50% of Tory funding comes from the city.

[frogstamper]

I wonder if this has any bearing on Osbourne's inability to reach an accommodation with the banks?

I don't like the idea of state funded political parties but I can't see any other way of making funding transparent and clean, whether it be the unions or the city neither of these two are doing from an altruistic stand-point, they want influence in government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...nancial-sector

[Paul K]

The banks/ City know they have the upper hand here anyway, if the government tries to slap them too hard they will pull their main offices out of the country and go elsewhere. This government is doing too much too quickly and is now looking for quick fixes to shore up the finances.

[Derek]

All might not be as it seems.

http://order-order.com/2011/02/09/bu...ctor-clouseau/

According to the BIJ “The biggest individual City backer of the Tories is David Rowland, who has contributed £4.013m in just two years.” Anyone who has read even only the business pages of the Guardian will tell you that David Rowland is a property developer, not a City financier.

Subtract Rowland from the BIJ’s own dubious numbers and all of sudden the reality behind the headline “City Bankrolled Tory Election Campaign“ becomes less exciting, with their own self-selected top ten of remaining City donors giving the Tories a mere 9% of their funds. Even then it is the case that the individuals gave their money out of their own pockets – and not one single one of them works for a bailed out bank.

Sensationalist, misleading and wrong on the single most significant piece of data.*Yuba Bessaoud is one of the hacks behind the piece, Guido can vouch that he is a great guy for a night out, but he isn’t a financial journalist, he is a Labour Party loyalist

[Ignitionnet]

Fabulous comments on that story.

Zero surprise it's tosh but good to be reminded again that the Guardian is every bit as capable of printing left-wing garbage as the Mail is right-wing garbage.

Ah, but the Grauniad does it with such serious, po-faced self assuredness, you're left thinking they can't possibly be wrong. At least the Daily Fail has the decency to froth round the mouth a bit.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Fabulous comments on that story.

Zero surprise it's tosh but good to be reminded again that the Guardian is every bit as capable of printing left-wing garbage as the Mail is right-wing garbage.

Yes frankly I'm surprised anyone believes anything they print these days but I guess it helps if they're 'saying' what you want to 'hear'.....

---------- Post added at 09:46 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

The banks/ City know they have the upper hand here anyway, if the government tries to slap them too hard they will pull their main offices out of the country and go elsewhere. This government is doing too much too quickly and is now looking for quick fixes to shore up the finances.

Taking their taxes with them.... Not to mention that since we own so much of 2 of the biggest, HMG needs the banks to be successful and profitable if we're ever going to get all our money back plus a little bit on top by way of a 'golden thankyou'.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

Ah, but the Grauniad does it with such serious, po-faced self assuredness, you're left thinking they can't possibly be wrong. At least the Daily Fail has the decency to froth round the mouth a bit.

It also openly admits to being 'Centre-Left', however if the readership is also 'Centre-Left' to them its content is 'Centrist'.

All a matter of perspective. No doubt to a Daily Fail reader most of that waste of paper that could be Andrex is fairly mainstream too.

This is why we need to get rid of the laws about TV coverage, it adds to the entertainment when the media can be flagrantly biased instead of having to try and be subtle about it

---------- Post added at 12:36 ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Taking their taxes with them.... Not to mention that since we own so much of 2 of the biggest, HMG needs the banks to be successful and profitable if we're ever going to get all our money back plus a little bit on top by way of a 'golden thankyou'.

Shush Osem, everyone knows that the Laffer Curve is a work of fiction. You can tax the right people infinitely for political expediency and they'll keep paying.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

It also openly admits to being 'Centre-Left', however if the readership is also 'Centre-Left' to them its content is 'Centrist'.

Not Necessarily. I consider myself centre-left and understand it's a centre left paper, I would suggest a lot of it's readers are aware of this fact. People are capable of knowing their own bias.

[Ignitionnet]

Centrist was a bad choice of words, 'mainstream' was better.

[bonzoe]

Haven't they always provided a large part of the funding, just as the unions fund labour?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by bonzoe

Haven't they always provided a large part of the funding, just as the unions fund labour?

Not so much actually. They were funding Labour quite heavily during the Blair years.

Of course this was fine, just as Labour now receiving 80% of their funding from trade unions is likewise fine.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

I wonder if this has any bearing on Osbourne's inability to reach an accommodation with the banks?

I don't like the idea of state funded political parties but I can't see any other way of making funding transparent and clean, whether it be the unions or the city neither of these two are doing from an altruistic stand-point, they want influence in government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...nancial-sector

I have said it before and will say it again, for a while now (maybe forever?) the rich and pwoerful have always had too much say due to party funding and access to ministers.

State funding isnt perfect but is better than what we have now, although it wont stop behind closed door bribes tho.

---------- Post added at 00:12 ---------- Previous post was at 00:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Not so much actually. They were funding Labour quite heavily during the Blair years.

Of course this was fine, just as Labour now receiving 80% of their funding from trade unions is likewise fine.

It was wrong then also, to me the party dont matter but more the fact we have whoever in power effectively been bribed on policies.