Comments on: Nailing the Michael Brown smear http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:46:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: neil humphrey http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-120044 neil humphrey Mon, 10 May 2010 21:56:11 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-120044 I am not sure what the electoral commison are on. I am a Monster Raving Loony, and that's more sensible than this tripe I came across. Fraud is fraud, and there are clearly many victims of this man. The victims deserve their money back. It was their money criminally stolen. It is unfortunate the Liberals need the money, like all parties. Even stolen goods received in good faith get returned, purchaser burnt. Check the law. Imagine - "I didn't know an old lady got mugged for this donation; but we'll keep it". This is no way to run a party, and I sincerely hope you muppets can't get a coalition. Until this happens. I won't vote Lib Dem. This is WORSE than the expenses scandal. Listen to yourselves, justifying theft. Brown Nose Expenses Fraud Margarita Bucket (Monster Raving Loony Candidate) I am not sure what the electoral commison are on.
I am a Monster Raving Loony, and that’s more sensible than this tripe I came across.
Fraud is fraud, and there are clearly many victims of this man.
The victims deserve their money back.
It was their money criminally stolen.
It is unfortunate the Liberals need the money, like all parties.
Even stolen goods received in good faith get returned, purchaser burnt. Check the law.
Imagine – “I didn’t know an old lady got mugged for this donation; but we’ll keep it”.
This is no way to run a party, and I sincerely hope you muppets can’t get a coalition.
Until this happens. I won’t vote Lib Dem.
This is WORSE than the expenses scandal.
Listen to yourselves, justifying theft.

Brown Nose Expenses Fraud Margarita Bucket (Monster Raving Loony Candidate)

]]> By: Peter1919 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-35023 Peter1919 Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:19:58 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-35023 Simple solution limit donations AND spending (and not just during elections either) Simple solution limit donations AND spending (and not just during elections either)

]]> By: Geoffrey Payne http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-35014 Geoffrey Payne Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:39:05 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-35014 The problem with that is that the rich will continue to have more influence than the poor - something that is not supposed to happen in a democracy. I am not against voluntary donations, but they should not have a disproportionate influence. Also I do not think democracy can or should come cheap. Political parties should have enough funds to pay for a viable organisation and for policy research. The example I gave of Germany is not perfect, but after Kohl things have become a lot better, as far as I know anyway. The problem with that is that the rich will continue to have more influence than the poor – something that is not supposed to happen in a democracy.
I am not against voluntary donations, but they should not have a disproportionate influence.
Also I do not think democracy can or should come cheap. Political parties should have enough funds to pay for a viable organisation and for policy research.
The example I gave of Germany is not perfect, but after Kohl things have become a lot better, as far as I know anyway.

]]> By: tim leunig http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-35008 tim leunig Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:54:48 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-35008 Tax payer funding does not preclude sleaze and Germany is not immune from party funding scandals - witness the rather sad end to Kohl's time in office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Kohl#Scandal A much lower limit on total spending would be much more effective - so long as we can all raise the same amount voluntarily, there is no need for tax payers to fork out. Tax payer funding does not preclude sleaze and Germany is not immune from party funding scandals – witness the rather sad end to Kohl’s time in office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Kohl#Scandal

A much lower limit on total spending would be much more effective – so long as we can all raise the same amount voluntarily, there is no need for tax payers to fork out.

]]> By: Geoffrey Payne http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-35007 Geoffrey Payne Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:40:01 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-35007 The policy of the Liberal Democrats is to support the state funding of political parties. That way, the news will no longer be dominated by stories like this that discredit party politics. In Germany there is nothing like the same level of scandal affecting party donations. It is not a perfect solution, but compared to the shambles we have at the moment it is the best policy option available. The policy of the Liberal Democrats is to support the state funding of political parties. That way, the news will no longer be dominated by stories like this that discredit party politics. In Germany there is nothing like the same level of scandal affecting party donations.
It is not a perfect solution, but compared to the shambles we have at the moment it is the best policy option available.

]]> By: Jeremy Hargreaves http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-35005 Jeremy Hargreaves Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:22:42 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-35005 The key element in the EC statement above seems to me to be the word "available". They said the LDs had acted properly on the information <em>available</em> to them at the time - not the information <em> they had</em> at the time, but the information which which the Liberal Democrats <em>could have had</em> at that point. Clearly it subsequently transpired that there were things the party did not know about - but these were obvious lacunae in their knowledge, that they should have mad an effort to fill, but information they could not reasonably have known existed - "unknown unknowns", in Rumfeld-speak. While people may disagree with the actual wisdom of taking this money, the EC seem pretty clear that on the basis of the information which was available to the party at the time, it was legal and not procedurally improper to accept it. The key element in the EC statement above seems to me to be the word “available”. They said the LDs had acted properly on the information available to them at the time – not the information they had at the time, but the information which which the Liberal Democrats could have had at that point.

