WELL, THE SON of a Smithfield meat porter has dropped Cameron right in it. Peter Cruddas has been caught offering access for cash. The Sunday Times secretly filmed his spiel, where up to £250,000 was being charged for large slice of prime Cameron sirloin. Mr Cruddas’ performance left little doubt that influence was being purchased , and favours expected. For why else would even the staunchest of wealthy Tory supporters hand over such a generous amount? Merely to sit at the dinner table opposite Cameron… and making small talk? I think not.
All political parties engage in such subterfuge in order to keep their parties solvent and fit for a lengthy and expensive election campaign. If the taxpayer refuses to (which they are right to do) subsidise the political parties, then they have to be creative in the way they gather their funds.
The Labour Party rely on the unions, who then seek to influence party policy either through the block vote at conference, where they can combine with each other to vote down a particular motion for debate; or they can, as they did with Ed Milliband, crown the party leader.
Apparently, after said leader was crowned; one of the union bosses who participated in his coronation, promptly wrote out a cheque for £700,000 - the generosity that only dinning well beforehand can conjure up on such occasions, is well recorded. I remember a similar diner in the 1970s. George Brown dined well at every opportunity, and ate so much that he had to be removed from the gutter and put into a taxi; after all, the London eateries are well blessed with happy feeders, and they count a client’s removal from the gutter as a triumph of their chef’s culinary art.
WE ALL REMEMBER the £1million donated by Bernie Ecclestone to Labour, which had to be returned: and is there not a onetime Lib Dem donor who is currently on the run from the police?
I do not for one moment believe that the British people were shocked by Mr Cruddas’ performance – although his barrow boy accent and down to earth comments may have confused many who thought the Tories to be the party of toffs.
Our politicians are held in very low esteem by the public. This latest example of their imprudence is like water of a duck’s back to the voter. They would not be surprised if one or all of the main parties organised a bank robbery to get their funds.
Things have reached such a pretty pass with the people that they have become so cynical in their view of our politicians. Not since the 19th century has such public contempt been registered toward our political class.
I f they had done what the vast majority of the people wish they would do on issues fundamental to their beliefs, such as a referendum on Europe, then the politicians may start to claw back the people’s trust. But this will not happen because the political class as a whole, wishes us to become a mere canton within a federal Europe.
Then there is immigration, another issue that the politicians have singularly failed to tackle. They make the right noises when they need our vote, but fail to deliver once they have been given it. The latest exponent of such cynicism is none other than Nickolas Sarkozy, who has suddenly pressed the immigration button to take votes away from Le Penn’s Party now run by his daughter, who is gaining support at Sarkozy’s expense.
How many pledges on Europe has David Cameron broken? He promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty for instance, provided that is, that it had not been enacted before he became prime minister, which he knew full well that it would be; which meant that his pledge was nothing of the sort, but a mere ploy aimed at a Eurosceptic electorate to garner votes. In the end the people saw through him and he never managed to gain a majority of the electorate and had to go into coalition with the Lib Dems.
To hold the British people in such contempt, and then demand as many of them now do, that the people give their taxes in support of their parties – in order to serve some kind of greater moral purpose that will prevent further subterfuge and dissolute behaviour of the past, is contemptible.
WHAT IS NEEDED is a cap on all contributions from whomsoever they come. Such donations must come, not out of taxes, but, as in America, through private contributions, but limited in the UK. Several amounts have been bandied about, the most popular cap being £50,000.
The parties had better agree very soon to such a solution, before they fall foul of the people’s flirtation with political extremes, either from the Left or the Right. If the main parties believe themselves the only democratic option and therefore can dismiss the national cynicism to the way they practice their craft, then history will sooner or later provide a wake-up call.
It is time for the political establishment which of course encompasses all of the main parties, to smell the coffee. The politicians have only one option left to them regarding financial support, and it does not include people’s taxes.
They must agree upon a cap on contributions. All parties, whether supported by business or the trade unions have to make do with whatever they can accumulate through such a cap. If it means that during an election campaign we are saved from party propaganda on our television screens – unless, that is, the TV companies agree to pay for the election broadcasts; then so much the better.
The media always cover the daily press briefings during an election campaign that are seen on our televisions and heard on the radio as well as summarised by the press; and are paid for by the media; the media also gives the party leaders plenty of air time at no cost to the parties. We had at the last election, the leadership debates which all of the media fought amongst themselves to cover. All of these outlets provide the main parties with ample exposure; we do not need to see those awful lorries paid for by the different parties parked in some by-pass for a photo opportunity; each carrying a poster depicting a slogan that disparages their opponents.
THE TRUTH IS, is that the people do not need the parties to waste millions on enticing them to vote. By the time of the general election, personal experience of the previous five years of any particular government is sufficient for the floating voter to decide whether they continue with their past loyalty, or change their previous devotions; and no pleading will change their mind. It is after all the floating voter who has the final say by the time a general election appears, and these voters will have the pivitol say which is usually decided well before election day.
No amount of money spent by any of the main parties will change the mind of the floating voter. For, by definition, they hold no loyalty to any party. They analyse the different manifestos and vote accordingly, but if any pledge in a manifesto they support is retracted when the party they voted for comes to power; then that party will forgo their support when the next election comes.
The days of class loyalty to any political party have thankfully ended. The core vote for the two main parties stands at around 25%, and the floating voter decides who governs the country; and such voters will find it very hard to accept that their taxes should be spent on keeping the parties in existence .
No comments:
Post a Comment