask of our politicians every day. Its a damned hard job to do with little reward, save the contempt of the onlookers and the likes of Humphrys/Paxman/Robinson etc.
Could any of them do the job? Would you want any of them to do it?
"John Major (a man of little public personality but immense personal integrity)."
That'd be the same John Major that had an affair with someone that wasn't his wife...And the same John Major that had a 'Back to Basics' campaign I presume?
Both private and public integrity intact, that's a good standard to judge things by clearly.
If we look at the constitution, on of the key sources is the convention of Individual Ministerial Responsibility. Under this, which declares that if there is a mistake in the minister's department they should take their blame, and offer their resignation to the PM. So far, only Mr Watt has resigned. Even if the head of funding did not know about this, they still should resign, otherwise it is a failure of the uncodified constitution, and if it does not need to be followed by all then why have it?
Although if all ministers had to follow the convention, it is unlikely that there would be anyone left in the Labour party at the moment.
Nick, you and your fellow journalists, on one huge ego trip can share some of the blame. Some politician do actually have morals and ideals. Cynical isn't the word for 麻豆官网首页入口 political coverage. I can get that from Mr Hislop in 'Have I got News for you'. What worries me the most is all of the 麻豆官网首页入口 political correspondent same to share the same cynical views. Or am I being cynical.
You seem to imply that somehow taking illegal donations is not an offence. Can you confirm that if a party takes donations from an impermissible donor, or a donor uses an agent to give money but the source of funds is not made clear, or a party operates a system where that can be done, or a party of politician accepts donations that they then do not register, it is not some rule or guideline that has been breached, but that an offence has been committed? The law has been broken?
Why is it necessary to prove that the donor received some material gain (which may still be proven)? It is enough in law for impermissible or unregistered donations or loans to be taken, for an offence to have been committed.
Perhaps you need to be clear that such offences have been admitted by the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers and senior Labour Party officials.
What does it matter where the money comes from and why should we care if it goes to buy peerages or not? As long as it is not coming out of my pocket which it surely will if party funding was paid for out of taxes.
Has there ever been a time when certain honours and position have not been up for the one with the deepest pockets, I dont know of many or any of the hereditaries that are there because they or their ancestors were paupers.
Nick you are in danger of getting sucked into the complacency and arrogance of MPs about breaking criminal laws.
The Labour Party has admitted knowingly taking illegal donations from people who are not registered electors or from a property developer who is hiding behind other names.
These crimes carry prison sentences of up to a year and the donations are forfeited.
Yet the leaders of the Labour Party seem to be saying that it does not matter because they are sorry (they got caught) and they did not realise such things were illegal (oh really?).
What does this say about the culture of the leaders of the Labour Party? Any CEO of a company would have immediately sacked all those responsible.
Full marks for being honest about feeling empty and not motivated to blog but do you think this is because you are getting too friendly with the criminals?
May I suggest that you have become conditioned into believing that politics is synonymous with what the politicians are getting up to. And that the priority of issues is determined by what Middle England deems to be important.
Don't be.
Have a read through the political commentary in, for example, Spiked and I think you will come to the conclusion that the main social problem of our age is that the abstract value-judging that constitutes politics, as such, has ceased to exist. What remains is a squalid squabbling match, personal point-scoring over largely piddling issues, and, to make matters worse, no one seems capable of discussing them at a level higher than the actual events themselves.
Pathetic. However, as someone holding a powerful position in the political media, you could start to do something about it.
Cash for influence seems to be the answer to your question, Nick. It's a somewhat more intangible concept but equally valid when we're talking about issues of impropriety.
Tony said ...
"I think the main issue is that there does not seem to be much between most of them - on policy , behaviour and so on"
No Tony, the main issue is that the Government have broken the law!
If I was driving along at 60mph in a 40mph zone and the Police stopped me, I would be prosecuted. If in my defence I said 'sorry, it was a mistake, I didn't realise' would I be let off? No, of course not.
Why should it be different for the Labour party? They need prosecuting for breaking the law.
I understand how you feel. I went beyond the "long cold shower" stage long ago and am now at the "voting with feet" stage.
It *is* a depressing situation.
However, it goes way beyond Labour's incompetence and petty "indiscretions". We now have full-scale systemic decline in Britain. Each day Britain moves one step closer to being the Third World country that is now our destiny.
The problems politicians have created for us cannot be reversed by any political party. We are too far gone for that.
Our politicians have set the course, and now we sleep walk towards our final destination.
It is a case of every man for himself now - I suggest creating an escape route before they shut that door as well.
The cash (however dubiously obtained)was for funding the Labour party, not vice girls, cocaine dens or funding terrorist action. The reason there is so little faith in politics is because there is usually a better story.
Nick,
Wendy Alexander seems to be having an easy ride from the London media generally.
Might I suggest a few days in Edinburgh looking at the Scottish political scene? There's lots going on - SNP government, the West Lothian Question, the Broon connection, is the oil Scottish, etc.
It's also a lovely city and might give a different perspective, recharge the batteries and all that. I'm sure the 麻豆官网首页入口 would put you up in a nice hotel.
Who is to blame for the public loss of confidence in politicians? Politicians who promise a third way in politics and a whiter-than-white administration; politicians who then not only do not deliver, but in effect proffer the logbowman's salute to voters gullible enough to take them at their word. Labour politicians.
The politicos indulge in behaviour strongly suggesting there is one legal system for them and another for us.
In Scotland there is clear evidence of wrong doing and not a murmur of censure by Labour MSPs. Quite the reverse - 100% support for Wendy Alexander.
Meanwhile nearly 44,000 members of the public have received 拢100 fines for "crimes" such as leaving their rubbish out on the wrong day.
This is not acceptable. If they are trying to get people out on streets, they are going the right way about it.
It certainly seems that the likes of Harman, Alexander and Hain are not going to jump - they will have to be pushed. Without further revelations they might just get away with it but the government's reputation has already been destroyed.
