Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Did Cameron accept cash for gay marriage?

"£250k will be awesome for your gay marriage cause." These were not quite the words of the former co-treasurer of the Conservative Party, but they might as well have been. Peter Cruddas was actually filmed pimping out David Cameron for a cool £250,000 a bite (it was dinner), with the boast to potential donors that ‘it will be awesome for your business’.

‘Awesome’ = beneficial, cool, great (or the term Americans use to describe everything).

His Grace wouldn’t pay £250k for dinner with the Prime Minister, not merely because his meagre stipend doesn’t quite extend that far, but also because he is more than aware that dinners with politicians are utterly vapid affairs. Paul Goodman has the measure of them (and he should know):
Cameron...asks questions, remembers their children’s names, and listens attentively... When donors thump the table and urge that the Tube drivers all be fired, or that the Dangerous Substances Directive be shredded, or Balmoral be transformed into a tourist attraction, he nods thoughtfully and smiles agreeably.
So what comes of this...? Two things. First, the Prime Minister thanks those present, saying that the evening has been splendid, invaluable – terrific to hear your views. Second, he returns to the bosom of his family, where he reads his wife extracts from Vogue, or plans to bomb Buenos Aires, or plays Angry Birds online, or does whatever else he does in the little private time available to him: at any rate, he immediately forgets about the evening’s dinner.
But His Grace digresses. Mr Cruddas went on to suggest that a ‘premier league’ of donors can contribute policy ideas which are ‘fed in’ to Downing Street’s policy process. While Mr Cruddas swiftly resigned and David Cameron has moved to reassure the public that ‘donations to the Conservative party do not buy party or government policy’, it transpires that an anonymous but ‘eminent’ (gay?) male Conservative Party supporter combined a substantial donation to the Party with a report on same-sex marriage, which he ‘fed’ into the No10 Policy Unit.

Peter Cruddas announced: “His voice has been heard”.

Well, hasn’t it just.

Eagle-eyed Roman Catholic Deacon Nick Donnelly (who runs the excellent Protect the Pope blog) spotted an intriguing tweet by the Sunday Times Insight team, which rather suggests that the ‘eminent donor’ was not only donating his eminent wealth, but also being rather free with his views on sexual morality and equality. Did a cash-for-access donor influence David Cameron’s gay marriage policy?

For some reason, the Conservative Party has not disclosed who submitted the ‘gay marriage’ paper to the No10 Policy Unit. Deacon Nick asks: “What are the links between homosexual lobbyists and the government? Have they paid for access to influence the government?” And he speculates (which, he says, is ‘only natural’) over the identity of such an influential anonymous ‘eminent donor’, especially since the Prime Minister appears to have discovered that same-sex marriage is a thoroughly conservative/Conservative pursuit at around the same time as the ‘eminent donor’ made his donation.

Even Tony Blair knew that the appearance of collusion is profoundly damaging for politics and for the democratic process. Back in 1997, just six months into his premiership, it was revealed that Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One chief, had donated £1million to Labour – a donation only made public after the government had announced F1 would be exempt from a ban on tobacco advertising which was a key plank of Labour’s election manifesto. Mr Ecclestone lobbied for the exemption at a meeting at No10 with Mr Blair just a month before the announcement of the exemption. In the political furore and media mayhem that followed, Mr Blair repeatedly downplayed the link between the donation and the decision to exempt Formula One. But the link was exposed and the source of the exemption policy as plain as the proverbial pikestaff.

But that was a superficial matter of business capitalism: gay marriage is a profound shift in culture, tradition and definition. If some ‘eminent donor’ lobbied David Cameron for a change in the law, and ‘his voice has been heard’, as Peter Cruddas said, as a result of this donation, then it is time for the Prime Minister to disclose both the identity of the donor and the contents of his policy paper.

And this is not a question of being pro or anti same-sex marriage; it is a question of honesty, integrity and transparency. For it certainly appears that, while the public are being denied a genuine consultation on the proposal, a rich individual, who is male and probably gay, is able to purchase influence over Government policy in exchange for a hefty donation to the Conservative Party.

Of course, there is no reason to suppose that the anonymous donor is gay, for many heterosexuals support the cause of ‘gay marriage’ (just as many homosexuals oppose it, but they are conveniently marginalised and discriminated against by the more aggressive gay lobby). For what it’s worth, His Grace thinks Deacon Nick’s guess of Sir Elton John is very wide of the mark. It is more likely to be someone very much younger, openly gay, savvy in business, cool and Cameroon, with political ambitions, and (recently back) on the Approved List of Candidates.


Blogger graham wood said...

This whole grubby business appears to find its fulfillment in Proverbs 17:23.
It is the stock-in-trade of our political class.

