Does Ed Miliband have no shame?

Ed Miliband: the leader of the Labour party, a member of the last Labour government wants us to believe that he is against 'crony capitalism'.

It seems that I am not alone in thinking this somewhat brazenly amnesiac.

The Labour party is after all the party of Drayson, Powderject & vaccines, Benneton, Mills/Jowell, Ecclestone & Formula 1 smoking ad ban, Lakshmi Mittal & letters to the Romanian Government, 'Sir' Gulam Noon, Hinduja passports, the Union Modernisation Fund, “we must do something for Branson, Tony”, Paul Myners, Loans for Lordships, etc. etc. etc.

Against crony capitalism? How stupid does Ed Miliband think we are?

How much s**t do the BBC think they can throw at the Conservatives so as to expunge the memory of the Labour years?



Thanks to Alex Masterley and Guido Fawkes for some of the examples.

Seems somehow appropriate

News that there are "fears that it (the Labour party) could emerge from the campaign bankrupt" seems somewhat appropriate as they have all but bankrupted the UK during their 12 years of misrule.

Something struck me in the above Times report

"... others who chose not to convert loans into donations, including Rod Aldridge, the former head of Capita, and Richard Caring, the owner of The Ivy restaurant, are still owed money. "

I thought that in order for these sums to be categorised as loans they had to be for a defined period and at a commercial rate of interest; am I wrong?

Labour party finances

I believe that the Labour party accounts are due to be signed off soon and that there are fears amongst the Labour party that their accountants may feel that they have to "qualify" the accounts. Any qualification would, I presume, be a "going concern" one.

A "going-concern" qualification is an explanatory paragraph that states that the independent auditors have substantial doubts about the ability of the entity being audited to continue to meet its obligations as and when they fall due over the next 12 months.

I have blogged before, querying how long loans to the Labour party can be extended, often with the interest rolled up, before the loans can be deemed to have in fact been donations. More interestingly, the benefits of loaning or donating money to the Labour party are diminishing as the Labour party looks more and more like being on its way out of power within the next 23 months. So will the wealthy individuals who have large loans outstanding to the Labour party now decide that they would like that money back and if so how will the Labour party pay it back? If they cannot pay it back then they are "trading insolvent". Under UK law, if a company is trading insolvent, then the company directors may be liable for wrongful trading. If the director knew or should have known that the company could not avoid becoming insolvent but still continues to trade then he or she must cease to trade immediately and take steps to liquidate the company. Under UK law, trading while insolvent can trigger several provisions under the Insolvency Act 1986 which may have the effect of making directors of a company personally liable to contribute to the assets of a company.

The coming months may be rather interesting ...

The loans

If Gordon Brown didn't know about the "secret loans", then shouldn't he have known about them? Odd for a control freak to have had no knowledge of how his party was being funded.

When is a loan not a loan?

The Financial Times reports that:

"Labour is in emergency talks to renegotiate more than £10m of loans from wealthy businessmen to prevent itself running out of money.

Most of the millionaires who secretly lent money to Labour in the run-up to the 2005 election ought to be repaid in the coming months but the party – which is £20m in the red – is in no position to do this.

As a result, it is holding combined talks with all the lenders to find a single agreement that would allow the party to stagger repayments over up to nine years. An announcement is just weeks away, according to sources on both sides of the discussions."

Some thoughts come to mind:
Can the Labour Party meet it's debts as and when they fall due? If not, does that mean they are trading whilst insolvent?

How many times can a "loan" be rolled over before it is a donation not a loan?

The "loans" were claimed to have been made on commercial terms, have the terms been made public on any of these "loans"?



Now look out for the Labour Party suggesting that the state funding of political parties is the best solution to the "democratic deficit" in this country. They could use their large majority to get this into place before the next election and will choose to base the calculations for the funding on an average of the votes received at the last three elections so as to avoid the full impact of the coming election.