And here I was thinking that you had a major lead that you were following up and hence the silence!
How about delving into the story of far greater import - government data security. Apart from a week of outrage very little has been added to this story, and I think it should be examined further.
For me party funding is a side-show of little consequence when compared with the direct damage that mis-directed, unprotected, data presents.
As a foreign resident I will have to subject myself to the cost and inconvenience of an identity card sometime next year. I'm worried about being used as a guinea pig before the rest of the British public are compelled to get one and the issue of the security of my biometric data has not been sufficiently addressed. If such data does get out can residents and citizen expect compensation? Plus what do you do in such an eventuality? Impossible to change your biometric data unlike a password.
Yes the funding question does need to be followed up but as far as I can ascertain it is not illegal to accept a donation through a third party, only give it. Looks like some donors are going to be burned but I doubt any ministers or Labour Party figures are going to be fined or jailed.
One of the major issues is that, anoraks aside, much of the to-ing and fro-ing between the parties is increasingly becoming rather abstract. Stuff that plays well in the febrile, incestuous atmosphere of Westminster and on the higher-brow news shows like C4 News and Newsnight, but that most of the public don't really care about all that much.
The current funding "crisis" for example characterises this perfectly. Most people are aware that something is wrong and that party funding is frankly as bent as it ever was, whichever camp you live in, but really don't care all that about the machinations going on right now. They care about the wider issue, just not about the over-analysis that's going on now.
The hacks (both party and journos), however, are salivating at the possibility of blood. The politicians themselves and the ecosystem supporting them are becoming increasingly distant from the concerns of the electorate. And that is also why voter "apathy" for party politics is such a problem; the party politicians are so busy point-scoring off each other (with the help of you in the media) that they are increasingly forgetting exactly what they are there for.
The one thing this is doing is taking people minds off the real problems, Wales has the worse education in the whole of the EU, and I know.
The NHS is falling to bits in my area, and the police call them now with a 999 call and they might arrive tomorrow or give you a crime number to contact your insurance. Ambulances take ages to get to people. we have no dentist.
And Labour spin and spin and spin, would the Tories be any better I doubt it would they be worse how can they.
Undermining faith in politics?
I did not realise that politics was a faith based belief system.
Perhaps we should do away now with the whole myth of parliamentary democracy and just let the power hungry fools take turns.
Nick, I can understand why the events of the last week(s) would have taken the wind out of the sails of any Labour party supporter.
But an indepedent public service broadcaster? Shurely shome mishtake?
For any reporter making a living from bringing a government to account, this should be lighting the fires of your passion!
The (political) world is too much with us with 24 x 7 news headlines. And I use headlines deliberately as the sound bite, invented by TV journalists and given popularity thro Internet and bloggers provides the dramatic summary without the substance. Tabloid TV news (yes even the 麻豆官网首页入口) limits reports to 60 secs creates tension and excitement but does little to genuinely educate or inform. I am afraid you guys are as guilty as the pols.
They used to excuse insider trading by saying there was no victim, but prosecutions followed and appropriate punishments were meted out to the guilty. It is disappointing you are adopting the same approach now.
The Labour Party overdosed on alleging sleaze at every turn when John Major was in power and promised to be different and "purer". They are indeed different, they have institutionalised sleaze.
I take it that the suspects have all been tagged and their DNA is on file, yes?
Bah.
The reason people have lost faith in politicians is they all act the same, and can't be trusted (though if they believe they have no chance at government they might be a little better). They end up believing they are the only ones with the right vision for the country so they have to ensure they stay in power no matter what. If that means outright lying and spin, with non apology apologies and non denial denials, endless clouding the issue, changing their entire political ideology (labour for big business anyone)so that it doesn't matter who gets into no. 10 as once there they'll all act the same, then so be it. I'm also amazed at the tactics used by politicians blaming the other side for example,
Opp: Can the gov. explain why they lost 拢150 billion of the taxpayers money? Gov: Ah but that's not what we are discussing here, what we are discussing is the appalling record of the previous [insert party] government.
As the last Conservative Gov was a long time ago they(labour) need to try a new tactic, I'm. too young to remember politics back then. Of course if the Tories win the next election they can use it for years lucky them.
Summary: Politicians cannot be trusted, regardless of party affiliation. Sadly it's te best system though.
Nick,
How typical. You manage to detail reheated aligations aimed at the conservatives whilst downplaying the crimes of your lot.
This Labour Government got elected by claiming to be cleaner than clean, whiter than white, now think of all the lies, distortions and half truths. Some have been mere corruption, some even mistakes, others have cost lives. You may be too close to see the picture. This lot are condemed by themselves because they promised.
PS. Claiming your good because you pass laws you can't be bothered to keep is corruption of the deepest and most pathetic kind.
"Cash for what?"
For spin doctors to sanitise government lies.
For fiction writers to create a new tissue of lies (i.e an election manifesto).
For advertising budgets to publish those lies in the media.
For election staff to tell those same lies on the doorstep.
And (possibly) to 'encourage' journalists to go easy on the criminals?
In short, cash for manipulating the countries electoral system.
However, even it my suppositions are unlikely, none of this matters. If the Labour Party's own election laws are not binding on the Labour party, our legal and politicial system are no better than Russia's or Nigeria's. In fact they may be worse. The Nigerians have prosecuted some politicians.
That a once-respected journalist is condoning politicians committing crimes shows how far our political system has fallen.
I haven't lost faith in politics.
I HAVE lost faith in politicians. The rules and laws regarding donations are clear, which is good politics.
The idiot ministers and MPs who ignore laws because 'they don't apply to us' and those who are simply too incompetent to register donations are not worthy of serving the country. They should be sacked or jailed.
Completely agree it's all rather depressing and tawdry. It leaves me feeling empty as well - politics should be about making the world a better place. But in the real world, it's more to do with just muddling through.
Regarding Labour funding, I tend to favour cock-up over conspiracy but neither looks good.
