The people vs PFI.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Osem

Is that their punishment or ours?

I didn't vote for the privatisation of what few national assets we had left, or for the rank corporatisation of government and divisiveness of setting those with little against those with nothing, so as far as I'm aware I've done nothing worthy of punishment.

I am with the majority of the UK in desiring re-nationalisation of railway operations; privatisation of both network and services having failed.

Still Gideon and Dave's mates won't profit as much out of that, so far better to let corporations part-owned by the French government and others run our railways, subsidised by the British taxpayer, at a profit.

Smear by association - not very nice.

The fact that people went to school / University together, doesn't mean collusion / corruption is happening.

Is this were fact, don't you think it would be headline news?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Smear by association - not very nice.

The fact that people went to school / University together, doesn't mean collusion / corruption is happening.

Is this were fact, don't you think it would be headline news?

Oddly despite the fact that various members of the cabinet are mired in sleaze over taxpayer money going to companies they are involved in or those involved with associates it isn't making that many headlines.

About the only story that's received any real attention is how much of the cabinet / government are profiting personally from NHS contracts.

I guess we are getting used to it and following in the USA's footsteps.

I generally try to be nice but when it comes to politicians who have caused so much pain to so many it's difficult.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Smear by association - not very nice.

The fact that people went to school / University together, doesn't mean collusion / corruption is happening.

Is this were fact, don't you think it would be headline news?

Notwithstanding school & University relationships one only has to look at the history of Balfour Beatty to ascertain and understand the levels of corporate nepotism to which the current Government are party.

The fact that it isn't headline news does not mean it isn't happening.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Smear by association - not very nice.

The fact that people went to school / University together, doesn't mean collusion / corruption is happening.

Is this were fact, don't you think it would be headline news?

No course not Hugh, the fact Gideons best man made millions out of the royal mail giveaway was pure coincidence

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No course not Hugh, the fact Gideons best man made millions out of the royal mail giveaway was pure coincidence

And that is exactly an example of what I was highlighting.

Someone who George Osborne has known since University, and who was his best man in 1998, is on Lansdownes Partners (one of the biggest hedge funds in the world) management, and when the Royal Mail was privatised, that company was one of the many hedge funds who bought shares on behalf of pension funds, charities, etc. - not for employees of Lansdowne. Any profits made by the share price rise belongs to the Pension Funds, etc.

If you can provide a link showing Paul Davies personally made millions from the Royal Mail privatisation, or that Lansdowne were given preferential treatment by the Chancellor, I would, of course, change my mind.

Not even the Daily Mail have claimed that, but what a lot of people have done is take part of their headline out of context....

Hedge fund linked to George Osborne's best man to make millions from privatisation of Royal Mail after 'buying £50m stake'

George Osborne's best man is among the employees of a hedge fund company that is set to make millions for its investors after landing a £50million stake in Royal Mail.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And that is exactly an example of what I was highlighting.

Someone who George Osborne has known since University, and who was his best man in 1998, is on Lansdownes Partners (one of the biggest hedge funds in the world) management, and when the Royal Mail was privatised, that company was one of the many hedge funds who bought shares on behalf of pension funds, charities, etc. - not for employees of Lansdowne. Any profits made by the share price rise belongs to the Pension Funds, etc.

If you can provide a link showing Paul Davies personally made millions from the Royal Mail privatisation, or that Lansdowne were given preferential treatment by the Chancellor, I would, of course, change my mind.

Not even the Daily Mail have claimed that, but what a lot of people have done is take part of their headline out of context....

Hugh you wouldn't change your mind no matter what, you'll dismiss lansdowne's donations to the conservative party and the gongs they receive as purely coincidental to

So, that's a 'no', then?

Seriously, though, if there was actual corruption on the scale you (and others) intimate, they would lose my vote - but it's all by association, and no actual facts....

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So, that's a 'no', then?

Seriously, though, if there was actual corruption on the scale you (and others) intimate, they would lose my vote - but it's all by association, and no actual facts....

It's a 'i haven't looked', it's pretty undeniable that there is an old boys network/ class system that has infected this country like a cancer.

So you can libel someone, but you haven't looked to see if it's true......

Huge difference between an old boy's network (which I think is wrong) and outright corruption and breaking of laws to favour someone you know....

[ianch99]

They don't need to break the laws since the laws are engineered in their favour. Look at the recent rate fixing attempts by the banks - no one is going to prison there.

What jobs do ministers regularly have when they are in and have left office? Answer: big business. Only a fool would deny that politicians who support the free market would engineer policies that favour business, the same companies that they then go on and work for after leaving office.

Ministers should be not allowed to work in business for min. 2 years after leaving office to stop this conflict of interest. They also should not be allowed to hold other jobs while they govern the country.

What we see and have seen on a depressing scale over the past decades is state assets, paid for by tax contributions of the majority being sold to an elite set of owners (sometimes foreign) at a knock down price .. all in the name of ideology .. or maybe a better name, greed.

We have a lot of people on this forums trying to stop the poor from the EU coming here and taking our national resources. I am sorry, this has already been done to a large extent except it was not the EU poor doing the robbing.

