The Mail on Sunday had an exclusive about the ruling due this week on the use by David Cameron and other Conservative MPs of Parliamentary facilities to raise funds for their campaigns.
In short – the Tories broke the rules, but so many of them broke the rules they won’t all have to apologise individually:
David Cameron will this week face embarrassment as the Commons sleaze watchdog bans controversial fund-raising banquets which net the Tories up to £1million a year.
Standards commissioner Sir Philip Mawer will criticise the Conservatives for exploiting Parliament as a venue for dozens of dinners with the aim of filling local party coffers.
The full story is here.
Ironically, this was one Tory funding sleaze story I forgot to include in my round up of the numerous investigations taking place into their financial affairs.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
cim
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
12 Comments
I can think of 2 million reasons why Lib Dems should not be throwing fundraising stones in their glasshouse.
Despite this report, the Society of Conservative Lawyers are still using the Palace of Westminister as a money-making vehicle and intend to do so all summer long!
http://www.conservativelawyers.com/events.htm
Comments like Tony’s are exactly why The Times is running stories like it is this week. They’re trying to deflect attention away from the Tories’ and Labour’s corrupt money-raising activities.
Let’s get this straight: Michael Brown allegedly duped lots of people for a long time – possibly investors – he’s certainly given the authorities the run-around for many months.
In 2005, when Mr Brown donated a sum of money to the Lib Dems, the party had a matter of a few weeks to determine whether they could/should accept it or not. After all the proper checks they did. Now, the Electoral Commission has come out in the past and said there was nothing wrong with this donation. But the Tories and their supporters in the media raise this unfortunate story every time anyone questions the Tories’ dubious use of parliamentary facilities to raise money. It makes me sick.
The difference is, the Lib Dems took this money in good faith, and did everything they should have done to check it out. The Tories blatantly used parliamentary facilities to raise money.
People will say “why don’t the Lib Dems pay it back then”. The fact is, it was taken in good faith, it was spent in good faith. The Lib Dems simply don’t have sums of money this size lying around – why should they be put in a precarious financial position by relying on something they were perfectly entitled to rely on? Truth is, the people who shout loudest for the money to be given back are the Lib Dems’ political opponents who can’t defeat them politically, so are seeking to weaken them by other means.
No, obviously we don’t have sums of this size ‘lying around’, but what about an appeal letter from Ming (who one gathers wouldn’t have accepted the money) asking for donations to pay (some of) it back – that would lance the boil and give us back the moral high ground.
I guess, yes, a “we accepted this in good faith, and spent it in good faith, but it turns out that we think we should return it over a period of time” kind of approach – rather than headlines screaming “Electoral watchdog demands Lib Dems return £2.5million” (if that were to happen).
All this “good faith” really doesn’t wash. Businesses have assets, turnover, staff, premises, accounts. Financial companies have FSA registrations. 5thAP was a £1 company with no staff, premises, accounts or FSA registration.
As far as PPERA 2000 was concerned, it was necessary to show that the company was doing business in the UK. This would have been very easy to check, and the amount of due diligence would have been far less than is required by law from thousands of businesses when they accept new clients.
Reg Clark expressed his doubts about Brown before resigning but was overruled by a small group who were too eager to grab the money.
If it’s so simple Mark, how come the Electoral Commission haven’t been able to issue a decision? Rather suggests to me that it’s not as straightforward as you’d like to make out.
Mark – your description of 5th Avenue Partners is wrong.
So, the parliamentary standards commissioner said that meeting financial backers in the Commons was not wrong, but that it was wrong for any MP to “employ their parliamentary office as part of a party fund-raising stratagem”.
Cameron has apologised for “inadvertently contravening the code of conduct in respect of the use of his parliamentary offices”.
Storm in a tea cup. What a desperate attempt by Mark Pack to make out this was a big deal. Taking £2m from a fraudster and claiming proper checks were made, when checks would have shown up major causes for concern, is a big deal.
Refusing to hand back the ill-gotten gains by claiming it was accepted in good faith is not good enough. As always, Libs say do as we say not as we do.
Actually, there’s quite a big difference Tony.
1. The Electoral Commission has *not* said the Liberal Democrats broke the rules
2. The Parliamentary Standards Commission has said that David Cameron *did* break the rules
Oh and by the way, you’re wrong to claim (without giving any evidence I note) that checks weren’t made by the Liberal Democrats. Numerous checks were – and again the Electoral Commission hasn’t faulted how the checks were carried out.
“Taking £2m from a fraudster and claiming proper checks were made, when checks would have shown up major causes for concern”
There seems to be some confusion about the extent of checks required under PPERA.
All that’s required is reasonable steps to ascertain that there is a Companies House registration and the company carries on business in the UK.
These are pretty minimal and well short of the idea of “due dilligence” that is often suggested which causes confusion with the more rigorous processes in other financial areas.
I don’t see how they could have indicated and dodgy activities of Brown’s activities which subsequently came to light.
AIUI inquiries were made of the Electoral Commission before accepting the donation that the correct procedures had been followed. This would seem to be borne out by the EC’s post-election decision that the donation was “permissible” (a technical phrase which actually means that things were more correctly done than it sounds!)
PPERA is not an mechanism for detecting financial fraud by a company. If it was, PPERA checks would have “cleared” the companies of Peter Clowes, Robert Maxwell and Asil Nadir!
Exposing Brown took HSBC a fair chunk of time and effort. It’s nonsensical to suggest a poltical party could, in a restricted time frame and without detailed forensic accountancy skills, have done the same.
Tony is banking on readers of his post having short memories.
No doubt many will be too young to recall the Secretary of State for Transport in the MacMillan government, the late Ernest Marples, who handed out motorway construction contracts to his own company.
And others migh have let slip from their minds the case of Reginald Maudling, runner up to Ted Heath in 1965 and Home Secretary 1970-72, who not only accepted bribes from the Yorkshire architect, John Poulson, but actually had his wife and son as directors of Poulson’s company. (Look at the shoddiest public housing schemes in Northern cities and think of John Poulson.)
And what about the more recent example of Mr Jim Davidson, serial wife-beater, racist and bankrupt (kicked out of the Freemasons for cracking anti-Semitic jokes)? What was the Tory Party thinking about when it accepted money from a man like Davidson (money which Davidson should have been paying in tax)?
And a member of the political party which allowed all this has the temerity to lecture Libeal Democrats on financial probity!