What has annoyed me more than anything else over the past week or so is Hazel Blears attempting to sell the spin that 'What people in this country are so dissatisfied with is the whole system of party funding etc. etc.'
Not true! What we're mainly dissatisfied with is your increasingly incompetent administration, Ms Blears.
Labour were elected on a manifesto and dindn't stick to it. Perhaps that explains why.
And here was me thinking you had resigned Nick
Actually, if it turns out that they had no particular reason to break the law doesn't that make it worse rather than better?
If they broke the law to hide shady planning approvals to launder funds then at least there would be a reason. If not, we can only conclude that they broke the law - their own law even - because they simply couldn't be bothered with the hassle of trying to abide by it. That they simply didn't *care* about breaking the law because they instinctively assume it doesn't apply to them.
Just as with HMRC and data protection. They just don't *care*...
Nick
Politics is very draining and I can understand you getting a block.
Perhaps you could concentrate on the money not/being returned aspect?
Mr Bean said it would - Mr Purnell said it has - Mr Straw doesn't know.
Easy question calls for an easy answer.
Dear Nick
Wanting a shower sounds suspiciously like whole-body 'hand-washing'. I strongly recommend that you, as a journalist, revisit the Electoral Commission report on the funding of political parties 2004. It's not too late to make up for the lack of reporting of the EC findings at the time. After all they were overwhelmed by Blunkett's second resignation and the Law Lords on Belmarsh. Note to Editors - I am available for interview on this whole subject in my capacity as Chair of Save the Labour Party. You have my contact details.
Not intending the break the law is no defence.
I didn't intend to drive through a speed camera at 38mph in a 30 zone but was forced to pay the fine. The police didn't care about intent. Why should they now ?
Politicians and journalists are equally to blame for the state of politics in this country. The combination of breathless know-all reporting from the media and substandard "career politicians" parachuted straight out of Uni into rock-solid seats is hardly a mix that instills confidence.
Who is to blame for undermining faith in politicians?
On the contrary who should take the credit for exposing politicians for what they are in the most - vain, mendacious lying hypocritical egotists.
I would like to take the credit, but alas, they have only themselves to blame.
Nick,
Look around - it's not just politics. The whole country is falling apart.
I'm sorry to say that journalists should share some of the blame for the pathetic state of this country. You're simply reaping what you've sowed. Incompetent politicians are continually let off the hook by favourable reporting. 麻豆官网首页入口 News resembles the old style Pravda of the Soviet Union, regurgitating Downing Street press releases telling us how wonderful things are, when the reality we have to suffer is somewhat different.
Get used to it - there's far, far worse to come when the economy falls apart.
Ed
I have no doubt that while politicians of all parties have been responsible for some of the loss of trust (if there ever was very much - my political memory goes back to Hola Camp, Home Sec Brook, and Eden's lies over Suez), but in my opinion the main contribution is down to the media. 24 hour news pressures and the need to say *something* however inane and however thin the evidence means that the newspapers no longer have any real role in bringing us the news - we already heard/saw it many hours earlier - so they have become comment/gossip sheets. The only way to sell copy is to make it sensational - a prime recent example was the mis-reporting of the Select Committee report on the success or otherwise of the British in Basra which to his credit was rubbished by the (Tory) Chairman of the Committee in the House yesterday. I find that even the 麻豆官网首页入口 is interested only in bad news, and of course that inevitably makes it anti-government. If Dodgy Dave ever gets into government he will find exactly the same problem. What really worries me is that I begin to wonder whether my certainties about the horrors of Thatcherism was based on the same sort of media misrepresentation - in those days I didn't have tha advantage of being able to watch what really happened in the House, or what people really said in speeches.
Is it any wonder when words like 'integrity' and 'honour' seem to have disappeared from modern politicians dictionaries that there is a public loss of confidence in politicians?
"Sorry' seems to be the Labour Government's get out of jail card these days. But it has been played so many times of late - only yesterday Des Browne was on his feet uttering the word entirely without conviction - that this Government must have lost the rules to Monopoly! They certainly have the monopoly on incompetence and 'indiscretions'. Do they have to be caught with their hands in the till before we see the end of this Fred Karno's Army?
It is not the job of the Judiciary to ensure adequate numbers of prison places, is it?
The casual use of the word 'Rules' - as if this was a trangression of some Bingo Club rules is astounding. These are laws, vociferously demanded and fought for by the Labour Party on the back of continuous accusations of Conservative sleaze which are now being referred to as 'rules'. For shame.
Skinner's reference to Asil Nadir was hilarious. How far back in history does he wish to go? How does he feel about Lloyd George, for example? What does he think his party promised to do about 'cleaning up' politics more than ten years ago?
Well, the public now know just who has been 'cleaning up' - in a big way.
what is the Penalty for these breaches of the law???
A fine??
A slap on the wrist??
Go to jail (do not pass go do not collect 拢200( or collect 拢200 and do not declare it)
Any ideas on just how much the Labour Party is in debt??
Since when was your blog ever about policy Nick?
Spare us the pretence that you are fed up of reporting political scandal - the undermining of politicians is what you do. If there's no scandal we don't see you on our screens, hear you on the radio or see your little Icon on forward slash News.
If someone twisted their ankle on the steps of No 10, you'd be there like a shot with the other usual suspects presenting the event as the latest crisis for Gordon Brown - I can hear your report now "The question is, who knew about the slippery step and when...."
Don't send criminals to jail when they're full...
Criminals such as those engaged in unlawful political donations, perhaps.
More generally, however, the notion that an offence ordinarily deemed to merit a custodial sentence should remain at liberty is as alarming as it is patently unfair.
Far better that ALL convicts serve two weeks of a four-week sentence, than that some serve four weeks and others no time at all.
Next article: why have people lost faith in second hand car salesmen? (File under 'duh'.)
