The BBC reports that the millions of pounds in donations by Belize-based tax-exile Michael Ashcroft to the Conservative party are to be investigated.
It's a start, but when oh when are we going to get a strict limit on the funding going into marginal seats, for the entire electoral cycle, not just at election time.
Showing posts with label big donors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big donors. Show all posts
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Friday, 29 August 2008
Unions and big donors continue to prop up political spending "arms race"
A BBC report, doing a little bit more than just updating their report from 3 months earlier, indicates that the big money continues to come in from a small number of big donors for the big parties.
They add that David Sainsbury has (apparently, I can't be bothered to check if they're accurate yet) converted a £2m loan to a donation (they needed it to pay their staff bills).
Were the BBC actually doing a job as journalists, perhaps they would at least try to answer a simple question: "Why?"
Why is David Sainsbury continuing to prop them up? What's in it for him? Perhaps they threatened to give the Competition Commissions some teeth against the supermarkets monopoly.
They might even, just possibly ask another question: "Why has the government not acted on the (Sir Hayden) Philips Review?"
It's no wonder the government is so quiet on reform when the BBC doesn't actually bother to ask a single serious question, or even link to the Philips Review.
They add that David Sainsbury has (apparently, I can't be bothered to check if they're accurate yet) converted a £2m loan to a donation (they needed it to pay their staff bills).
Were the BBC actually doing a job as journalists, perhaps they would at least try to answer a simple question: "Why?"
Why is David Sainsbury continuing to prop them up? What's in it for him? Perhaps they threatened to give the Competition Commissions some teeth against the supermarkets monopoly.
They might even, just possibly ask another question: "Why has the government not acted on the (Sir Hayden) Philips Review?"
It's no wonder the government is so quiet on reform when the BBC doesn't actually bother to ask a single serious question, or even link to the Philips Review.
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Jan-March 2008 finances: Tories get most and Labour still most in debt
Reading the BBC's latest report on declared party donations, it seems as though it is indeed business as usual, including parties being late getting their paperwork in.
In the latest round of compulsory declaration of large donations, the past trends seem to be continuing, with the big funding coming in to the 'big two': The conservatives got a whopping £4.2 million and Labour £3 million.
When you consider that this was before the local elections and the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, then it seems that no party is in a healthy state.
It seems that Labour have improved on their Dec 2006 position, but both the Tories, and LibDems have less money than back then. Until the Electoral Commission publish the Dec 2007 accounts figures, which the large parties should have submitted by 31st March, we'll not know for sure, as they could easily have cash on hand, as well as outstanding loans.
A notable point to consider is how disproportionate these figures are compared to the votes cast in the May elections, where Labour got 24%, the LibDems 25% and the Conservatives 44%.
If the same £8.1m had been divided up by share of the vote, which is effectively the idea in proposed reforms of party funding, then the funds raised would be:
In the latest round of compulsory declaration of large donations, the past trends seem to be continuing, with the big funding coming in to the 'big two': The conservatives got a whopping £4.2 million and Labour £3 million.
| Party | Jan - Mar | Balance end Mar |
|---|---|---|
| Cons | £4.2m | -£12m |
| Lab | £3.0m | -£17.8m |
| LibDem | £0.47m | -£1.1m |
When you consider that this was before the local elections and the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, then it seems that no party is in a healthy state.
It seems that Labour have improved on their Dec 2006 position, but both the Tories, and LibDems have less money than back then. Until the Electoral Commission publish the Dec 2007 accounts figures, which the large parties should have submitted by 31st March, we'll not know for sure, as they could easily have cash on hand, as well as outstanding loans.
A notable point to consider is how disproportionate these figures are compared to the votes cast in the May elections, where Labour got 24%, the LibDems 25% and the Conservatives 44%.
If the same £8.1m had been divided up by share of the vote, which is effectively the idea in proposed reforms of party funding, then the funds raised would be:
| Party | Income (diff) | |
|---|---|---|
| Cons | 44% | £3.56m (-£0.64m) |
| Lab | 24% | £1.95m (-£1.05m) |
| LibDem | 25% | £2.03m (+£1.56m) |
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Lording it in Tax Exile
So, let's have a look at another recent big donor.
