Questions for Cameron Over Scandal

1:38 pm - March 25th 2012

by Newswire    

      Share on Tumblr

The Sunday Times Insight team and Labour have posed several questions to the Conservative party and David Cameron himself that they will now find hard to ignore.

Here are some of those questions.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Michael Dugher MP, Labour’s Shadow Minister Without Portfolio, has today written to David Cameron calling on him to launch a full inquiry and answer vital questions surrounding claims that direct access was granted in return for sizeable cash donations to the Conservative Party.

His letter asks the following questions:

In Opposition you said that “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. I agree. It is vital that we now have full transparency in this matter. Therefore I would ask you for immediate clarity on the following issues:

· Which donors to the Conservative Party have visited No10 Downing Street, Chequers or Dorneywood since May 2010?

· Which donors to the Conservative Party have made submissions to the Number 10 Policy Unit, both orally and written, when were these made, and on what topics?

· In particular, in light of this week’s Budget, will you provide details of all donors who have made representations, both written and orally, on changes to the 50p tax rate?

· In the light of these allegations can you explain why – as reported in the Independent newspaper on 22 October 2011 – you personally intervened in the Sir Christopher Kelly’s investigation into party funding to request that the Committee on Standards in Public Life revise draft proposals to introduce a cap on large donations – a proposal which if implemented would have prevented such allegations of large cash donations for access ever arising?

Elsewhere, Sturdy Alex raises an important point:

The Ministerial Code, published by his own government only days after they took power, makes it crystal clear that a breach occurs not only when a conflict of interest arises, but when a minister puts themselves in a position which gives the appearance of a conflict. It states: “It is a well established and recognised rule that no Minister should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him or her under an obligation“.

A quarter of a million is a hell of a gift. Cameron should explain why the Code does not apply to him.

And since it looks like the scandal will continue running, Cameron is unlikely to be able to duck these questions easily.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  

About the author

· Other posts by

Story Filed Under: News ,top

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Reader comments

1. scandalousbill

From the tapes it is abundantly clear that Cruddas unabashedly outlined that government facilities were used for the sole intwernal purposes of the Conservative party and that the Prime Minister was obviously complacent with, if not a knowing advocate of, this arrangement. It would seem that this clearly violates the cabinet and parliamentary codes of conduct and very possibly the law.

You have to love politicians trying to escape when they’ve been caught red handed.

It’s OK, he may have been offering access to the PM and Chancellor for cash but he didn’t get caught actually receiving any money. What’s the problem?

I bet those accounts will be getting a good going over at the moment. Lets just hope nothing is accidentally dropped in a shredder.

I just love the response from them

We have not received any donation from that meeting.

Of course you haven’t you morons it was an undercover
Sting and you were caught red handed.

4. @anyapalmer

Re gay marriage I have listened to the recording very carefully. The STInsight team tweet suggests the eminent donor wrote a “paper for the No.10 Policy Unit”. In fact Cruddas says the donor wrote an “article” (not a “paper”) which suggests it was published. The eminent donor is also “in the House of Lords now”.

There is one member of the House of Lords who has written an article on same sex marriage: Lord Carey wrote an article for the Mail just last month, headed “Marriage will ONLY remain the bedrock of society if it is between a man and a woman.” ( I am not aware of any other member of the House of Lords writing an article on gay marriage recently.

So the video suggests Lord Carey has been using his position as a party donor to lobby against gay marriage behind the scenes. I would ask Carey himself whether there is any truth in the suggestion (a) that he is a donor to the party and/or (b) in the suggestion that he has been lobbying against gay marriage behind the scenes.

The other question I would ask is what is the policy committee which Cruddas claims “hears” these concerns. No.10 is denying that the committee exists. Who then was sent a copy of Carey’s article?

5. Just Visiting

Hi Sunny

not sure if there would be a better thread for this.

Your site has recently been promoting (bottom RHS column) the Chinese supplier DHGate.

I guess you’re doing this for financial gain?

You are aware I guess, that there are many, many unhappy customers of theirs, saying on the FaceBook page that DHgate are a scam ?

Cruddas worked as deputy treasure to the Conserative Party before he was promoted to the top job when his boss, Lord Fink, retired earlier this month. It’s hard to believe that Cameron and Fink were completely unaware of how he operated.