Nick,
Great Journalism. You state the facts clearly and in "layman's" terms - unlike our politicians!. I cannot believe any businessman (person!) would be that "philanthropic" towards a political party, to donate large sums of money - for nothing in return. It is good that the media do keep their eyes on all politicians so that they do not get away with their "shady" dealings. It is no wonder we "plebs" are losing faith in those who are supposed to be leading us by example.
Ah, bloggers block - or writers block
It is a common symptom of asking the wrong question. And it plagues British Journalism.
It is a common assumption amongst media types that just because the Times and The Guardian are covering it, then that must be the story that the public wants to hear about.
Of course, the reality is that most of the public want to hear of anything BUT those stories.
The Daily Politics bases it's judgements on its Top of the Political Pops - those are the stories most read, therefore we have it right.
Unfortunately, not only are the stories not that highly read (at best a million page impressions - er, allowing for double hits, which is a must, that is 500 thousand. that is 1/120th of the population), but in the end people CAN only read what is offered up to them.
What to do?
Go and find those other stories - the ones that are not automatically anti-government, or anti-Tory, or anti-Britain. The ones that actually show what is going on at present.
There are hundreds of those - I defy you to run out of subject matter,
Just stay away from the scandal - it really is boring beyond belief!
In fairness, the "cash for what" remark in the blog is juxtaposed with the observation that all that the donations have achieved so far is to cause problems. The inference is that there is a "what" - assuming that the people concerned are rational beings - it's just not public knowledge yet. I think that's where to dig.
Nick
Many people have commented on this board that it is the moral media and their in ability to present information fairly that is the bigger concern. This gives me some hope for the british people. The Media delight in errors that are made because 'politicians and their administrators in positions of power should not make any mistakes ever'. The usual response from the media is 'are we to blame if politicans get it wrong ?' Yes you are - it is your inabilty to understand numbers and presents things in relative context that means people have a false pereception of the world we live in. How many donations are received that are correct, what systems are in place to spot ilegal donations. A law has been broken but it is fairly easy - like speeding in a 30mph. If i give 5K to a friend to give to a party in his name how can the party be guilty of breaking the law. Perhaps I will do this and donate to the LibDems, SNP and Conservatives - I hope they can spot it.
I feel badly let down by you and other media people.
In comment 26 Byant wrote ... Impossible to change your biometric unlike your password.
That is why biometrics .... you cannot change them, your fingerprints, your rentina scan are yours and yours alone. They cannot be faked short of cloning at least that part of your body. They could be changed locking you out but no one can be let in.
Same thing applies to the idea for a DNA Database .. a crook gets access, prints off your DNA sequence .. and what? He leaves it at the scene of a crime? So the police find this nice printed piece of paper and they've got you marked as the prime suspect.
Please a little more thought about the facts and less jumping to the wrong end of the greasy pole
Well, to be fair to Gordon Brown, I don't think it's him who's undermined faith in politics.
Though I've criticised him in the past for posing with Thatch outside No. 10, he certainly hasn't been any worse than any other Chancellor or PM we've had.
And it's not the media. After all, Piers Morgan's no longer at the helm of any national newspaper.
And although everyone seems to hate his guts, Tony Blair was right when he said we've got the most uncorrupt politics in the world.
Jonathan Aitken was also right when he said that the vast majority of our politicians are honest, upstanding people. (He didn't mean himself of course)
Even with the loss of the data discs, I would cite to you the fact that this sort of thing happens in America ll the time.
So I think it's just this prevailing British attitude of looking for a moan that's undermined faith in politics. That and Jefferey Archer.
Even the comments under this blog illustrate the problem with politics. Aside from 3-4 contributors, a large number are not interested in the question of why people have lost faith in the political system, and are more keen to see more Mail-style savagery of anyone to the left of Powell. That Nick Robinson has not done that here, or elsewhere on the 麻豆官网首页入口, seems to paint him as a Pravda-waving communist.
While I have been typing this I see someone has actually compared the 麻豆官网首页入口 to Pravda above. Come on, get a grip
The whole point of the law is that the question "cash for what" does not require an answer - and quite right too. It is sufficient that there is the potential for corruption.
Tony Blair said that he would have had to resign if he had been questioned under caution in the "cash for honours" investigation. Would you please ask Gordon Brown if he feels similarly bound, given that he has admitted that criminal offences have been committed?
If the Police and the CPS do their job and prosecute and convict the offenders I see the onset of a marginally better feeling towards our useless politicians and party funding.
As an excellent journalist Nick, we rely on you and your media colleagues to attack those persons in public life that are 'way out of range' to the ordinary but concerned citizens like myself.
If you would like an opinion from the bottom, I am expectant of corruption in public life, and seldom disappointed. Far more important, I feel strongly that we have the right to expect competence from the government and their civil service lackies.
This labour governments 11 years record, when Brown the Clown has been unchallenged whilst exclusively in charge of all domestic policies, has produced this governments biggest failures all spun, conceived, delivered and fed by their unprecedented incompetence.
Incompetent to the core but corrupt at the surface.
So the scandal's interesting period is over - there is nothing left to discover. That is where investigative journalism is meant to leave the story with the police and move on. The world is full of more interesting things. To me, your blog is an interesting insight into what is currently the topic being discussed by the UK political class. If that is still the scandal which has left you empty, then I'm worried that Westminster has found nothing new to talk about.
Dare I suggest that you pick an issue with real teeth, if only to give the politicians something new to talk about? I don't mean to suggest ignoring the current scandal, butwhile it has no new information to find out, what of the plight of Zimbabweans, those in Darfur, Sarkozy's France, or even some insight into the current status of the Lib Dem leadership battle?
If you really want to know why people have lost their faith in politics, it is because they have learned from politicians that politicians lie. They have learned from the media that politicians can't be trusted. Yet they are told to keep trusting by the politicians, to keep pushing and questioning by the media. Where else will that lead, but to an aggressive media, a bullish, secretive and populist political class and a disaffected voting public?