27 March 2012 at 10:13  
Blogger Jon said...

Your Grace, Google ad services is now serving a banner for "Uniform Dating" showing two attractive gentlemen in their work attire on the banner at the top of your site.

The Inspector will have a meltdown!

27 March 2012 at 10:24  
Blogger Jon said...

Across the pond, plenty of straight people are intervening in the debate in favour of gay marriage which is profoundly touching. Why not here?


27 March 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 March 2012 at 10:36  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

I always assumed that Cameron was being blackmailed into pushing the radical homosexual agenda by someone who had obtained some highly embarrassing video from his days at uni.

27 March 2012 at 10:38  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Jon, the people intervening in the US on gay marriage are generally in the arts (Madonna and Brad Pitt being 2 of the more notable ones) and as such are either doing it to appear to be aligned with the apparent mood (as they see it) or because they have friends in the business (and let's face it, the percentage of homosexuals is a lot higher in the arts than the world as a whole) who are gay and want to support their friends. Of course, the cynical aspect to that second part is that it can also be seen by gay producers and directors and get them jobs on the future!

27 March 2012 at 11:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

The question as to who the donor was intrigued Ernst with the first mention and as I read I wondered as to the identity.
Someone filthy rich, famous, iconic even to the gay community and worthy therefore of meeting and having on your side, someone that would not want to appear attached to politics but knew it's benefit of approaching the party 'that loves a winner and wants them on their side'. 250k is a pittance to this individual.

Elton John was the name Ernst had arrived at long before your final paragraph!
Hmm..Ernst wonders??

E S Blofeld

27 March 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
It was so sudden after the election that all the Government Ministers 'changed their minds' about the Gay lobby. And then there was the Pink garden party at No.10. (Has there been a garden party for Christian leaders and activists?). Someone is laughing at us all at what he thinks he has achieved. He will be laughing on the other side of his face if God intervenes in this issue. (God does expect us to do our part however).

If Crudas is typical of the Conservative Party Executives, it is no wonder that the ordinary man can't support the Tory's. This old school club obnoxious snobbery does nothing to appeal to the caring Christian who likes many of the Conservative policies but has a social conscience.
How much were you paid for that Gay add. and I will reimburse you. It is offensive. Or are you the subject of a sting to sue you if you failed to take any adverts thrown at you?

27 March 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

‘Awesome’ = beneficial, cool, great (or the term Americans use to describe everything).

We do? When did I miss this cultural trend?


27 March 2012 at 13:00  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.

Carl, This must all apply to you. Blogging at 7.00am latest!

27 March 2012 at 13:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The post presents the facts as a case of correlation equals causation. Cash for policy influence. But there is another possibility. There are many natural laws in the universe that describe behavior. Newton and his Laws of Motion. Kepler and Orbital Mechanics. And then there is this:

Marketing people flatter. And they lie.

Let's say my name is Quentin Pembroke III, and I have a lot of money. I also have a very high opinion of my opinions. I am in fact quite concerned about Japanese whaling in Antarctica, its long-term impact on the ecosystem, and its cruel butchery on another sentient being. I talk about it all the time, and especially about redefining 'personhood' to include whales.

I meet one Mr Peter Cruddas whose job it is to raise money for the Conservative Party. Mr Cruddas assures me that the Prime Minister would be very receptive to such a discussion. In fact, I might be able to speak to him at an upcoming dinner gathering. It's a fund raiser, so it would require the purchase of a ticket for £250k. But he reassures me that others have spoken to the Prime Minister about serious subjects and ... "Their voice has been heard."

What is Mr Cruddas selling? The illusion of influence. He doesn't actually say "Give us the money, and we will do what you want." He says "Purchase access and you will have the opportunity of getting your voice heard." Well, yes, hearing a voice isn't quite the same as acting on the information contained within. It's a sleazy marketing dodge. But that's what marketing is. Separating people from their money by selling an illusion.

It's hard for me to believe that a politician would sell a re-definition of marriage for £250k. Granting an exemption for advertising is one thing. But wading into a bitter political fight with high risk and high cost just doesn't seem like a good deal for that amount of money. Besides, gay marriage is the kind of thing a political party does for large strategic and tactical reasons. It's not a cheap commodity like tobacco advertising.

I see some smoke here. But I don't see a gov't selling policy. I see a marketing guy separating people from their money. That's mostly what politicians do, isn't it? Separate people from their money?


27 March 2012 at 13:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

To be clear, it wasn't me if anyone
was wondering.

27 March 2012 at 15:23  
Blogger Jon said...

Youthpasta - maybe, but that's not what the article in the NYT is saying which cites specific individuals and refutes the allegation that it's wholly from the entertainment industry. Where's your evidence?

27 March 2012 at 15:36  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

So how much will dave accept to reverse it,the bidding seems to start at 250.000,any offers?,i expect the paedophilia will top that ,750.000 at least,what does ladbrookes say?

