Houchen again.

[Jonny Ingbar]

Tricky area this.

Are you giving contracts to companies because they give you donations, or are you giving contracts to companies because you know them, trust them to do a good job and those companies give a donation as a thank you, or even because they genuinely think the mayor is the best for the region?

And does it even matter if both deliver for the public?

Personally I don't see anything tricky about this.

Why would companies donate to political parties, but for a quid pro quo?

It's the same as MP's been paid by companies as "consultants", there is not nearly enough transparency around the whole issue.

 

[Lefty]

Personally I don't see anything tricky about this.

Why would companies donate to political parties, but for a quid pro quo?

It's the same as MP's been paid by companies as "consultants", there is not nearly enough transparency around the whole issue.

Let's say you are someone who was very concerned with global warming and see it as the biggest issue facing the planet. You form a company specialising in renewable energy products.

Let's then say you have one local candidate who is also genuinely passionate about tackling global warming and wants to introduce measures to assist companies that specialise in green tech, or incentivise the public to switch to green energy products. You have another candidate who is a member of a Party that doesn't believe in AGW and is funded by the koch brothers or mining unions.

So you donate to the green candidate and party. Are you engaged in corruption?

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

Let's say you are someone who was very concerned with global warming and see it as the biggest issue facing the planet. You form a company specialising in renewable energy products.

Let's then say you have one local candidate who is also genuinely passionate about tackling global warming and wants to introduce measures to assist companies that specialise in green tech, or incentivise the public to switch to green energy products. You have another candidate who is a member of a Party that doesn't believe in AGW and is funded by the koch brothers or mining unions.

So you donate to the green candidate and party. Are you engaged in corruption?

I think that's a very narrow example and one, should there be absolute transparency with such contributions, that the majority of fair minded people could understand and support

But the fact is the vast majority of party political contributions are self-serving, intended to give companies a competitive advantage.

Or similarly, donators buying honors, or to lobby for a certain market - usually when the said market is under threat, such as sugars in food, tobacco etc.

The donors system is intrinsically subject to abuse and corrupted by both those contributing, but more seriously, those whose purpose is to represent the public interest, rather than their won, or their political party.

That's not to say there aren't genuine and proper donors, but the issue is that there is such opaqueness in the system that it is systematically subject to abuse and corruption.

 

[JackG]

Is this legal?

 

[Lefty]

I think that's a very narrow example and one, should there be absolute transparency with such contributions, that the majority of fair minded people could understand and support

But the fact is the vast majority of party political contributions are self-serving, intended to give companies a competitive advantage.

Or similarly, donators buying honors, or to lobby for a certain market - usually when the said market is under threat, such as sugars in food, tobacco etc.

The donors system is intrinsically subject to abuse and corrupted by both those contributing, but more seriously, those whose purpose is to represent the public interest, rather than their won, or their political party.

That's not to say there aren't genuine and proper donors, but the issue is that there is such opaqueness in the system that it is systematically subject to abuse and corruption.

I agree, no company is paying money to a political party through altruism. They want something in return.

The example I gave though, shows donations can be for good, legitimate reasons and still be in order to get something in return.

What we need is an overhaul to party funding and above all transparency and scrutiny. With a big stick to punish wrongdoers, with severe prison sentences for the briber and bribee.

 

[Archiestephens_elbow]

all tories are 4 sale to the highest bidder

 

[gregorgregorovich]

Pay attention, I've told you this before, our gracious Mayor wants you to use his full name, Ben.t. Houchen.

 

[Caesium137]

Let's say you are someone who was very concerned with global warming and see it as the biggest issue facing the planet. You form a company specialising in renewable energy products.

Let's then say you have one local candidate who is also genuinely passionate about tackling global warming and wants to introduce measures to assist companies that specialise in green tech, or incentivise the public to switch to green energy products. You have another candidate who is a member of a Party that doesn't believe in AGW and is funded by the koch brothers or mining unions.

So you donate to the green candidate and party. Are you engaged in corruption?

Why start a non-profit if you are so passionate about the cause?

Surely the point of any business is to make sufficient money to cover all costs, and sufficient profit to allow the owner to make a living, whether that is an individual or thousands of shareholders?

 

[breakthewallsdown]

The man, like Young, is a doyle

 

[Lefty]

Why start a non-profit if you are so passionate about the cause?

Surely the point of any business is to make sufficient money to cover all costs, and sufficient profit to allow the owner to make a living, whether that is an individual or thousands of shareholders?