7. Dick the Prick

As a resident brown shirt, Nazi, Tory troll, I would just like to express my discombobulation and satirical bafflement as to what the hell constitutes the upper echelons of the once meritocratic Tory Party. That the guy never even did the most preliminary of vetting before spouting egregious shit. The defence that they never received any cash could perhaps be countered with the fact that they published the story on the front page of the fricking Times! Coulson, Cruddas, Fox have all been sacked for what should have been identified by internal probity. Good luck to Labour on this, and with all genuine sincerity; it’s a bloody disgrace and it’s not like there’s an election in 6 weeks or owt; doylens, the lot of ’em.

For 250,000 £, you could even speak to ME.

“We will throw Clegg in for free” HA HA HA

From the horses mouth. Nothing sums up Clegg’s position in the so called joint Govt than this. He is a laughing stock, both in the tory party and the public at large. And what is more the tories are humiliating him on a almost weekly basis.

And he is now showing signs of battered wife syndrome. The more he gets battered the more he comes back for more beatings.

MEMO to Lib Dems…….He is destroying your party.

Sally: “MEMO to Lib Dems…….He is destroying your party.”

FWIW my impression is that Clegg, like Blair, is serving his own personal agenda.

He doesn’t want to bring the coalition government down. Come the next general election in 2015, he will have served as deputy PM for five years and that will be a good base from which to move into a job in a lobbying firm, a top spot in an investment bank or a consultancy or a move back to working in the EU Commission.

Gosh, who’d have thought it? Especially of the Heirs to Blair.

But remember, the real scandal is trade union funding of the Labour Party. The party that now has the eight-point lead enjoyed by John Major when the votes were cast in 1992, and which is therefore on course for the 20-seat overall majority that he received.

Conservative support was underestimated because people were reluctant to own up to it. Yet, in the privacy of the polling booth, they still saw that party as the last line of defence, against a profoundly alien and hostile elite, of everything by which the majority culture defined itself.

Faced with the assault on the NHS, national pay agreements, the Post Office, the road network, the countryside, the remaining specialness of Sunday, and the institution of marriage, something very similar now obtains.

12. Man on Clapham Omnibus

@11 utter nonsense.

Interesting the way the partisan BBC covered the issue this morning on the wireless. The real issues somewhat glossed over with much accent Labour funding and on whether the Unions should now facilitate an opt in clause for political donations.

13. Man on Clapham Omnibus

@9 Sally

Clearly you no nothing about battered wives and probably if a battered wife read your contribution would be deeply offended.

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Heidi Blake

    The questions that the Prime Minister now has to answer over #CashforCameron scandal

  2. John Nor

    Whoa. "The questions that the Prime Minister now has to answer" – A must-read #CashForCameron summary via @Sunny_Hundal

  3. Hermes Trismegistus

    Questions for David Cameron Over Scandal #ukpoli #UK

  4. sunny hundal

    Whoa. "The questions that the Prime Minister now has to answer" – A must-read #CashForCameron summary via @Sunny_Hundal

  5. Jon Wright

    Whoa. "The questions that the Prime Minister now has to answer" – A must-read #CashForCameron summary via @Sunny_Hundal

  6. Simon

    Whoa. "The questions that the Prime Minister now has to answer" – A must-read #CashForCameron summary via @Sunny_Hundal

  7. Jamie Cartwright

    Whoa. "The questions that the Prime Minister now has to answer" – A must-read #CashForCameron summary via @Sunny_Hundal

  8. A bloke from Norwich

    Hell hath no fury like a Murdoch scorned. That goes for you too Ted Milliband & you Auntie Beeb (via @sunny_hundal)

  9. Tweeter

    Whoa. "The questions that the Prime Minister now has to answer" – A must-read #CashForCameron summary via @Sunny_Hundal

  10. Paul de Gregorio

    Questions for Cameron Over Scandal | Liberal Conspiracy via @FoolFromTheHill

  11. Janet Graham

    Whoa. "The questions that the Prime Minister now has to answer" – A must-read #CashForCameron summary via @Sunny_Hundal

  12. R M Wragg Sykes

    Whoa. "The questions that the Prime Minister now has to answer" – A must-read #CashForCameron summary via @Sunny_Hundal

  13. Stuart Rodger

    Questions for Cameron Over Scandal

  14. Questions for Cameron Over Scandal « jerrywaggon1

    […] Source: […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.