“And what about the issue of actually selling access to people like Osborne, effectively for Tory funds?”

Why should one voter get privileged access to an elected representative over another, just because the former has more money? It’s elitist, wholly undemocratic, and offers political influence only to those who can afford it.

Selling child slaves, that’s what I’ve heard and nice call Sunny of Dontmindme’s failure to read…again.

It is a giant wing nut welfare circuit for Right wing political apparatchiks

It a giant Wurlitzer machine: Where money comes in from Right wing friendly business people, and that is used to promote right wing propaganda sheets that bring in more money to promote Right wing nonsense spouting think tanks. Round and round it goes. Who knows when the Wurlitzer will stop?

When they are pushing some bullshit , you have to always keep in mind the old adage….. follow the money.

Yes you can argue that Con Home can not show that they have a theoretical conflict of interest. But as the saying goes, you shall know them by their actions. You will be hard pressed to make a case that Con Home is a complient mouthpiece of the party leadership based on its record to date.

Why do I have to explain everything even though it’s up there above? The problem isn’t ConHome’s political bias – everyone is aware of that.

I’m asking: can a site whose revenue stream relies on selling events and intelligence about politicians, and that is dependent on maintaining good relations with them, claim true editorial independence?

Its not like Con Home is ‘Which magazine’. Then you might have a point. If Which offered ‘impartial’ advice on whats the best washer-dryer, but at the same time made money by selling tickets to met the directors of Bosch then I could see your issue. But Con Home is not impartial or neutral, nor does it claim to be. Nor does it need to be for the model to work

No, I dont see your point.