El Barbudo wrote:You are referring to Wilson and the Union leaders, I presume.
Not the same situation at all ... Wilson was trying to get the unions "round the table" to do things that he wanted, not pimping for business.
Also, it was no secret, it was actually announced that it would be taking place, unlike this current sleazy issue.
Nice try though.
There's no real difference, other than justifying to yourself why it only counts as a
bad thing when it's done by the ones you don't like, and it's a contructive or necessary thing when done by the ones you don't mind. Beer and sandwiches gave major political donors access to the highest level of policy and decision making, it wasn't a strange coincidence they were major political donors and therefore major political actors. Just like Labour's "cash for honours" thing wasn't a new thing, people have always paid out in various ways to access politicians/political power, be it lobbyists, donors, campaign groups, pseudo-charity pressure groups etc. It's always happened, the only strange thing is people being surprised by it, or even stranger in your case making some subjective value judgement about when it doesn't count because it's
necessary and
legitimate for those particular interests to get the attention they are paying for. Besides just because people pay doesn't mean they actually get anything never mind everything they want.