Brown looked like the beginning of more serious, careful politics. Cameron looked like the beginning of honest, non-derogatory opposition. Now Brown is awash with mistakes of his own people's making, and Cameron is sounding more like a traditional pompous Tory by the day. I was hopeful, and I have returned to the fold with everyone else - instead of wanting to vote for both parties, I want to vote for none. Back to wheeling out the grannies in the marginals.
Our present day political problems began in 1911 when our constitution was unbalanced by the birth of the welfare state.
Since that time the Commons has produced inflated budget after budget without opposition from the upper house. Whilst this was happening responsibly all was well.
This is not the case now, the infant has grown to enormous proportions and so have the electorate.
A combination of electorate aspiration and poor government has allowed ever increasing costs to the political process and state.
To restore voter confidence the upper house must once again be allowed to challenge Commons budgets and spending.
This will mean a change to the constitution with a more considered form of resolving deadlock between the Houses.
We voted these plebs into power..oh wait a minute..
I have little interest in this story either and I think it's because if I ask myself whether the Tory party wouldn't do or haven't done the same thing I think, "no, not a chance."
Nick,
It is hard to believe that any journalist is having problems analysing the issue of politics and faith in politicians. Unfortunately, we have only to look at how pathetic the media has been in chasing down errant politicians. Tony Blair became known as Teflon Tony only because no one tried hard enough to press home the point when he was vulnerable. All too often, journos switched their focus to peripheral aspects such as the motives of Yates of the Yard. How often, has the government sought to deflect criticism by arranging that the messenger is the one who is shot? How often has the 麻豆官网首页入口 fallen for this old trick?
If you have any intention of being a political journalist, follow the story, not the spin and false trails. If someone has already admitted illegality, how hard is it to see that they are prosecuted? Put the lot of them in court, and let us see how they get out of their respective predicaments.
Um... What about "Education! Education! Education!". Why no hounding of the Government for that? Our kids can't read or write but that鈥檚 ok. Lets worry about something else rather than hold them to account.
Nick I know this is not your fault but shouldn't the 麻豆官网首页入口 as the supposed balanced and neutral mouth piece of the people really pursue the Government like it did with the Tories?
How about sleaze in general? Again nothing. The failing NHS? Patients getting treated in a car park because of lack of beds? Nope again they get let off the hook.
The 麻豆官网首页入口 and the rest of the media need to start calling a spade a spade rather than going easy on the government, otherwise there will never be a change.
That鈥檚 why I always read your blog. It鈥檚 good to see some relevant and pertinent articles that (most of the time) tackle the questions at hand. Good Job.
Comment 58 - Ted
If the biometric data gets changed in the database, then yes you do get locked out. But even worse, the person who's data replaced yours is now, as far as he government is concerned, YOU. Now try proving who you are.
Biometrics do not lie.
Do they?
One of the reasons for the current turgidity of debate on this issue is that everyone (journalists, politicians, electorate) know that at some point in the next couple of weeks the spotlight which has been turned on party funding issues is quite likely to uncover massive wrongdoings on all sides. Journalists are marking time until then; politicians don't want to say anything which will be thrown back at them when their party is caught out; the electorate just has a dull sense of foreboding of the inevitable deluge which may carry on for months to come.
I agree Nick. It is extremely boring and the unseemly squabble surrounding it brings politics as a whole (further) into disrepute. The truth is it has descended into another petty bout of political point scoring and the actual original point of exposing the origin of donors and their vested interests has been blown completely out of proportion. The only people interested in spinning this out is the opposition. It is this soap opera that alienates politics from the man on the street and can when blown to the extraordinary proportions of this instance undermine meaningful democracy.
What happened to meaningful debates about education, crime and the health service? Is this really the best the opposition can come up with?
"cash for what?"
Something we will never find out. It is all so corrupt and closed that the general public have no clue what is happening in their name by their elected officials.
Nick,
The main parties have got a stranglehold on the political set up in Britain and all they seem to be interested in is tightening it. They lie and cheat to stay in power and then lie and cheat to regain that power when they lose it!
Also, you see, ad nauseam, that when a politician manages to wriggle off a hook over some impropriety or criminal activity, he/she/it is feted as a political genius and slapped on the back by political colleagues, adversaries and apologists alike (And these blogs are full of the apologists, but don't worry, they're easy to spot because of their weird and distorted world views and the tendency to label anyone who disagrees with them as a supporter of their party of opposition!)
To me a 'great politician' is never likely to be a 'great human being'.
I hope Tony at #20 is wrong but then 'hope' is nothing if it is not delusive!
Along with others, Nick - I thought you might have gone the same way as the computer disks (remember them..? 'We're sure they're still on the premises'. Three weeks searching hasn't turned them up - hence the silence..)
Anyway - the thing that bugs me about this 'donations' affair (well, several, actually) is the barefaced cheek of Labour ministers 'Oops - got caught - sorry about that'.... We are talking about the LAW here, a law which they introduced in 2000 under their 'whiter than white' banner. To recycle accusations of similar wrongdoing against the Conservatives is just childish ('they started it') - but this was precisely the point of the legislation, about which Labour ministers seem to be having selective amnesia.
Now we hear accusations of David Cameron 'bullying' poor Gordon Brown - he, I seem to recall, of the 'great clunking fist'; however you have only to cast your mind back to Brown and Blair shrieking at John Major across the Dispatch Box to rubbish this accusation.
So - we look to you for the learned insight and the pithy comment - sorry; you are not permitted to throw up your hands and wait for something else to happen..!
Oh and one other thing...
Why is the Beeb insist on telling me my house price is going down?
ITS NOT! Let me say this clearly so every hack can understand it.
"The rate of the price increase is slowing" That means that rather than your house being worth 15% more this year it's "only" worth 8% more It's still going up!!!!
Nick, I know that this isn't your fault but have word will you...