Clearly it subsequently transpired that there were things the party did not know about – but these were obvious lacunae in their knowledge, that they should have mad an effort to fill, but information they could not reasonably have known existed – “unknown unknowns”, in Rumfeld-speak.

While people may disagree with the actual wisdom of taking this money, the EC seem pretty clear that on the basis of the information which was available to the party at the time, it was legal and not procedurally improper to accept it.

]]> By: Martin Land http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34999 Martin Land Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:33:04 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34999 Let's just accept that we agree to differ with Iain '10-6-06' Dale. Let’s just accept that we agree to differ with Iain ’10-6-06′ Dale.

]]> By: Hywel Morgan http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34993 Hywel Morgan Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:45:19 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34993 "The Electoral Commission said this at the time on the information open to them. Subsequently, it became clear that 5th Avenue Partners were apparently not trading in the Uk." But that's the point - subsequent to the event. You can't make a decision based on information that only becomes available in the future! The checks that the parties have to undertake are quite minimal - there is no comparision for example with the duties with regard to money laundering. In particular they need to be done within a much shorter timeframe. In any case there would be huge implications for political parties were liabilities in donations, which had been investigated and cleared by the EC - could then, years later be declared impermissible. Basically that would mean the parties could never be certain that they wouldn't be called upon to repay any donation! “The Electoral Commission said this at the time on the information open to them. Subsequently, it became clear that 5th Avenue Partners were apparently not trading in the Uk.”

But that’s the point – subsequent to the event. You can’t make a decision based on information that only becomes available in the future!

The checks that the parties have to undertake are quite minimal – there is no comparision for example with the duties with regard to money laundering. In particular they need to be done within a much shorter timeframe.

In any case there would be huge implications for political parties were liabilities in donations, which had been investigated and cleared by the EC – could then, years later be declared impermissible.

Basically that would mean the parties could never be certain that they wouldn’t be called upon to repay any donation!

]]> By: Derek Young http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34989 Derek Young Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:17:09 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34989 Iain, I find two things to disagree with in your comment. Firstly, it contains a self-evident inconsistency. You write that "it became clear" that Brown's company was "apparently" not trading in the UK. If it's clear, it doesn't need to be qualified by the term "apparently", which implies doubt. Secondly, the element of doubt you allude to defeats the point you're trying to make. Both Labour and the Tories have accepted donations despite them immediately appearing to be dubious; Brown's donation was cleared by the Electoral Commission based on the information which was available at the time. If they change their mind, fair enough, but to imply the Lib Dems were wrong to accept it in the first place is out of order. Iain,

I find two things to disagree with in your comment. Firstly, it contains a self-evident inconsistency. You write that “it became clear” that Brown’s company was “apparently” not trading in the UK. If it’s clear, it doesn’t need to be qualified by the term “apparently”, which implies doubt.

Secondly, the element of doubt you allude to defeats the point you’re trying to make. Both Labour and the Tories have accepted donations despite them immediately appearing to be dubious; Brown’s donation was cleared by the Electoral Commission based on the information which was available at the time. If they change their mind, fair enough, but to imply the Lib Dems were wrong to accept it in the first place is out of order.

]]> By: Grammar Police http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34987 Grammar Police Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:12:13 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34987 Er, but Iain, the Electoral Commission hasn't said the donation was impermissible. The last statement from them said that there had been no breach of the rules - but that if new evidence came to light it might reconsider. It hasn't yet, and the investigative work of the banks and authorities has taken months if not years to unravel Mr Brown's affairs. Clearly the party could not have have carried out the same level of investigation as these authorities within the time limits, and even the authorities can't work it out!! Iain is only raising this again as he wants to try to smear the Lib Dems as accepting dodgy money, trying to link the whole Brown issue in people's minds with Labour's deliberate attempts to avoid the rules on fundraising. Iain did the same around the time of the loans for honours scandal. He tries to come across as a reasonable and unbiased commentator - but he's just another Tory politician trying to put the boot in and promote the Tory cause. Let us never forget that!! Er, but Iain, the Electoral Commission hasn’t said the donation was impermissible. The last statement from them said that there had been no breach of the rules – but that if new evidence came to light it might reconsider. It hasn’t yet, and the investigative work of the banks and authorities has taken months if not years to unravel Mr Brown’s affairs. Clearly the party could not have have carried out the same level of investigation as these authorities within the time limits, and even the authorities can’t work it out!!
Iain is only raising this again as he wants to try to smear the Lib Dems as accepting dodgy money, trying to link the whole Brown issue in people’s minds with Labour’s deliberate attempts to avoid the rules on fundraising. Iain did the same around the time of the loans for honours scandal. He tries to come across as a reasonable and unbiased commentator – but he’s just another Tory politician trying to put the boot in and promote the Tory cause. Let us never forget that!!