27 March 2012 at 16:13  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Jon, which article are you referring to?

27 March 2012 at 16:58  
Blogger Jon said...

The link I posted in my comment at 27 March 2012 10:29

27 March 2012 at 17:37  
Blogger Jon said...

Mr Integrity - the gay lobby was well entrenched in the Tory party before the election. We don't leave things like that to chance!!

27 March 2012 at 17:38  
Blogger Oswin said...

Rambling Steve Appleseed @ 10:38 : you were not alone in thinking that.

27 March 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

It'll have been a Jesuit plotting the downfall of civilisation as we know it.

27 March 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Jacobs are you presuming to lecture us on our understanding of colonial slang? Remember, this is a catholic blog and we can take liberties if we choose.

Jon said...
Across the pond, plenty of straight people are intervening in the debate in favour of gay marriage which is profoundly touching. Why not here?

Ah, how sweet they are and so, so touching that they support such a down trodden and disadvantaged group as the homosexual lobby when people are dying on the streets in their country.

Being straight is no indication of being moral. Neither is being rich. Money clearly corrupts and these people are probably bored and want to inflate their egos even more than they are by siding with a 'trendy' cause supported by so many #cool' celebrities .

Donate the millions to worthy causes, I say.

27 March 2012 at 21:46  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Dodo 21.46


See latest thread-ABOVE- for comments- don't disappoint- or I'll call you inspector (given that he is accusing other communicants of being some-one else- don't let your fellow altar boy down!).


27 March 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Have you been on the sherry, young woamn?

27 March 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

An example of what I mean. Millions and millions on homosexual issues but look at what £19 can achieve!

Buy the Real Gift of helping to plant an allotment - £19
"Here in Scotland, keeping allotments is a popular hobby, but for rural communities in developing countries, they are an indispensable source of food and income. In the Chocó region of Colombia, four out of five people live below the poverty line. This gift will give some of these people seeds and tools to grow a wide variety of crops."

27 March 2012 at 23:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


[T]his is a catholic blog and we can take liberties if we choose.

But Dodo. I am quite used to Catholics taking liberties. With doctrine. With Scripture. With Truth...


28 March 2012 at 01:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Small 'c' dear man, small 'c'. As in universal.

28 March 2012 at 01:54  
Blogger Jon said...

I tell you what, Dodo. I'll take advice from you on the allocation of my money when your Church divests itself of the billions and billions it has in swiss bank accounts and property around the world and buys an allotment for every person living on less than $3 a day worldwide.

Until then, St Peter's is a whitewashed tomb and your church is a clanging cymbal.

28 March 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

So you know how the Vatican spends its money, do you? Do tell.

Meantime, take a look at the obscene amounts of money going into, well, obscene causes by your little tribe of ever so sophisticated, and so, so touching social vandals.

28 March 2012 at 11:26  
Blogger Jon said...

No Dodo, but I know it has rather a lot of it, that it came by quite a bit of it unfairly, and at no point in his ministry does Jesus call his Church to amass wealth, buildings or paintings. Since you're so clearly in contravention of Jesus' teachings on the love of money, what's to stop you contravening his teaching elsewhere? Oh yeah, because being wealthy helps Catholicism SpA to retain its global ability to bully the poor whilst turning a blind eye to the wealthy and powerful's sin's.

In the case of my "tribe", it's our money and we don't claim a biblical mandate - after all, if we didn't spend it on fripperies like trying to get legal recognition for our relationships, we'd just pay more tax which goes on subsidising your church's business activities, your kids and your married couples' allowance. Well, that or therapy on the NHS for the Inspector.

I don't mind the Church having money - I respect great businesses, and you can't deny that the Church hasn't made a lot of money over the years - Satan must be jealous! Or maybe it's what he wanted all along. After all - those buildings make you proud, eh?

28 March 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

So bitter and angry with the Church. That sect, albeit Anglican, must have done a real number on you.

Jesus never condemned wealth in itself - he condemned putting it before God. And the Bible tells us it the love of money that is the root of all evil.

The Catholic Church has missionaries throughout the world dedicated to the poor and suffering - spiritually and temporally.

Of course it's their money. If they want to waste it on advancing the cause of sham marriage for homosexuals, fine. Just don't claim they are being sweet and touching.

One can obtain tax relief on any charitable giving. So if you want to avoid paying tax Google CAFOD or SCIAF.

28 March 2012 at 16:13  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - I'm not bitter and angry. I just regret wasting time is all. It's more wistful, although I think I have a pretty good case for being angry if I so chose why would I waste any more time though? As always, you focus your attack on the person you're dealing with rather than their point, so I'll bring you back to it now.

