Talk:2010 cash for influence scandal

Really worthy of its own article?

This is not very scandalous is it? Cash for lobbying, all of this content could be elsewhere, and the opposition called for an inquiry, yawn..hardly a scandal, any illegality? no .. yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I reckon so. There will almost certainly be an inquiry, which will renew interest in this and can redirect here. This has been enough to basically ruin any future in politics for Stephen Byers, and possibly the others. The law will almost certainly be changed because of this. I reckon it is worth it. SmokingNewton (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

Byers and all of them are leaving politics, nothing here is illegal, lobbying is a totally normal thing and is active in all aspects of politics. Off2riorob (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but given that Cameron predicted that lobbying would be the next big political scandal... and that this hit every major newspaper and service... I think that this will lead to further reform. It'll probably shape the political scene as much as the Profumo Affair or Cash for Honours. SmokingNewton (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I heard him say that, is there a link to when he actually was saying it? It sounded a bit like, I told you so..Maybe this will have a huge long term affect on something...cash for honors is completely normal and well, sex is normal too, and shock horror, lobbying is normal too..hey lets see, to me it is tiresome titillation for the uneducated masses of the type of hype perpetuated to keep the masses from the real political issues that are truly worthy of print and discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Having googled around... I've failed to find a source of Cameron saying this BEFORE the story broke. This may be because all the ghits are going to this story. Either way, I think it is going to play a big part of the political landscape up until the election. The tories will try to get an inquiry to happen as soon as possible. I'd certainly like to keep it. SmokingNewton (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

Agreed, it is worth keeping and is developing, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've enjoyed working with you on this article, and it has really shaped up. :) SmokingNewton (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All four were members of the Labour Party?

Really? Wasn't Tory Sir John Butterfill for one in the sting as well? I'll put an update tag on the article. Rwendland (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed your template as just previous I had added the conservative name and I thought we have a couple of editors updating so we would get no benefit from the template, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Name, please discuss!

Given that "Cash for Influence" is a well used phrase in British Politics, but hasn't really come up that much with this incident, I'm not sure if it is the appropriate article name. I called it that in a bit of a rush, but only one news source had called it that. I don't just want to change it, so I thought I'd ask around and see what you all think. Perhaps 2010 Parliamentary Lobbying Scandal. I'm not sure. Any thoughts? Or anyone in favour of Keep? SmokingNewton (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say it sounds like a good idea, yes , support the change. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the famous Cash-for-questions affair serving MPs received actual money (even cash) for asking actual questions, crimes in other words. The title "2010 cash for influence scandal", particularly the words "cash" and "scandal", implies that something of equal gravity took place. In 2010, there was, in essence, a journalistic sting operation, where various parliamentarians were caught on camera saying what they might do for a fictitious lobbying firm. As far as I can see, no criminal prosecutions are likely. I'd suggest 2010 parliamentary lobbying affair Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not experienced with article naming policy, I like both of these, my main issue would be to have lobbying in the title, I do see Dormio's point that it is not a big scandal really (no legal charges) so perhaps affair is the more encyclopedic of the two. 2010 parliamentary lobbying affairOff2riorob (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hoon work

Added a bit about Geoff Hoon's interview as I think it is nice to include some details of what he actually said. Hope it is OK (Msrasnw (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

Restored quotes from Hoon - it is not otherwise clear what he was doing. Offering to help US private equity takeover EU companies. Also do we have a source for our quote that he wanted to make some "some real money"? It does not seem to be in our ref no. 12. I think we could do with some more info. on Hewitt's claims about having helped her private health companies interests getting access to NHS stuff(Msrasnw (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC))

Personally IMO you are getting carried away and adding excessive detail and quoted commentry, what is this hoon work, is that an australian thing, anyway, imo attempting to add the whole transcript to the article body is worthless, we have a link to it which is more than enough. There is a cite to making real money, if not it is easy to add one. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you have reverted again, well enjoy your addition, it is detrimental to the article imo, but carry on, also please, you have been here long enough now, I personally have spent time formating them, your citations are in need of formating, if you don't know how to do that, feel free to ask me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Do other editors think the Hoon work section is a good addition to the article? It looks like a large quote from the show and is cited to the primary location, the show video, the section title also Hoon work is wrong according to MOS headers Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 cash for influence scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217015435/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/Politics/Geoff-Hoon-Stephen-Byers-And-Geoff-Hoon-Could-All-Be-Banned-From-Houses-Of-Parliament/Article/201012215850598?lpos=Politics_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15850598_Geoff_Hoon%2C_Stephen_Byers_And_Geoff_Hoon_Could_All_Be_Banned_From_Houses_Of_Parliament to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Geoff-Hoon-Stephen-Byers-And-Geoff-Hoon-Could-All-Be-Banned-From-Houses-Of-Parliament/Article/201012215850598?lpos=Politics_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15850598_Geoff_Hoon,_Stephen_Byers_And_Geoff_Hoon_Could_All_Be_Banned_From_Houses_Of_Parliament

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 cash for influence scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326203601/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23818081-cameron-dashes-tory-butterfills-peerage-hopes-after-lobby-firm-boasts.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23818081-cameron-dashes-tory-butterfills-peerage-hopes-after-lobby-firm-boasts.do
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Geoff-Hoon-Stephen-Byers-And-Geoff-Hoon-Could-All-Be-Banned-From-Houses-Of-Parliament/Article/201012215850598?lpos=Politics_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15850598_Geoff_Hoon%2C_Stephen_Byers_And_Geoff_Hoon_Could_All_Be_Banned_From_Houses_Of_Parliament

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)