13 Comments

• Iain Dale 11th Nov '06 - 8:29pm

  Mark, I have read the story on the BBC website and it’s full of the usual innuendo, but strangely no one can actually say what wrong has been done. Could you enlighten me as to any law that has been broken? Apart from the one, of course, that your own party MAY have transgressed on the Michael Brown donation. You know what they say about people in glass houses…!

• Mark Pack 11th Nov '06 - 8:37pm

  Donor gives money to the Tory party, Tories spend it on campaigning – donor’s name is published

  But donor gives money to MIC, MIC spends it on campaigning – donor’s name is kept secret

  Can you spot the difference between the two Iain … ? You know, it’s a bit like how Labour and Tories took loans from people rather than donations so their names could be kept secret. Odd coincidence that.

• Neil 11th Nov '06 - 9:04pm

  The obvious question is whether the MIC is a genuine business going about normal business activities or an organisation which is funnelling donations into Conservative Party Campaigning activity by subsidising a telephoning and direct mail operation which is then able to offer these services at below market rates to the Conservative party.

  If it is the latter than this is clearly a donation in kind and should be reported as such

  If it is the latter the question also arises as to whether the Conservative Party knows about this activity. If it does, and it is a donation in kind, then they are probably in breach of their obligations under PPERA.

  The key difference with the Brown case is that all the evidence suggests that the Lib Dems acted in good faith at all times.

  The Conservatives would not be able to claim that they have acted in good faith if it shown that they are, or have been, involved in the setting up of a structure which has been established in such a way as to avoid the proper reporting of largescale donations in kind.

• peter 11th Nov '06 - 10:59pm

  I have blogged on this too. I suppose the story might involve those donors who are still anonymous

  http://www.liberalreview.com/content/2006/11/the-mic-more-to-them-than-meets-the-eye

• Iain Dale 12th Nov '06 - 4:24pm

  Come on Mark, answer the question – can you please explain any law that has been broken?

• Mark Pack 12th Nov '06 - 4:32pm

  You’re dodging the question yourself Iain – why are people giving money to MIC and keeping anonymity rather than giving money direct to the Tory party with the scrutiny and public records that go with that?

  If no-one was trying to keep any donations secret, the MIC would publish all its past donors and make a public promise to pubish all future ones. It has refused to do either.

  What reason is there for this way of doing things except to try to keep donations – that are in effect donations to the Tory party – secret? Sounds rather like the way the Tories used loans – again to try to keep its source of funding secret.

• Antony Hook 12th Nov '06 - 4:43pm

  Iain,

  There was an argument that “cash for questions” wasn’t strictly against the law.

  You don’t defend that do you?

• peter 12th Nov '06 - 7:31pm

  My thoughts after seeing the show are here.

  I don’t think the beeb made their case very well, but the interviews threw up some new leads.

• Kevin Davis 13th Nov '06 - 6:43pm

  Are we now suggesting that all those people who donate to political parties must now reveal who their employer is (as the source of their money)? All seems a ludicrous argument that appears not to stand up unless the law has been broken – as it has been with Michael Brown.

• Antony Hook 14th Nov '06 - 3:15pm

  Kevin,

  No, it has nothing at all to do with people’s employers.

  The point is that people shouldn’t be able to make large anonymous donations to political parties.

  As for Michael Brown, the Electoral Commission has said there has been no wrong-doing by the party. English law protects those who innocently receive money. If that was changed many 1000s of small businesses would face difficulty.

• hywelmorgan 15th Nov '06 - 12:13am

  Why is the MIC not a body “mainly made up of members of a registered party” as there is provision for PPERA to apply to them (I’m not going to trek of to look up section & chapter though!).

  I developed advice for council groups on PPERA and the view was they came under this category though IIRC correctly this had limited practical effect due to the thresholds involved.

• Kevin Davis 15th Nov '06 - 12:43am

  But Anthony, what is the difference? No donation really comes from the originator. The money Brown gave you came from a group of investors who now want it back. Did you know who those investor’s were before you received it? Does anyone ask where any donor gets their money from?

  The electoral commission agreed it was legal based on the information they received. That information has now been proved to be wrong.

• Antony Hook 15th Nov '06 - 5:29pm

  Kevin,

  Isn’t the difference this-

  the Lib Dems disclosed Brown’s donation to make it a matter of public record;

  in the Tory Party, the donation would have been made anonymous by putting it through the Midlands Industrial Council and no-one would have ever known about it.