I notice that you actually agree with all my points but you just don't see a problem - the Church sees the suffering of people around the world, and yet chooses to retain its vast financial resources, hedge fund investments, property portfolios, art works, sculptures, vast tracts of land etc. rather than put them to use to help people. Which is pretty much what Jesus did when he set up the first hedge fund in Nazareth all those years ago. No... wait. He didn't did he? No - he told the rich young man to give away all his money because it was coming between him and God.

Rod Eddinngton used to describe BA as an airline with wings. Your Church is a private equity fund with some charities attached. I see the good work CAFOD does - well done them.

So why doesn't the Church sell all those buildings, shareholdings, land investments etc. and just give the money to CAFOD?

Maybe, because it would weaken your Church's temporal power base, and it's in love with the buildings, gold and influence it has? It has Pride. And what was it that caused Satan's fall according to the Bible?

You still haven't answered my point. Try playing the ball not the man.

29 March 2012 at 13:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

What escapes your attention is that the Church has survived to preserve and spread God's message.

It's a hugh world wide organisation. It has no "temporal power" but has a responsibility to influence events. Really, if it did sell everything how much difference would it actually make? The cost would be the destruction of the universal, visible Church. Think of how future generations would suffer.

And Jesus' injunction to the rich man was a particular message. Read beneath the words to grasp their true meaning. Do you really think Jesus was commanding everyone to sell everything?

And yes I do question the man as well as the idea. Can they be seperated?

29 March 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger len said...

What is the 'church'.

Well.... mainly the invention of man .

In the New Testament, the word "church" is a mistranslation if the Greek word ekklesia. "Church" actually comes from the Greek word kyriakon, which means "belonging to the Lord." This word does not occur in the scriptures. So the word "church" does not rightly belong in the English translations.

Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build My ekklesia" (Matthew 16:18). The word ekklesia has been defined as "the assembling of the called-out ones." Many of the clergy in the Christian churches interchange the words "congregation" and "church," and so mislead their followers into thinking God established a church. Nowhere in the Holy Scripture does it say that God founded a church through a human leader. King James actually forbade his interpreters to use the word 'ekklesia' and made them use the word 'church instead.This makes the 'church' the property and under the authority of the State, and robs Christ of His 'ekklesia'.Also the Catholic church claims to be the 'church'.

(So Jon do not be too disappointed by what is perceived as the 'church'by most people because it is not 'it'. The 'church is a group of people 'called out ' by God not the' religious system'devised by fallen men.

1 April 2012 at 08:51  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - I think your definition of the Church is different from mine. You don't seriously believe that Jesus is coming back to marry some musty old buildings and a property portfolio, do you?!

The Church is the people, not the accoutrements of wealth that your forbears have corruptly acquired in the sale of indulgences, and licenses to acquire slaves etc. But if you sold it all, the people (and therefore the church) would still exist!

"Really, if it did sell everything how much difference would it actually make?" Well, if the Catholic Church would publish an audit of its wealth, we could find out, but they're very secretive, aren't they? Why would they be secretive if they weren't embarrassed by their wealth?

I have read beneath the words, and you my friend are in love with your Church and its bully pulpit. It shows time and again in the way you bully people. If you were in love with God, you'd have more compassion, and the "fruits of the spirit" would be in evidence.

2 April 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Surely you prefer the direct approach? We're not on here to reinforce one another's views, so why pussyfoot around?

2 April 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger Jon said...

Perhaps, but I still think it's possible to extend a degree of courtesy.

Anyone who has given their views any reasonable thought deserves that respect (and I think the commenters on this blog are mostly of a thoughtful nature even if we disagree). It's hard not to get personal, and I'm sure I have, and will give in to the temptation from time to time, but I think it actually weakens one's over-arching point - certainly one loses any neutral support in the debate by "going personal".

And I do think the way that questions were framed to Dreadnaught on another thread were shocking. We can't guess at what has happened to him, and it's not our place to pry, but it's clear that something truly terrible happened. Whilst we are philosophising "in a vacuum", he has clearly *experienced* something of the issue. Whilst this doesn't give him automatic right to be assumed to be correct, it does mean that we should be considerate of his feelings, even as we may disagree with his course of action.

3 April 2012 at 10:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

You might be right about Dreadnaught in so far as the very first question asked of him was insensitive and hurtfull.

However, he did (mis)use sentiment in the debate about assisted homicide. This is a familiar tactic. Maybe he has responsibility for disclosing this 'in passing' as a throw away line.

Go read through the thread.

3 April 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger Jon said...

I think we're all responsible for our own actions.

I've read the thread and even if you felt that personalising the debate was an unfair tactic, it ill- becomes you or anyone else to reply in kind, except to express sympathy for something which can't have been an easy decision and which certainly would be painful for the rest of one's life.

Anyway - I've made my point, so I won't labour it, but thank you for your response - you're a thoughtful old bird sometimes! ;-)

4 April 2012 at 12:59  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older