Jul 20 2007
I want more change from David Cameron
The main parties would be quite wrong to breathe a collective sigh of relief about the absence of prosecutions, and then carry on raising large sums from individual donors as if nothing had happened. They would also be wrong to think the public would instead like to pay more tax to underwrite big budgets at party HQs.
Instead they should do the following:
1. Agree a limit of say
RSS Feed
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
How laudable to read that you write “The biggest change I want is to the way we undertake politics, moving away from the big budget top down model that has gripped all three main parties in recent years.”
David Cameron wouldn’t appear to share your views according to a report by Andrew Pierce in today’s Daily Telegraph which reported that “David Cameron has been privately rebuffed by his party’s most senior MPs after trying to restrict them from speaking out on contentious issues……Mr Cameron demanded that statements from party groups should be first cleared through Conservative Party headquarters”. Yet another sign I fear that you chose the wrong man to lead your party.
I quote from the above, ‘We want a more honest politics’ - well said, indeed we do!
A start could be made by senior and long-sitting MPs holding true to the policies they initially stated as ‘core-beliefs’.
Cameron was and remains a nothing. Now it is obvious that actual voters have more than taken this fact on board, what will those who entered politics espousing basic conservative and democratic beliefs now do about it?
Carry on taking the money appears the answer from a brief read of this blog!
The Democratic Deficit is not now mainly in the EU, it is in the lack of a courageous and principled opposition - that seems to me the main reason why Yates has been frustrated. With Cameron leading the opposition the Brown government feels free to do as it wishes and even the most articulate members on the opposition benches appear as if gagged.
JR: “The main parties would be quite wrong to breathe a collective sigh of relief about the absence of prosecutions,”
You bet they would. We have seen blatant flouting of the law. In my opinion, the fact that there were no prosecutions does nothing but suggest there has been a conspiracy to pervert..
JR: “Instead they should do the following:”
John, this is rubbish and you know it. The whole degenerate “loans” for lordships” scandal came about because the Blair administration wanted to find a way of circumventing the existing law on contributions to political parties. The leaders of the political parties have flouted the existing law, why do you think they will obey the letter (or the spirit) of some new regulation?
No. Political parties should be funded exclusively from membership subscriptions, and possibly loans in the commercial market at commercial terms and rates (nor exempt from bankruptcy either), same terms Joe (or Jane) Bloggs would get if he/she wanted to raise a loan to start a business. Membership numbers and all subscriptions should be audited by an independent body (perhaps Comptroller & Auditor General), and all such information should be in the public domain.
If a party can’t manage on its membership subs, TOO BAD.
JR: “Agree a limit of say
If the party asked candidates and MPs to do more of there own speech and policy work, would there be a risk of the party seeming incoherent? Even worse, uncleared speeches may cause upsets within the Party.
Reply: Certainly not - why should MPs be less conherent than researchers? The problem with researchers doing it, is they keep changing and do not know what previous researchers wrote.