Ta
Nick,
Since you seem to have run out of topics, could you find out if it is proper and prudent for the Scottish government to call in Trump's plans for that big golf resort---the ones rejected by a local council? It is said that this move is unprecendented. Given the funding scandal, isn't it a bit risky for the Scottish goverment to overrule the council's decision? People might think that Trump himself is some kind of hidden donor, like Abrahams. Don't know if he is, but appearance is everything, isn't it?
T.Potts
Breaking wind with dignity V breaking the law without shame.
I found a story today that sums up the way I was left feeling after watching yesterday's debate on party political funding:
77-year-old Maurice Fox received a letter from Kirkham Street Sports and Social Club in Paignton, complaining about him breaking wind loudly in the public bar. Maurice may be a man of with a bad habit, but he is a man with a sense of decency. When Maurice received the letter did he complain? no. This is what Maurice said: "I am happy to oblige them, there is no problem. I do get a bit windy - I am an old fart now. "I think someone has complained about the noise. I am a loud farter, but there is no smell. "I do not think it [the letter] is unreasonable, you get ladies in there." Maurice now goes outside to fart.
Compare this to the Labour party's behaviour at the commons debate for political party funding yesterday: If certain members of the cabinet had received a letter complaining about their party breaking wind in the bar, this would have been Labour's reply: "We admit that one of our group has been farting loudly in the bar. "We are angry that this has happened. "We are going to instigate an immediate review into this matter, and we are determined to have transparency at all times when it comes any member breaking wind. "Our friends will carry out the review, and on completion they will provide a detailed report of their findings to the alleged farter. "We will of course report this matter to the bodily function commission."
"However, we would like to make it very clear that patrons on the other side of the bar, have in the past, farted louder and longer than any member of our drinking group. "To this end, we would like to put forward a motion to ensure that any future farting will be done in a fair manner, and on a level playing field. "Although we admit that one of our group has farted, that member will not be going outside to fart until the Landlord throws them out."
Maurice Fox is a man with a sense of decency - The Labour party do not know the meaning of the word.
I assume that the intermediaries, who received monies from Abrahams, have declared this as personal income and will pay tax on it!
The fact that they then passed it on is surely irrelevant - it is still taxable income.
It occurs to me that there are two problems.
First is that if you receive a cheque signed by mr. x it is reasonable to assume that he is giving you the money and if he is hiding his identity then he is at fault.
Second: we now have carreer politicians, who must win at all costs and can not afford to resign. In the days of my youth they were part timers and could afford to resign when things went wrong.
But John (Farina)
If they changed the headlines to be factual then the story wouldn't sound so dramatic.
To see why People HAVE lost faith in our politicians look at the responses from government to the No 10 website e-petitions (This site should be renamed "No. 10's Lip Service website").
Several people's comments above have mentioned the "cash for what?" phrase, and several others have mentioned that the important part is that Labour broke the law.
I am still astonished that in most modern democracies large campaign contributions (over 拢10) are still allowed. Large sums of money buy influence. Political Parties may be skilled at hiding this influence, but I don't think anybody is naive enough to think that this money is given for philanthropic reasons. This money buys power, and whether it is done within the framework of the current rules, or outside the framework of the rules, it undermines the concept of democracy.
Many people will say you can't change or improve the current system. Feudal lords would have used the same excuse. Those in power have nothing to gain and a lot lose by any change in political funding.
I think this is a story worth reporting, a story that people might actually care about.
The funding debate will never work as long as Labour insist on union contributions. Calling it "pennies from individual members" is nonsense. Make all donations open and limited.
You don't need allegations of sleaze or illegal payments not to trust politicians - these are taken as givens for politicians - what worries you is when they're too stupid and get found out.
What makes you lose faith in politicians is when you see their policies as being merely bribes to get into office or stay in office. Or in the case of the Liberals policies that are so outrageous you'd have to have never gone to school not to see through them
Nick - take a trip to Scotland. They are spitting bricks about Wendy Alexander (and rightly so). This needs more national coverage. I see her brother is on Question Time tonight...wonder what explaining he'll be required by DD to do.
The trouble for Brown is that he's not as good at spin as Blair, but is realising he needs it even more as event are piling up like tetris blocks...
Compare and contrast...
When the discs went missing, 'it was the fault of INDIVIDUALS junior officials NOT the SYSTEM Brown directly put in place as Chancellor'.
BUT
When Labour broke the law they put in place, 'its the fault of the SYSTEM NOT the complicit INDIVIDUALS.'
The difference in the direction of spin is too obvious. The teflon is washing off Labour...
Don't worry Nick - I am confident that this 'block' you are suffering from is only temporary.
Because 'The Good Ship Labour' has been holed below the waterline so many times, the captain and crew are busy below decks trying to plug the holes.
The bridge is deserted and the ship is adrift in stormy seas. It's bound to hit something else quite soon - maybe even a submerged bank.
That will get rid of your 'block'!
Nick,
The government's strategy for defending this indefensible affair sems to be: announce (another) review, refuse to offer or accept anyone's resignation, or fire anyone, or condemn anyone. Wait for the interest in the story to die down and carry on as before. It would seem from your remarks that you are already in the mood to help them out, and that is a real disappointment for many of your loyal and party neutral readers.
This is a scandal, a government's breaking of the law of the land always should be, and it is up to the free press and media to keep the spotlight firmly where it belongs. I suspect that there is more of this story still to be revealed, but unless you keep prodding away, it never will be. By all means have that cold shower, but then towel off and throw yourself back into the fray. It is only those like the irrepressible Mr Hardwidge, with apparently undimmed faith in the Labour Party, that would have you do otherwise. Perhaps you should ask yourself why?
A good question Nick, if the question is the one posed by the link to your blog, that is 鈥淚f people have lost faith in British politics, who's to blame?".
I am a life long Labour supporter, I mention this, not as a badge of honour, but feel my opinions are shaped because of it.