On 27th November 2007, Lord Irvine Laidlaw, gave the Conservative Party £2,990,582.20. Firstly, I do wonder how it came to be this figure. Was it such a hoot, that he just wrote some random figures on a cheque? Did he really write out "Two million, nine hundred and ninety thousand, five hundred and eighty two pounds and twenty pence"? Now that's what I'd call a big check - it'd need to be!
So who is he. Well, if you check on Wikipedia, you won't find much, but you will find the links to the Sunday Times article about his "failure to return to Britain for tax purposes", as promised before he became a Lord.
On 27th November 2007, Lord Irvine Laidlaw, gave the Conservative Party £2,990,582.20. Firstly, I do wonder how it came to be this figure. Was it such a hoot, that he just wrote some random figures on a cheque? Did he really write out "Two million, nine hundred and ninety thousand, five hundred and eighty two pounds and twenty pence"? Now that's what I'd call a big check - it'd need to be!
So who is he. Well, if you check on Wikipedia, you won't find much, but you will find the links to the Sunday Times article about his "failure to return to Britain for tax purposes", as promised before he became a Lord.
Good donations cost less (?) at Sainsbury's
Puzzle #1: Lord (David) Sainsbury (of Turville), as he's somehow (sometimes) come to be called, is known for having handed some loose change to the Labour Party. How much is it?
Answer: Let's go take a look at the Electoral Commission Register. A quick search for donors who have more than £250,000 in loose change gives us the following results (searching back to 2001):
And... why does he donate in so many variations of his 'title'? It's so bizarre, that you could be forgiven for being a little suspicious. Then again, £8.5m is quite a bit of loose change to be giving to anyone, don't you think?
And next, we might just have a look at the big donors elsewhere, but before that, shall we dwell on how your average Mr Sainsbury might just have a vested interest in this sort of donation?
Another bit of checking around, and we find that on 16th Nov 2007, Lord David of Turville held 6.3% of Sainsbury's shares. That's 6.3% of 1.7billion shares, with a 2007 dividend per share of 9.75pence. Yes, he owns over a hundred million shares that in 2007 paid him a dividend totalling £10.3m. Does he have a vested interest in the supermarkets continuing to make huge profits? You bet he does!
Iit doesn't matter if you're not Tesco, because they're all making a huge profit, so long as no one comes along and says "Hey, you're killing our communities, our local economies, and our environment, and we're going to put an end to it!"
Well if that is the case, I doubt if there's a Labour minister who's going to tell his party they just lost a donor who can be relied on for over a million pounds every year!
Answer: Let's go take a look at the Electoral Commission Register. A quick search for donors who have more than £250,000 in loose change gives us the following results (searching back to 2001):
| Lord Sainsbury | 13/01/02 | £ 2,000,000 |
| Lord Sainsbury of Turville | 01/03/03 | £ 2,500,000 |
| Lord David Sainsbury of Turville | 10/03/05 | £ 2,000,000 |
| Lord David Sainsbury | 10/09/07 | £ 2,000,000 |
And... why does he donate in so many variations of his 'title'? It's so bizarre, that you could be forgiven for being a little suspicious. Then again, £8.5m is quite a bit of loose change to be giving to anyone, don't you think?
And next, we might just have a look at the big donors elsewhere, but before that, shall we dwell on how your average Mr Sainsbury might just have a vested interest in this sort of donation?
Another bit of checking around, and we find that on 16th Nov 2007, Lord David of Turville held 6.3% of Sainsbury's shares. That's 6.3% of 1.7billion shares, with a 2007 dividend per share of 9.75pence. Yes, he owns over a hundred million shares that in 2007 paid him a dividend totalling £10.3m. Does he have a vested interest in the supermarkets continuing to make huge profits? You bet he does!
Iit doesn't matter if you're not Tesco, because they're all making a huge profit, so long as no one comes along and says "Hey, you're killing our communities, our local economies, and our environment, and we're going to put an end to it!"
Well if that is the case, I doubt if there's a Labour minister who's going to tell his party they just lost a donor who can be relied on for over a million pounds every year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
