Back to sleaze with Tories

From HOW TO BE AN MP

It will take many years to rebuild trust in politics. Many judge all MPs to be lying thieves. The details are forgotten but the mud still sticks. The sins of predecessors are visited onpresent MPs. The tentacles of corrupting corporate lobbyists are sunk deeply into the body politic. Removing them requires all- party microsurgery. David Cameron has correctly warned that ‘corporate lobbying goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics. It arouses people’s worst fears and suspi- cions about how our political system works.’ More MPs than ever are former lobbyists. Many hope to be future lobbyists. The Werritty scandal shocked the Government into refresh- ing their reform notions. Ominously, the first debate follow- ing the scandal was crowded with former lobbyists lobbying for lobbying.

 

In opposition David Cameron made this stunning declaration:

"It’s an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long...an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money. I’m talking about lobbying – and we all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism. We believe in market economics, not crony capitalism. So we must be the party that sorts all this out. Today it is a £2 billion industry that has a huge presence in Parliament. The Hansard Society has estimated that some MPs are approached over one hundred times a week by lobbyists. I believe that secret corporate lobbying, like the expenses scandal, goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics. It arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works."

Now they have surrendered to their pals in the lobbying industry.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/anger-at-tories-over-lobbying-whitewash-6292678.html

 

A pro-lobbying website carried this account of a spat I HAD WITH THEM ON THE 19TH DECEMBER LAST YEAR:

"Paul Flynn has now given me permission to publish his comments on the draft Lobbyists’ Charter. This is the email I received, giving his permission. It is pure gold itself:

“Please do as you wish as long as you make clear that was an instant response made nano seconds after receiving your self-serving drivel.

Living for the joy of witnessing you presenting this to select committees. I’ll try not to laugh out loud.

Feel free to quote me at length. It will be the most intesting part of your epistles
Best
Paul”

So here are his annotated comments on the draft:

“· Lobbying is a fundamental democratic right of us all
· WHICH IS UNEVENLY AVAILABLE.

· Professional lobbying should be conducted at all times in a professional and ethical manner. REMINISCENT OF SINNING FOR VIRTUE or S*****ING FOR VIRGINITY

· Professional lobbyists assist the democratic process by helping to ensure that public policy is subject to rigorous examination and argument. They present information that allows the policy process to be better informed THEY SEEK TO FURTHER ADVANTAGE THE ALREADY ADVANTAGED IN EXCHANGE FOR MONEY.

· It is entirely legitimate for an organisation to use the services of a professional lobbyist, whether by employing them directly or by hiring them through a lobbying company.THOSE TOO STUPID TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES WITH MONEY TO WASTE USE CHINESE WHISPERERS WHO OFTEN WEAKEN AND DISTORT THEIR MESSAGES>

· Professional lobbyists should be subject to a rigorous Code of Conduct, whether on a self-regulatory or statutory basis, designed to enshrine high professional and ethical standards to the benefit of all. SELF-REGULATION IS NO REGULATION. ARE ETHICS PART OF PARASITIC FEEDING OFF THE BOBY POLITIC?

· To ensure that professional lobbyists offer services of the highest standards, structured training and continuing professional development programmes should be developed. MADRASAS FOR TEACHING DECEPTION?”

I particularly love the last point. I most certainly look forward to appearing before the Committee Paul Flynn sits on."

 

Comments

[Harry]

Paul, how much are you getting paid for your book, which attacks other MPs for their junkets and various other human weaknesses?

[Patrick]

Harry
Do you also bother to spend time writing to hundreds of MPS with vested interests and lobbying links?

I rather expect you just write feeble messages criticising one MP that is donating every penny of booksales and newspaper fees to charity.

Your problem appears to be either the political colour of our host or the fact that you don't want charities to receive funds.

Perhaps you could let us no which way it is?

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks Patrick. That says it all. I believe we know who Harry is.

[Paul Flynn]

I would thought that having wriiten 15 years ago that all MP excess income should go to charities, people would have understood by now.

[Brian Thompson]

Dare I say it, as I am as welcome as a pig in a synagogue around here, but I sniff hypocrisy on the part of Mr. Flynn again.

I may be wrong - and please Mr. Flynn correct me if I am, but I do not recall your public outrage at the time that Bernie Ecclestone bribed - and Tony Bliar accepted - the Labour party into changing their position on tobacco advertising in 1997.

It had taken the previous Tory administration 18 years to become that sleazy; it took Mr. Bliar's Labour administration 6 months to do so. Ineptly at that, as they had to hand the money back, so Bernie got what he wanted without having to cough for it.

I'm all for cleaning up poltics, and quickly, but this is not an issue in which one political party is uniquely worse than any of the others.

In the circumstances, therefore, I say that your post is rather hypocritical. If, however, you did indeed speak out against the Ecclestone donation in 1997, I withdraw that charge, but would still argue that it's political point scoring. How about, for example, the unions' contributions to Labour?

[D.G.]

"Dare I say it, as I am as welcome as a pig in a synagogue around here, but I sniff hypocrisy on the part of Mr. Flynn again."

Can't speak for your welcome Mr Thompson, but I'll be happy to debate you if you could oblige me by taking the trouble to look up and learn to avoid the logical fallacy called "Tu quoque"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

[Harry]

I ask a simple question: How much is Paul Flynn being paid for this book? Will he state publicly, and demonstrate any claim he makes about the end recipient of any money? It is a perfectly fair question to ask, and I don't see why it is controversial. If you think you know who I am, then tell me. I will soon tell you if you are wrong.

[Paul Flynn]

you will have to read the book Harry or the 1997 book to read about excess income. All will be explained.

[Patrick]

Harry
Paul has clearly stated that the book is at nil cost to the public purse and that all roalities will go to charity.

Huw has then reminded you of the above.

You ignore this and ask
"How much is Paul Flynn being paid for this book?"

Paul has produced a book at his own cost. If he is lucky and sells enough books then the publishing costs will be recovered.Should the book produce a profit then this money will go to charity. It's very simple isn't it?

But i know you would rather dwell in a bitter ficticious world and think Paul has been paid (by whom?) Millions of pounds to write a book. He will then stash the money in a taxhaven and pretend to give to charity.

I'm sure should you send Paul your details he will send you a cash breakdown of book costs, sales to date ,and so far cash losses.

Try not to be too saddened by the fact that a sitting MP is not corrupt and that he genuinely wishes people to READ THE FECKING THING rather than make money!