I don't understand. I didn't say the guy started a non profit, I just said he formed a company specialising in renewable energy products?

The point is he has certain aims and priorities in life, to the extent he forms a company to do his bit in delivering on them and would naturally feel like donating to a politician who shares those aims and would enable legislation to assist in this. That's alignment and it is easy to approve of on this example because these days most people agree global warming is an issue and anyone interested in solving it is a good guy.

Very different if the businessman 'says he' doesn't believe in AGW and is a CEO of a coal mine. Very different if the MP also says he doesn't believe in AGW and is concerned about the miners jobs that he thinks should be preserved in his constituency.

Different again if the MP does believe in AGW, but votes and lobbies against his principles because he happens to get huge donations and freebies from the Koch brothers or the like. that, for me, is corruption, but not easy to prove. Hence transparency, scrutiny and publicity are important. This is why Solomon Hughes, Richard Brooks and Ian Hislop particularly talked about extra transparency and scrutiny as important, so that there can be publicity about conflicts of interest so that voters or ministers or legislators can at least factor in possible corruption. They even suggest that contract details, minutes of meetings are published so that people and journalists can understand exactly what skills people are bringing to get their remuneration.

A MP having a second job is fine if he is a GP and he is doing a day a week in his surgery, or works during recess to allow other doctors time off. Apart from doing a worthwhile job and keeping their hand in for a profession they might four or five years later have to go back to, they are also appreciating an important part of society at the coal face as it were. An MP having a second job is not so fine if the are a GP but getting paid by a hedge fund and suddenly lobbying to loosen the controls of the financial regulator over hedge fund fraud or whatever.

 

[Caesium137]

I don't understand. I didn't say the guy started a non profit, I just said he formed a company specialising in renewable energy products?

The point is he has certain aims and priorities in life, to the extent he forms a company to do his bit in delivering on them and would naturally feel like donating to a politician who shares those aims and would enable legislation to assist in this. That's alignment and it is easy to approve of on this example because these days most people agree global warming is an issue and anyone interested in solving it is a good guy.

Very different if the businessman 'says he' doesn't believe in AGW and is a CEO of a coal mine. Very different if the MP also says he doesn't believe in AGW and is concerned about the miners jobs that he thinks should be preserved in his constituency.

Different again if the MP does believe in AGW, but votes and lobbies against his principles because he happens to get huge donations and freebies from the Koch brothers or the like. that, for me, is corruption, but not easy to prove. Hence transparency, scrutiny and publicity are important. This is why Solomon Hughes, Richard Brooks and Ian Hislop particularly talked about extra transparency and scrutiny as important, so that there can be publicity about conflicts of interest so that voters or ministers or legislators can at least factor in possible corruption. They even suggest that contract details, minutes of meetings are published so that people and journalists can understand exactly what skills people are bringing to get their remuneration.

A MP having a second job is fine if he is a GP and he is doing a day a week in his surgery, or works during recess to allow other doctors time off. Apart from doing a worthwhile job and keeping their hand in for a profession they might four or five years later have to go back to, they are also appreciating an important part of society at the coal face as it were. An MP having a second job is not so fine if the are a GP but getting paid by a hedge fund and suddenly lobbying to loosen the controls of the financial regulator over hedge fund fraud or whatever.

Sorry, on me! I missed a 'not' I meant to say 'why not start a non-profit' if it is purely something he is passionate about.

I see and partially agree with your argument one is 'good' the other is 'bad' in terms of their companies/personal ideals and effect on the planet/environment though.

But surely the crux is that politicians are there to serve us and provide the best value and quality of services for the taxpayers, a business is there to serve it's shareholders and make money?

Even ethically run companies with sound ideals and fairtrade policies etc. have to remain profitable. If they don't, the shareholders/board will remove the CEO who took them in that direction and replace him/her with a new appointee to return them to profit.

For me, either company donating to a politician is attempting to gain favour, and is simply trying to influence his/her decisions around policy making or contract awards at a later date.

You can't differentiate and say those policies are 'nice' in the current climate and it is okay for them to influence politicians as far as I'm concerned.

Eugenics, women not having the vote and slavery have all been broadly acceptable to wide swathes of society at some point.

Private companies 'supporting' politicians or political parties shouldn't be allowed at any level of government in my opinion. Neither should second jobs, consultant to board type positions, lobbying on behalf of businesses etc.

The two sides (spending taxpayers money & making profit for your business) are mutually opposed (or they should be).