Until you have a government that is representative of the people they govern, you will always get policies that are align with the vested interests of the politicians. I am reluctant to link to a Daily Mail article but this does illustrate the issue quite well: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/elec...hy-Tories.html

How can you expect millionaires to sponsor bills to close tax loopholes when these very people are, in all probability, using them? How can you not expect the rich to sponsor bills that privatise state-run operations when they would directly or indirectly benefit.

Maybe Dave, we are not all in it together after all?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So you can libel someone, but you haven't looked to see if it's true......

Huge difference between an old boy's network (which I think is wrong) and outright corruption and breaking of laws to favour someone you know....

What's not true Hugh, what's libelous, that he wasn't Gideons best man, that he and lansdowne didn't make millions of the back of the royal mail giveaway, that a former partner of lansdowne made massive donations to the nasty party and then mysteriously achieved a knighthood?

No that huge a difference imo, this country is rotten and we shouldn't be putting up with it.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So, that's a 'no', then?

Seriously, though, if there was actual corruption on the scale you (and others) intimate, they would lose my vote - but it's all by association, and no actual facts....

Maybe some of these (Wikipedia) definitions of corruption would mean your vote is lost?

The word corrupt when used as an adjective literally means "utterly broken". The word was first used by Aristotle and later by Cicero who added the terms bribe and abandonment of good habits.

Morris, a professor of politics: corruption is the illegitimate use of public power to benefit a private interest.

Economist I. Senior defines corruption as an action to (a) secretly provide (b) a good or a service to a third party (c) so that he or she can influence certain actions which (d) benefit the corrupt, a third party, or both (e) in which the corrupt agent has authority.

Kauffman, from the World Bank extends the concept to include 'legal corruption' in which power is abused within the confines of the law - as those with power often have the ability to shape the law for their protection.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

What's not true Hugh, what's libelous, that he wasn't Gideons best man, that he and lansdowne didn't make millions of the back of the royal mail giveaway, that a former partner of lansdowne made massive donations to the nasty party and then mysteriously achieved a knighthood?

No that huge a difference imo, this country is rotten and we shouldn't be putting up with it.

You stated that Peter Davies had himself directly made millions from the Royal Mail sell-off - that isn't true.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No course not Hugh, the fact Gideons best man made millions out of the royal mail giveaway was pure coincidence

The investment funds managed by Lansdowne made profits, yes, (and by the way, Lansdowne got £50 million in the RM share offer, out of their company annual turnover of £18,000 million), so I am not sure what the confusion is, or are you conflating the profits made by the pension funds that Lansdowne manage with Peter Davies personal earnings?

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:26 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

They don't need to break the laws since the laws are engineered in their favour. Look at the recent rate fixing attempts by the banks - no one is going to prison there.

What jobs do ministers regularly have when they are in and have left office? Answer: big business. Only a fool would deny that politicians who support the free market would engineer policies that favour business, the same companies that they then go on and work for after leaving office.

Ministers should be not allowed to work in business for min. 2 years after leaving office to stop this conflict of interest. They also should not be allowed to hold other jobs while they govern the country.

What we see and have seen on a depressing scale over the past decades is state assets, paid for by tax contributions of the majority being sold to an elite set of owners (sometimes foreign) at a knock down price .. all in the name of ideology .. or maybe a better name, greed.

We have a lot of people on this forums trying to stop the poor from the EU coming here and taking our national resources. I am sorry, this has already been done to a large extent except it was not the EU poor doing the robbing.

Until you have a government that is representative of the people they govern, you will always get policies that are align with the vested interests of the politicians. I am reluctant to link to a Daily Mail article but this does illustrate the issue quite well: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/elec...hy-Tories.html

How can you expect millionaires to sponsor bills to close tax loopholes when these very people are, in all probability, using them? How can you not expect the rich to sponsor bills that privatise state-run operations when they would directly or indirectly benefit.

Maybe Dave, we are not all in it together after all?

So, by that logic, no MP sponsored by Unions, or with family in a Union, should be allowed to sponsor or support bills concerning work-place activities, union rights, etc etc....

btw, Ministers cannot have other jobs outside Parliament whilst in office.

btw2, I agree with you regarding ministers and jobs outside - but you may find it difficult to garner support when you comment that only a fool could disagree with you....

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You stated that Peter Davies had himself directly made millions from the Royal Mail sell-off - that isn't true.



The investment funds managed by Lansdowne made profits, yes, (and by the way, Lansdowne got £50 million in the RM share offer, out of their company annual turnover of £18,000 million), so I am not sure what the confusion is, or are you conflating the profits made by the pension funds that Lansdowne manage with Peter Davies personal earnings?

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:26 ----------

So, by that logic, no MP sponsored by Unions, or with family in a Union, should be allowed to sponsor or support bills concerning work-place activities, union rights, etc etc....

btw, I agree with you regarding ministers and jobs outside - but you may find it difficult to garner support when you comment that only a fool could disagree with you....

I think you are fixating of the direct or otherwise culpability of George Osbourne's best man. The elephant in the room is that he should not have been there in the first place. Even the Telegraph objects: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...es-friend.html

You are right, Labour MPs should not be sponsored by Unions, again a conflict of interests.

So do you deny that politicians who support the free market engineer policies that favour business at the expense of the country and its longer term interests?