IAP Political Forum
November 23, 2008, 02:22:34 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Support IAP -- join "High Society" with less fuss. Click "paid subscriptions" from your profile.
 
   Home   Blog Forum   Help Search Chat Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Question about UK Parliament  (Read 465 times)
petalhead
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 4


View Profile
« on: February 11, 2008, 08:12:47 AM »

How legitimate is activity beyond Parliament?

And except for pressure groups what "activity" would there be? Would sponsorship be included in that???

Answers on the back of a postcard please.
Logged
IamMe
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +39/-126
Posts: 1,271



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2008, 02:54:47 PM »

What do you mean by activity?
Logged

\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell

If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
petalhead
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2008, 04:23:10 PM »

im not sure..

i think activity that isnt legitimised by parliament... you know, because parliament is legitimate in that we decide who is there..
so to what extent are pressure groups for example, legitimate...
And then there are other factors that influence government...

Logged
petalhead
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2008, 03:08:14 PM »

let me re phrase the question!

Do what extent are pressure groups legitimate?

Logged
Viv.
Full Member
***

Karma: +31/-3
Posts: 244



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2008, 10:45:54 AM »

I still don't understand the question.

But if you mean can people contribute financial backing to a political candidate, yes, they can but it must be transparently done.  There are anti-corruption regulations which must be adhered to...and constant rows over people making contributions obscurely.

For example, in the most recent "scandal" a businessman anonymously contributed to the finances of the party he supported.  That is not allowed.

He did so via a friend, to protect his anonymity.  The Press detected it and now everyone knows his name...

Logged

Z.A.Spaven
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2008, 11:05:23 AM »

I still don't understand the question.

But if you mean can people contribute financial backing to a political candidate, yes, they can but it must be transparently done.  There are anti-corruption regulations which must be adhered to...and constant rows over people making contributions obscurely.

For example, in the most recent "scandal" a businessman anonymously contributed to the finances of the party he supported.  That is not allowed.

He did so via a friend, to protect his anonymity.  The Press detected it and now everyone knows his name...



I wouldn't put scandal within inverted commas, it was a scandal.  Contrary to what Labour politicians might suggest, the party is corrupt, so it is perfectly feasible to believe that the donations were shrouded by this same corruption.
Logged
Viv.
Full Member
***

Karma: +31/-3
Posts: 244



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2008, 03:16:42 PM »

I still don't understand the question.

But if you mean can people contribute financial backing to a political candidate, yes, they can but it must be transparently done.  There are anti-corruption regulations which must be adhered to...and constant rows over people making contributions obscurely.

For example, in the most recent "scandal" a businessman anonymously contributed to the finances of the party he supported.  That is not allowed.

He did so via a friend, to protect his anonymity.  The Press detected it and now everyone knows his name...



I wouldn't put scandal within inverted commas, it was a scandal.  Contrary to what Labour politicians might suggest, the party is corrupt, so it is perfectly feasible to believe that the donations were shrouded by this same corruption.


Everything is relative.  The Tories were much worse IMO.
Corruption hasn't really been substantiated yet, has it?  For example, bendy Wendy of Scottish Labour seems not to be guilty. 
I heard that businessman in radio interview, he just didn't want to be pestered by the press, so passed the funds through his friend. 
Corrupt?  Possibly.  Naive at best.
One might say definitely corrupt, depending on where you're coming from and which political affiliations instruct your opinion.
Logged

zx128k
Newbie
*

Karma: +2/-1
Posts: 14


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2008, 02:23:20 PM »

Do you mean Quango's?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.344 seconds with 27 queries.