[ellenpagerocks]

Difference between Labour and Tories is Labour do sometimes rightly or wrongly have big disagreements with Unions, especially over the recent strikes

[Biffo the Bear]

Originally Posted by swingaleg

The Met have been called in according to Sky News

Just showing tomorrows papers............it doesn't look good for Cameron

All the papers, even the Mail, are digging.............

I can't wait to see what they manage to uncover.

I certainly think that this story's got legs, especially if it can be demonstrated that payees have had ideas go through to this 'policy committee'.

[psionic]

Originally Posted by Jilly

I think with respect you are missing the point I was trying to make. As soon as this news broke, on here and elsewhere it was assumed Cameron was in on the act all of this is presumtion. Yet when a comparison is made about something that did happen concerning a past PM being influenced by a large donation to his party I am told it is irrelevant, to me that is hypocracy, one is fact the other is presumtion.

If a leader of a party doesn't know what's going on in his own party what hope does he have of running the country?

And to make it crystal clear - I couldn't care less which party or PM.

[Biffo the Bear]

Originally Posted by Jilly

I think with respect you are missing the point I was trying to make. As soon as this news broke, on here and elsewhere it was assumed Cameron was in on the act all of this is presumtion. Yet when a comparison is made about something that did happen concerning a past PM being influenced by a large donation to his party I am told it is irrelevant, to me that is hypocracy, one is fact the other is presumtion.

It is irrelevant, because Cameron is the Prime Minister NOW, right now. This isn't happening in the past or the future (although it may have or may do); this particular set of circumstances is happening now.

Yes, it is interesting to compare the possibility of it having happened in the past, but I think you're starting to 'Labour' the point a little now, given that this thread is about David Cameron's role/non-role in what appears to have happened.

[Jilly]

Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear

It is irrelevant, because Cameron is the Prime Minister NOW, right now. This isn't happening in the past or the future (although it may have or may do); this particular set of circumstances is happening now.

Yes, it is interesting to compare the possibility of it having happened in the past, but I think you're starting to 'Labour' the point a little now, given that this thread is about David Cameron's role/non-role in what appears to have happened.

Calm down, lets wait and see.

[Biffo the Bear]

Originally Posted by Jilly

Calm down, lets wait and see.

Sorry, I just don't want you to look silly when you repeat yourself over and over again It's bad when a usually valued contributor does that

[Jilly]

Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear

Sorry, I just don't want you to look silly when you repeat yourself over and over again It's bad when a usually valued contributor does that

Maybe it was because I was answering to a lot of repeated points.

[ellenpagerocks]

Cameron refusing to publish a list of his secret donors, A Torie Mp said on the radio that Cameron has to publish a list, a rift in the torie party is possible

[Jilly]

Originally Posted by ellenpagerocks

Cameron refusing to publish a list of his secret donors, A Torie Mp said on the radio that Cameron has to publish a list, a rift in the torie party is possible

Can you have secret donors? Is there a link to this?

[BomoLad]

Originally Posted by ellenpagerocks

Cameron refusing to publish a list of his secret donors, A Torie Mp said on the radio that Cameron has to publish a list, a rift in the torie party is possible

Interesting. A list will be published but they need a week or two delay I suspect to make sure the paper work is um....in order
If Labour can't capitalise in this EM really is a useless twerp.

[CRM]

If only David Milliband was there instead of his brother.

[bad-beat]

Originally Posted by ellenpagerocks

Cameron refusing to publish a list of his secret donors, A Torie Mp said on the radio that Cameron has to publish a list, a rift in the torie party is possible

The Telegraph and The Daily Mail have been critical of David Cameron and George Osborne in the last week or so, plus murmerings of disdain from backbenches, remember the backbench revolt over Europe? We also had Zac Goldsmith in the Guardian come out and distance himself from the party this week. There was also the attack on the NHS reforms by ConservativeHome so it would not surprise me if there was an attempted leadership challenge before the next general election. The signs are certainly there.

[WokStation]

Originally Posted by Jilly

I think you are confusing two things here.

Really? I'm confusing paying for access to the PM with paying for access to the PM?

Because Cruddas was selling access to the PM. The Tory website is selling access to the PM.