I became interested in politics in the mid 60鈥檚, while in the army. I found the Labour Party had similar views to me, I didn鈥檛 agree with all their policies, and had slight reservations about the power of the Union鈥檚. Labour only seemed to gain power when the country was in a mess, and it seemed the Tories wanted to lose, let Labour get the bad things in the economy etc. out of the way, and get back in at the next election. This was not difficult as most of the press were not best friends with Labour. Back then, from the 60鈥檚 through to the Mid 80鈥檚 most of us judged a government on our personal well being, and got most of our news etc. from the press. Also your political affiliation seemed to be governed by where you live, who your parents voted for and your idea as to where you were on the social ladder.
With the advent of Mrs Thatcher, it all seemed to change, gone were a lot of the things we took for granted, like jobs for life. We turned on each other, strike after strike, where the unions were vilified, blamed for shortages of bread, fuel and many other things. The spin machine made us believe Mr Scargill was the enemy, not the Government. It worked for a long time, and in the process we became greedy, all we worried about was ourselves.
Many prospered during this time, but many didn鈥檛, but they had no voice they lived north of Watford, so it really didn鈥檛 matter.
This is when I think politics started too be looked at with distain. Politics became, let find a problem, scare people, and point the finger at the ones we want to blame. This was done by all parties, and it was very effective, in Labours favour. At the same time, journalists seemed to become deluded, they started to say the Tories were so weak, they had to become the official opposition. Newspapers began this anti government campaign, taking any opportunity to show the negative, always with hindsight (the perfect science). We started looking at politicians as non human, set apart from us, highly paid and only looking after them selves. We seemed to forget they were no better or worse than us, just human beings with the same chance to trip up as us. The one thing we could be sure of was the egos of journalists were now as large as our politicians, so there was bound to be trouble.
Many things started to happen in the 90鈥檚, 24 hour news, spin machines like there had never been seen before, and citizens who had gone through a terrible time with interest rates, redundancy, the poll tax and nationalisation. The 鈥淚鈥檓 looking after number one鈥 became the chant from those who had, not caring about the casualties of the 80鈥檚 and 90鈥檚.
Journalists now read every word uttered by a politician, and try to find some other meaning for perfectly ordinary comment. They ask a question, which we aren鈥檛 privy to, and broadcast a part of an answer, slanted to sound different to it鈥檚 full meaning. It is made to sound like the person is making a statement, but in fact was in response to a question. You ask any politician if he thinks he can speak freely in front of a journalist and he will say NO. I think Tony Blair said 鈥淚 would love to tell you freely what I think, But can鈥檛, because it will be pulled to pieces by journalists.鈥 So where do we get the honest opinions of our politicians if they are frightened to speak?????
I believe the rat pack which is the 鈥減olitical lobby鈥 work together, they are not independent voices, reporting what is important, but a group who hunt as a pack, and decide on our behalf what we should know, and what is important. They mould our view on a subject, and they know it. The trouble is they don鈥檛 see what an important tool they are for democracy. It鈥檚 now more about them being sensational.
One example of where the television media slant a story is prime ministers question time in the Commons. The evening news may show a clip of the PM, but usually will tell us what he said but transmit the sound bite response from Mr Cameron. The PM is questioned for 30 minutes, but this is covered by 20 to 30 seconds of actual video, and no reference is made of any other part of the 30 minutes. Someone (the editor????) decides this, is that democracy in action???
Our view on politics is defined by the politicians themselves, the way they act, what they say and do. More importantly our view is shaped by all forms of the media, without who we would know nothing. The media can make it look good, bad or indifferent, they normally go for the bad, and never correct themselves when they get it wrong.
Nick when was the last time you admitted at the start of a piece to camera the fact or opinion you reported days before turned out to be incorrect????
I feel very strongly that we must keep a free press, but with that comes resposibilities that go far beyond the sensation seeking media we have spawned.
Dear Nick,
I can understand you getting bloggers block after watching that dreadful debate on party funding yesterday.
It is sad to see our politicians behave like a group of spoilt children who have been caught nicking sweets and blaming each other. To think this debate was watched all over the world, must make us a laughing stock. And they wonder why the younger generation doesn't bother to vote! I was appalled and speachless.This didn't need a debate, it needs the police to sort out the law breakers, and a committee to agree what will be done in future.
Re: faith in politics
Politics is for people who can't cope with details. Discussions are about presenting generalizations and then having long debates about why those generic philosophies don't apply in certain cases. Have more faith in technology! Politicians, the ultimate communicators, spend so little time actually expressing any decisions or choices and spend so much time communicating in a meaningless manner. What are they qualified to do?
Ignore for a moment the motive behind giving the money. Consider the motive behind taking it...
If the rules had been abided by, with the Abrahams donations to the Labour party, and to Harriet Harman, there perhaps would have been no donation.
Equally, the donation to Wendy Alexanders campaign, would have not been possible (even at 拢950.00) - that is clear.
So cash for what?
Cash for power - that's what.
The cash is to enable people to be elected to positions of power.
So if cash buys the recipient power, it must by it's nature be buying influence for those that can use the power (MP's and Governments).
It seems to me that people were prepared to play fast and loose,including paying scant regard to the Law, in the pursuit of power and influence.
That is a far bigger crime than Cash for access, as it is so total.
I am going to hand the money back! quothe Mr G Brown, PM of this Parish.
And so it goes into the Government coffers never to be seen again by whomsoever donated it?
What part of handing the money back did the Electoral Commission misunderstand? It is against the rules to do so after so much time?
Ah - so NOW we are obeying the rules? I almost wondered why but having attended the University of the bleedin obvious - I think I can grasp THAT MUCH! 拢600,000. Yes - that much I can.
I get incredibly frustrated reading analyses of 'who is to blame' for voter apathy and distrust. This is our lives, here, happening now. Decisions are being taken every day which affect us, and everyone else, in the profoundest of ways. If people fail to tune into politics its largely their fault. If they give up faith because individual politicians (or even all them) display signs of corruption, then they didn't have enough will in the first place. Laziness. Thats my analysis.