]]> By: Mark Pack http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34986 Mark Pack Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:09:00 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34986 Iain:- you keep on claiming that the Liberal Democrats didn't investigate the donation properly before accepting it. The Electoral Commission decided the party had investigated properly. Why aren't you willing to admit that this was the case? Iain:- you keep on claiming that the Liberal Democrats didn’t investigate the donation properly before accepting it. The Electoral Commission decided the party had investigated properly. Why aren’t you willing to admit that this was the case?

]]> By: James Graham http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34984 James Graham Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:02:55 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34984 I hate to have to agree with Iain, but he has a point. The fact is the party was outrageously incautious in accepting that money and if the police end up ruling that he didn't have a right to give away that money, we will pay the price. Is it that outrageous to suggest that we should have looked before we leapt? If it sounds too good to be true that's usually because it is. I hate to have to agree with Iain, but he has a point. The fact is the party was outrageously incautious in accepting that money and if the police end up ruling that he didn’t have a right to give away that money, we will pay the price.

Is it that outrageous to suggest that we should have looked before we leapt? If it sounds too good to be true that’s usually because it is.

]]> By: Iain Dale http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34983 Iain Dale Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:50:14 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34983 You know full well that is not the whole story. The Electoral Commission said this at the time on the information open to them. Subsequently, it became clear that 5th Avenue Partners were apparently not trading in the Uk. If that proves to be the case - and we await the outcome of the Police inquiry - it is clear it was an impermissible donation. If so, the money will have to be returned. What part of that do you disagree with? You know full well that is not the whole story. The Electoral Commission said this at the time on the information open to them. Subsequently, it became clear that 5th Avenue Partners were apparently not trading in the Uk. If that proves to be the case – and we await the outcome of the Police inquiry – it is clear it was an impermissible donation. If so, the money will have to be returned. What part of that do you disagree with?

]]> By: Angus J Huck http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34982 Angus J Huck Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:41:37 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34982 Before Labour Party apologists start throwing mud at the Liberal Democrats in a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from Mr Abrahams, they should have their eyes directed to the 1980s when the party was almost in the pocket of the gangster capitalist, bully, serial liar and friend of Leonid Brezhnev known as Mr Robert Maxwell. Did anyone in the Labour Party even question Maxwell's probity? Well yes, one or two brave souls in Buckingham did, because, armed with the Board of Trade report, they deselected him and prevented him standing in the February, 1974, General Election. But when Maxwell bought the Mirror, Labour politicians from Neil Kinnock downwards trooped off to Headington to lick Maxwell's boots. Remember the Private Eye cartoon, "His Master's Voice"? Kinnock was the dog. Before Labour Party apologists start throwing mud at the Liberal Democrats in a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from Mr Abrahams, they should have their eyes directed to the 1980s when the party was almost in the pocket of the gangster capitalist, bully, serial liar and friend of Leonid Brezhnev known as Mr Robert Maxwell.

Did anyone in the Labour Party even question Maxwell’s probity?

Well yes, one or two brave souls in Buckingham did, because, armed with the Board of Trade report, they deselected him and prevented him standing in the February, 1974, General Election.

But when Maxwell bought the Mirror, Labour politicians from Neil Kinnock downwards trooped off to Headington to lick Maxwell’s boots.

Remember the Private Eye cartoon, “His Master’s Voice”? Kinnock was the dog.

]]> By: Chris Paul http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34979 Chris Paul Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:25:37 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34979 Based on the information available ... there's the rub. Why did they not get more information given what they knew round the edges. Clearly you're right about Dale but the Michael Brown donation reeks to high heaven and there are smaller donations and promised donations and so on that still need some answers. When Dale was interviewing the Electoral Commission for Doughty I suggested a whole load of questions and policy changes. One of these concerned personal donations and ensuring written contracts, cooling off periods and independent legal and/or financial advice for donors. That would protect everyone. <a href="http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/09/electoral-commission-jump-page.html" rel="nofollow">It's tagged "protecting vulnerable donors" here</a>. But it would also protect vulnerable recipients and their officers and volunteers. Based on the information available … there’s the rub. Why did they not get more information given what they knew round the edges.

Clearly you’re right about Dale but the Michael Brown donation reeks to high heaven and there are smaller donations and promised donations and so on that still need some answers.

When Dale was interviewing the Electoral Commission for Doughty I suggested a whole load of questions and policy changes. One of these concerned personal donations and ensuring written contracts, cooling off periods and independent legal and/or financial advice for donors.

That would protect everyone. It’s tagged “protecting vulnerable donors” here. But it would also protect vulnerable recipients and their officers and volunteers.

]]> By: Jack Monroe http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34977 Jack Monroe Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:57:02 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/nailing-the-michael-brown-smear-1713.html#comment-34977 Whatever happened to Michael Brown? Is he back in jail or sunning it in Spain? Whatever happened to Michael Brown? Is he back in jail or sunning it in Spain?

]]>