StatCounter

Showing posts with label Party Funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Party Funding. Show all posts

Wednesday, 5 May 2010

Should the LibDems be allowed the moral highground?

Obviously no; first Michael Brown and now 'LibDems Break Rules on Donations - 73 Times Over'. Iain Dale has the details:
'In the last twelve months there were 75 donations reported to the Electoral Commission up to a year late - and therefore illegally.

Of these, none were from the Conservative Party, two were from the Labour Party and seventy three were from the Liberal Democrats - the whiter than white, holier than thou party.'
The LibDems are whiter than white in a similar way to Tony Blair's New Labour party; ie: not at all.

Tuesday, 27 April 2010

The 'left' and dodgy donations

In the UK the LibDems still refuse to accept that the £2.4 million donation they received from Michael Brown, an international bonds dealer who was found guilty of stealing more than £30m from clients, is tainted money and should be returned. Meanwhile in the US the Barack Obama White House has stated that President Obama will not be returning the over $994,000 he received from Goldman Sachs, even as his Administration brings action against the Wall Street firm for fraud.

That's the great thing about being on the left of politics, no shame.

Monday, 1 March 2010

Nick Robinson tells only part of the Labour equivalents to Lord Ashcroft story

Nick Robinson reports on Lord Ashcroft's statement re his tax-status in a long piece that starts thus:
"At last. The truth is out. The man who's bankrolled the Tories for much of the past decade and has consistently refused to answer questions about his tax status has finally come clean. Michael Ashcroft is a "non-dom" - in other words he's not been paying British taxes on his non-UK earnings throughout the time he's been central to the Conservatives campaigning."
In one comment near the end Nick Robinson does manage to mention one of Labour's non-dom financiers
"Labour MPs have long obsessed about the man they accuse of trying to buy an election in a country in which he does not even bother to be fully resident for tax purposes. Their attack is blunted somewhat by the fact that Gordon Brown made Sraj Paul - a Labour donor and non-dom - a peer and a member of the Privy Council."
But that is it. So for a more extensive list of Labour's money-men, you should turn to Iain Dale:
"latest figures show that since 2001, Labour have taken over £10 million from eight reportedly ‘non-dom’ donors:

• Lord Paul – £69,250 in donations to Labour, including £45,000 to Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign. A close friend of Gordon Brown and appointed to the Privy Council last summer, he has admitted to being ‘non-dom’.
• Lakshmi Mittal - £4.125 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Ronald Cohen - £2.55 million in donations to Labour. Cohen was appointed chair of the Social Investment Taskforce, which was announced by the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown.
• Sir Christopher Ondaatje - £1.7 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Gulam Noon - £532,826 in donations to Labour.
• William Bollinger - £510,725 in donations to Labour.
• Mahmoud Khayami - £985,000 in donations to Labour including £5,000 to Hazel Blears’ deputy leadership campaign. He has helped bankroll two flagship schools, one of which Gordon Brown opened, and was personally thanked for a donation by Tony Blair.
• Dr David Potter - £90,000 in a donation to Labour. He has previously delivered a lecture at Downing Street."
That's just over £10.5 million to Labour from non-doms but to the BBC it's just not a news story.

So since 2001 Labour non-doms have contributed around £7million to Labour's coffers whilst Lord Ashcroft has contributed around £5million to the Conservative party. Yes I can see why the BBC ignore the Labour non-doms.

Sunday, 24 January 2010

Political party funding in the USA

Here's an interesting table, it shows the "Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010" in the USA. Many interesting figures are exposed but I found interesting that the second highest sum of money over this 20 year period was donated by American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees. This organisation donated $41,751,311 of which around 98% went to the Democrats. Just like Unison in the UK, public sector workers know who will look after their interests at the possible expense of the Country's interests.

Monday, 23 February 2009

Re Lord Ashcroft

To the Labour supporters at the BBC rubbing their hands with glee over the possibility of investigating Lord Ashcroft again, I say fine but do also investigate Lakshmi Mittal, Ronnie Cohen and Swaraj Paul. After all what's sauce for the goose...

Of course in the eyes of the left these are entirely different cases. Whilst Lakshmi Mittal, Ronnie Cohen and Swaraj Paul support and contribute to the Labour party - a legitimate political party, Lord Ashcroft supports and contributes to the Conservative party - an unnecessary political party in these times when the Labour party is more than ever "the political wing of the British people".

I would also like an investigation into whether government modernisation grants to the Trade Unions are funnelled to the Labour party via Union donations.

Monday, 21 July 2008

The Labour party have more financial problems

I have blogged many times about the Labour party's financial problems. Now I read in the Independent that
"Labour is to delay repaying its "cash for honours" loans for up to a decade as it attempts to plug a £16m black hole in its finances.

Senior officials are holding urgent talks with wealthy backers about restructuring the debts as the party struggles to stave off a financial crisis. Loans worth millions of pounds are due for review by the end of October – several of them from men who became embroiled in the honours police investigation after they were nominated for peerages.

Party bosses say their wealthy lenders will agree to put loan repayments on hold for a year to allow the debts to be restructured so they can be paid back over between seven and 10 years."

Some questions... Is the Labour party actually insolvent? How long before the Labour government try to introduce state funding for political parties as a way of rescuing their finances?

Thursday, 17 July 2008

Is the Labour party that short of members?

John Smith and Tony Blair when leading the Labour party in opposition managed to increase individual membership of the Labour party to around 400,000 in 1996. Party membership started to drop soon after the first flush of realisation that this was a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" government. By 2006 Labour party membership had dropped to under 200,000 last year membership dropped by another 16,000 to around 182,000. A Guardian article from June 2007 reported that:
"Labour insiders suggest the decline has slowed markedly and even bottomed out, with the party now picking up 1,000 members a week during its deputy leadership election.

Membership has crept back up to 180,000 in the last three weeks."

If that report was true and the trend continued then today the Labour party would have just under 240,000 members. Somehow I doubt that they have that many members, but then I have not been able to find this figure, maybe someone else could?

Is the Labour party that short of money?

I learnt yesterday that the Labour party has cancelled its Spring conference because of a shortage of money. I have blogged about Labour's financial problems previously, most recently here, and I think it is fair to say that I feel only joy at their problems. As I have said before, it seems a sort of justice for Gordon Brown's party to suffer, as the rest of the country has, from his incompetence and lack of frugality. And as I said a month or so ago:
"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"?"


I think that the Labour Party are desperate to suggest 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 would 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. Only the realisation that they are hated enough already without imposing a new "tax" on the public will stop them from carrying out this plan.

Friday, 9 May 2008

When is a loan not a loan (update)

Further to my piece about the financial stability (or otherwise) of the Labour party, I see in Tribune that:

"Labour chiefs have until the end of this month to plug a £4 million hole in the party’s finances and avert the possibility of a formal declaration of bankruptcy....

Auditors are due to sign off the party’s accounts soon after the end of May, but there are fears that they will refuse to do so and instead declare the party insolvent.

Arrangements have been made to account for most of the party’s £21 million debt, through negotiations with the Co-op Bank and rescheduling deals done with the donors of the controversial loans which led to the “cash-for-honours” affair.

But officers have identified a gap in the balance sheet of around £4 million which must be closed in order to satisfy the auditors, either by cash in the bank or certifiable promissory notes."



Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

As I said yesterday:

"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."

Thursday, 8 May 2008

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.