How about a new twist to the discs story?
Okay, this is not quite within the scope of this particular thread, but I put it into the argument anyway.
In business, I have often seen people dig them selves into a hole when they have forgotten something.
So, what if the chap who made the discs, actually forgot to make and send them in the first place. When the audit office said they hadn't received them, he covered up his mistake by saying "How odd, I posted them! I will make you another set."
It is the "Cheques in the post" excuse that has been used for so long it has become a standing joke.
The situation then escalated to the point where he just cannot admit his mistake.
It seems a far more plausible scenario than them really have gone missing in the post - that is statistically rare, in reality.
Of course, to bring it round to the subject of this thread, would such a simple explanation ever be excepted, even if proven true? Of course not. The media would be the first to say "The government has issued a highly unlikely explanation ..."
It is like the cash for honours scandal. "What is the possibility of the same people giving donations receiving honours? It beggars belief!"
But as any political journalist knows the world of big donations and willing hands in politics is very small indeed. And in fact it is HIGHLY LIKELY that someone who gives cash and shows an interest will be asked to get involved more. It is often how people are identified in the first place. The pool of people numbers hundreds, not millions!
But, the media and the opposition in these cases will continue to treat the public as fools. And sell us a "view" of life that sounds great, but just isn't true.
So, tired of it all, Mr Robinson? Go and find us some truth. It has to be there somewhere!
It's extremely simple.
Various Labour politicians have broken the law, ignorance of the law is no excuse so they should do the honourable thing and resign.
If they refuse then Brown should fire them. If Brown won't fire law breakers then there should be a vote of "No Confidence" in Parliament pronto.
Honour - in case Labour aren't familiar with the word:
Nick,
Blogger's block when whole sections of the cabinet and the Labour leader in Scotland look like they have broken the law, the Government is losing CDs almost daily, and we are beaten in the educational stakes by the Baltic states, how odd.
OK to help, the Government is pants and getting worse, discuss.
Sorry to disappoint you but it鈥檚 pretty obvious that most MPs are hard working and honest. The problem is with opinionated journalist who are paid more than our own MPs. The stark facts are these: MPs are pretty decent to each other most of the time but this does not get news copy or air time. They sling some mud when they want to get a spot on the 麻豆官网首页入口. The sad fact is that Nick Robinson has more influence on our government than my MP but nobody voted for Nick Robinson. That is the malaise that is wounding politics and democracy.
Get back to straight news reporting 鈥 the good as well as the bad 鈥 and throw out the commentators. We can form our own opinions, thank you.
It doesn't matter what the cash was for, Nick.
Equally, it doesn't matter how parties are funded - whether by donors or by all of us.
Both of these are totally irrelevant in this affair. What matters is that MPs sat down and devised a set of rules about donations, and then the Labour party decided that the rules didn't apply to it and that they were entitled to unilaterally ignore them.
This is about ethics, trust, and finding out that our governing party doesn't understand what either concept means.
Diana at 02.47 p.m.
I see that "wee" Dougie Alexander is no longer on Question Time.
Has he lost his voice?
Nick, please forgive this stupid question, but why did the candidates for the labour deputy leadership require such large sums of money for campaigning? They were only pitching to their own supporters - a couple of video posts and a blog would have done the trick. Humourless Harriet is reported to have taken 拢40k loan - for what?
Can someone enlighten me?
My take on donorgate - the quote "revenge is a dish best eaten cold" comes to mind!
A political editor sick of politics? That reminds me of the old saying "If you can't stand the heat... "
C'mon Nick, once more unto the breach!
OK so is it is it not against the law? Glad we got that bit sorted. It is amazing that people have to go back to J Major, J Aitkin and J Archer. Can you get it together and realise that we had Mandelsons mortgage application and loan event, friends passport application but of course these do not matter. We have an arrogant and complacent government that are still being given a soft ride by the 麻豆官网首页入口. My only hope is that the political parties will never be able to use taxpayers money for their campaigns. Can we also not have our 麻豆官网首页入口 money used to give Labour inordinate advantagous and uncritical airtime.
At Prime Minister's Question Time. Gordon Brown repeated the Nu Labour Lie. He stated the the Tories left a ruined economy for Labour in 1997.
Simply not true.
As far as I'm concerned it's the handing over control of the industrial strategy to the City that has killed off my respect for politicians.
Alistair Darling even told the FT he didn't believe in "economic patriotism".
With friends like that......
Do I trust politicians? Individually, yes but as a species, no. Would I contribute to a political party? Only if I wanted something in return. What should be the spending limit for a political party at an election (as opposed to an individual candidate)? 拢1000 seems far to much but there are probably small expenses that cannot be avoided. Would democracy be better served as a result. Without a doubt. That is if Britain was a democracy, which of course it isn't. Any voting system that can produce a 67 seat overall majority for the party with only 34% of the votes cast for it cannot be entitled to call itself a democracy.
There have been several attempts to encourage the British to strive for democratic change but, so far, only the Scots and, to a lesser extent the Welsh, have taken up the challenge.
The English are not too keen on democracy. They like to be ruled. Be subjects rather than citizens. Blame others for the evils of the world and concentrate on making money. Its note so much that there is a disillusionment with politics, rather that there is a disinterest. It's just all too much of an effort and there is always the danger that you might have to take responsibility.
Nick, I have no problem with you having the odd blockage, in terms of having something to write about.
I do, however, hate it when most of my 'comments' come back 'error - we are working to solve the probem'
You guys, really need some proper IT support.
I'm now going to copy paste this into word, and save it to try posting again later... my current success ratio is 1 every 15-20 attempts!!
To Curly 100
Unbelievable!
Come on, people - watch some US news coverage and then see if you still think the 麻豆官网首页入口 is a puppet of the government. BTW, I agree with the comments that suggest that HMRC losing the entire child benefit database is a more important (and more interesting) issue than this one, although both issues seem to me to be more about incompetence than intent.