I'm a little confused, Lib Dem Voice it seems is banging on about the Midlands Industrial Council and party funding for some reason. I'm yet to figure out exactly what is wrong with the MIC in terms of legality.
Apparently, when the MIC gives money (publicly) to political campaigns it is not good enough. What should be happening is the MIC should say where it got the money from. In other words, its members' names should be published. This is surely a never-ending argument though? If you must say where the money came from, shouldn't you say where it came from before that, and before that, and before that, in perpetuity.
After all, if (as the conspiracy theorists at Lib Dem Voice imply) the MIC is acting as some sort of sinister laundering operation for those that want to secretly buy influence with the COnservative Party. Wouldn't donors just start using proxies to donate through it if members names were published? The Lib Dem conspiracy theorists talk about "transparency", but where does it end I wonder?
As far as I can see, the MIC is not much different to a Union in terms of being an organisation that gives money to a political party but does not disclose where it all came from. Of course, the only reason Lib Dems have the bit in their teeth about this is because they're facing near bankruptcy because of their own dodgy donor, and, more importantly, they'd love to see the taxpayer foot their bills.
8 comments:
I would suggest that the LibDems might clean up their own Rowntree slush fund before chucking rocks at the MIC.
Couldn't agree more.
All the huff and puff about the 'shady' nature of MIC (a group that is, I believe, over 60 years old) from Hazel Blears and her friends in the LibDems stinks of an attempt to divert attention from their own, far more serious, financial problems.
The fact is that NO association declares its membership or their individual contributions (try asking the LibDems for such a list).
A quick look at the Electoral Commission website shows a list of every MIC donation - hardly the actions of a 'shady' body trying to hide its activities.
It seems to me that all this nonsense is actually about a grand smear and a fairly obvious attempt to scare Dave and the modern Tories so that they feel 'grubby' taking money from a perfectly respectable group that shares some of their aims. If Dave and Co fall into this obvious trap then they are fools.
I believe that the names are out. There were a couple of senior Big Four partners that were in a bit of hot water over it. Have these Dems got their facts straight. I thought this was in the public arena already.
Typical Lib Dims I am afraid!
There would be little difference between this and telling me that because I donate to a political party I need to declare who my employer is that gave me the money!
Dizzy, some unfortunate editing here I feel. I submitted a long reply to some of the points you made but you've not published it. Disappointing !
I recieve an email for every comment that is left. This is the first one you;ve left on this post. I think perhaps you pressed submit and it didn;t actually work but you assumed it did. I have only ever rejected four posts and I posted about them because I cocked up whilst using my phone.
My apologies Dizzy.
The point I made yesterday is that it is a lame excuse to keep going on about the Lib Dem £2.4M as an excuse for the MIC. Ignore the Lib Dems and clear up your own act.
If the MIC is not a problem them why did the Tory Party seek for so long to deny its close links to it.
The other reason it is more important an issue noe is that Party funding is now a pajor political issue. The need for political parties to clean up their act is now more important than ever.
I did write much more yesterday but I can't remember it all now.
I still enjoy your blog !
Ignore the Lib Dems and clear up your own act.
Besides the fact you've just committed an ad hominen fallacy, why the reference to "your own act"? I am as much responsible for the MIC and Tory Party funding as you're responsible for Jeremy Thorpe's minor indiscretion. Frankly your argument is intellectually fatuous even without the logical fallacy.
If the MIC is not a problem them why did the Tory Party seek for so long to deny its close links to it.
I don't know, but youre question is rather disingenuous as it seeks to draw a conclusion of conspiracy, where, frankly, I don't see there being one. I mean, does anyone, and I mean anyone, have any actual evidence that people who donated money to the MIC have done anything wrong?
As for party funding being an issue, that's not true at all. There isn't a problem with party funding at all. The law has been shown to be working and the status quo is the least worst option frankly.
The last thing we want to do is go down a route where the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill on the basis that it's the only way to stop people acting in iffy manner. As I've said before, it would be like a burgular knocking on your door and requesting you gave him your belonging to save him from commiting the crime of stealing them.
I'm glad you enjoy the blog. I enjoy people commeting, especially when they're wrong and get to tell them so :)
Post a Comment