[psionic]

Originally Posted by BomoLad

Interesting. A list will be published but they need a week or two delay I suspect to make sure the paper work is um....in order
If Labour can't capitalise in this EM really is a useless twerp.

The trouble is that he is.

[PrincessPerfect]

Originally Posted by bad-beat

The Telegraph and The Daily Mail have been critical of David Cameron and George Osborne in the last week or so, plus murmerings of disdain from backbenches, remember the backbench revolt over Europe? We also had Zac Goldsmith in the Guardian come out and distance himself from the party this week. There was also the attack on the NHS reforms by ConservativeHome so it would not surprise me if there was an attempted leadership challenge before the next general election. The signs are certainly there.

I don't agree. The Mail, and the Telegraph have been been questioning of David Cameron and George Osborne for years - the Telegraph was at its most cutting when Simon Heffer was politcal editor, as well as the phone hacking saga. Osborne has also been questioned for his credibility as a figure in within the Tory party, and Yatchgate saw him garner headlines which were just as bad this week. ConHome has also been quite critical of the attempt modernisation of the Tory party and David Cameron for years, so in the context you refer none of those things are the kind of signifcant shifts against David Cameron that could cause a leadership bid. Zac Goldsmith has been critical of the government for sometime now, with the kind of critical comments he's made on Cameron regarding phone hacking been aired last September. Backbenchers have never had particuarly good relations with DC, so that's not new either. The question of a leadership challenge would need someone to emerge with a force to seriously challenge Cameron, of which simply doesn't exist. I'd say the current criticism of Cameron and Osborne is also more reflective of the difficlut mid-term period that all governments go through, as well as a press which increasingly over the years has been keen to paint politicians in a negative light more than pander to them, and the Leveson inquiry has only excaberated that.

[ellenpagerocks]

Ouch, just seen this tweet by Rupert Murdoch

"Great Sunday Times scoop. What was Cameron thinking? No-one, rightly or wrongly, will believe his story."

[Ovalteenie]

Originally Posted by ellenpagerocks

Ouch, just seen this tweet by Rupert Murdoch

"Great Sunday Times scoop. What was Cameron thinking? No-one, rightly or wrongly, will believe his story."

I feel a parallel coming on...

The Tories express shock and horror and blame it all on a single rogue Treasurer...

[clinch]

If you work on the basis that all politicians are untrustworthy you won't go far wrong. This sort of stuff seems to be endemic in all the major parties. Even the SNP are at it with Salmond currently cosying up to the dark lord. I really don't know what the solution is. Voting Labour won't make a difference because there was an incident like this just about every week whilst they were in Government. Changing to PR will only put more power in the hands of parties. You would have thought the expenses scandal might have had an effect, but obviously not. I can see some big gains coming for alternative parties in the Euro elections.

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by ellenpagerocks

Ouch, just seen this tweet by Rupert Murdoch

"Great Sunday Times scoop. What was Cameron thinking? No-one, rightly or wrongly, will believe his story."

Murdoch has got it in for Cameron because of the Leveson inquiry. The Sunday Times are quite capable of publishing stories to help get RM off a hook. Just as they did when they published the story about a police commissioner accepting hospitality when NI were in deep water over the Milly Dowler revelations. They can find these stories but missed major corruption happening under their very noses at Wapping.
It's also interesting that NI have been sending letters to newspapers telling them not to repeat the allegations being made on tonight's Panarama. This story quite conveniently will take that story off the front pages anyway.

[Phil 2804]

I think one can say it is unlikely the Murdoch papers will be backing the Tories come 2015. That's not to say they'll back Labour though, that's probably even less likely.

[ellenpagerocks]

Originally Posted by Transient1

Murdoch has got it in for Cameron because of the Leveson inquiry. The Sunday Times are quite capable of publishing stories to help get RM off a hook. Just as they did when they published the story about a police commissioner accepting hospitality when NI were in deep water over the Milly Dowler revelations. They can find these stories but missed major corruption happening under their very noses at Wapping.
It's also interesting that NI have been sending letters to newspapers telling them not to repeat the allegations being made on tonight's Panarama. This story quite conveniently will take that story off the front pages anyway.

I agree with this, expect more revelations on cash for cameron tonight, probably in The Times