The role of the Midlands Industrial Council in funding Conservative party activity has been bubbling away as a controversy for some time.
In essence, by giving money to the MIC rather than directly to the Conservative party, it has allowed big donors to remain anonymous. The MIC in turn, after receiving these anonymous donations, funds Conservative campaigning. After public pressure, they’ve published a one-off list of their currently active members – but won’t say who else has given money in the past or that they’ll publish names of new donors in the future. (The list of names is on Colin Ross’s website; Colin is a Lib Dem in the area and has covered several aspects of the story already).
This, of course, from the party that also solicited large loans from donors so that they too could stay anonymous.
The BBC Politics Show has now unearthed links between Tory MP Julie Kirkbride and the MIC – see the story on the BBC website.
No sign of the story on Iain Dale’s blog yet; funny that, I thought he was always so keen on stories about party funding …
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Adam Harley selected for Strathkelvin and Bearsden
When Not the Nine O'Clock News demonstrated how to deal with chess prodigies
Diversity, Inclusion and Equality Programmes bring out the full capacity of a nation.
A Big World of Small Things
Is the UK hobbled by Brexit in its response to US tariffs?
Katharine Pindar
David Raw
Mike Peters
13 Comments
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…!
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.
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.
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
Come on Mark, answer the question – can you please explain any law that has been broken?
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.
Iain,
There was an argument that “cash for questions” wasn’t strictly against the law.
You don’t defend that do you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.