In reverse chronological order we have…
One: an investigation over Robin Saunders, who wasn’t able to donate to the Conservative Party due to being an American, but shortly after her donation was refused the same sum was donated via her British investment company. (Daily Telegraph)
Two: an investigation over Lord Ashcroft and whether overseas funds are being illegally used to help fund the Conservative Party. (The Mirror)
Three: the Electoral Commission’s probe into CCS (which provides campaigning services to the Conservative Party) cleared it on several points, but on one key point decided it didn’t like what it found: The Electoral Commission also considered the salary arrangements for a member of staff undertaking branding and messaging services. Our view is that such costs should be paid by the party or reported by the party as a donation from CCS. The Commission has given CCS 30 days to demonstrate that the arrangements conform with these guidelines. If CCS fails to do so, we will reopen this matter. (The Electoral Commission)
Meanwhile, the Electoral Commission is also keeping a fourth issue “under review”:
Pauline Neville-Jones, shadow security minister, former chair of the joint intelligence committee and a key Cameron foreign policy adviser, currently has her office sponsored by Robert Shetler-Jones, a close associate of the foreign billionaire Dmitry Firtash.
A company linked to Shetler-Jones is also making payments to Conservative central office. It is called Scythian Ltd. Shetler-Jones chairs and part owns it.
So far, more than £70,000 has been paid in total.
Under current laws and rules the arrangement is legitimate: the money is coming from a British individual and a UK-based company. But the Electoral Commission wrote to the Conservative party in July, querying the status of Scythian Ltd. The company had apparently always been dormant and was overdue with its accounts. Donations are only permissible under the rules if they come from a company that is genuinely “carrying on a business” in the UK.
The Conservatives obtained a letter from a Scythian Ltd auditor, they say, claiming the company was no longer dormant. But its accounts, which are a year overdue, have still not appeared on the Companies House register. The most recent Scythian declaration to Companies House, made only last month, described it as a “non-trading company”.
The commission said last night it had been satisfied by Tory reassurances at the time, but were keeping the situation “under review”. (The Guardian)
UPDATE: And today’s Observer brings this:
The Conservative party faced demands last night to repay a huge loan from a member of the Rothschild banking family made through a company set up with the sole purpose of protecting her anonymity.
An Observer investigation has found that the party has benefited from a £1m loan from Lady Victoria de Rothschild, made via a ‘non-trading’ company that conducts no business and has had no other function in its four-year history than to lend the Tories money.



3 Comments
Tories – dont you just love ’em?
Re 1: Robin Saunders – perfectly legal. I believe that Charlie Kennedy’s office was funded by a similar arrangment about the same time. Want to dig htat one up and drag it through the streets?
Re 2: After all the donations from Ashcroft and the publicity, doyou really think hte Conservatives would get this wrong?
Re 3: So the Conservatives may have to report a permissible donation in kind. Big deal?
Re 4: Some delay in filing accounts? I don’t remember the Electoral Commission acting over 5th Avenue Partners failure to submit accounts to Companies House before it was struck of the register.
Re 5: This was a perfectly legal arrangement at the time it was made and remains legal. Are the Lib Dems in favour of retrospective legislation?
What’s all this about calling David Cameron ‘Three Yachts’?
I thought he made a big deal about holidaying with a bucket and spade in Cornwall, yet now we discover he followed this with a ‘yacht crawl’ with the Murdoch’s only a couple of weeks later.
Even if his freebies were registered correctly he has blatantly attempted to mislead the public about the number of breaks he has had from representing his constituents and the extent to which he is taking personal advantage of his position.
Perhaps the remit of the standards committee should be widened to include the spirit in which the rules are intended and their powers of enforcement be beefed up commensurately…