“Tories accept £30,000 from Vladimir Putin’s crony to dine with Defence Secretary”

“The Tories have accepted £30,000 from the wife of a former crony of Vladimir Putin to dine with Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson. The donation by Lubov Chernukhin, who is married to an ex-Russian deputy finance minister, comes just a fortnight after Mr Williamson said a Russian cyber attack on Britain’s electricity supply could kill thousands.

Mr Williamson will give Mrs Chernukhin a private tour of Churchill’s War Rooms in Whitehall. He will then host a dinner for her and a group of her friends there after she made a successful bid at last week’s Tory lavish Black and White Ball.

Banker Mrs Chernukhin previously successfully bid £160,000 at a Tory fundraiser to play tennis with Boris Johnson, and also paid £20,000 to dine with Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson in Edinburgh.

The Tories deny that Mrs Chernukhin, now a British citizen, is a Putin crony. Her billionaire husband, Vladimir, 49, fell out of favour with the Russian president when he was forced out of his post running a state-run Moscow bank.

Mr Williamson said last month that Moscow had been photographing UK power stations in a threat to damage our infrastructure.

The Conservative Party declined to comment.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-accept-30000-vladimir-putins-12009563

Tories auction off access to PM and ministers at their annual ball

Readers may recall the tasteless joke made by Hugo Swire about the unemployed at the £10|15,000 per table Tory fundraising ball attended by porn barons, sex shop owners, former jailbirds and assorted other rich riff-raff in 2015:

“Joke of the night
Auctioneer Hugo Swire, a Tory MP, inviting bids for the flight, said: ‘For an extra £1,000 we will throw in a case of wine. For an extra £5,000, we will throw in Greece as well.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2948470/Porn-barons-Shady-financiers-Hedge-fund-kings-Welcome-secret-Tory-ball-ANDREW-PIERCE-reveals-went-closed-doors.html

as reported here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/02/11/hugo-swire-is-auctioneer-at-15000-per-head-tory-ball/

Readers will be pleased to know that this annual event continues to be a highlight of the posh-toff Tory donor calendar. The dinner was held, appropriately enough, in the Natural History Museum, home to many other dinosaurs, though perhaps not as rich as the living ones!

Reports include:

A Tory donors paying £55,000 in an auction to spend a day with Theresa May.

Other auction lots included a dinner at a restaurant hosted by Stanley Johnson and the Made in Chelsea star Georgia Toffolo – who appeared together on the ITV reality show I’m a Celebrity – which went for £15,000.

Another auction lot was a chance to “walk in the footsteps of Churchill” by having dinner with the defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, in the Churchill war rooms, which reportedly went for £30,000.

A bidder is understood to have paid £12,500 for a home-cooked dinner with the environment secretary, Michael Gove, and his wife, Sarah Vine, at their west London home.

Dinner in Edinburgh with Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, attracted bids of more than £15,000, while lunch with Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, proved somewhat less alluring, with bids around the £2,000 mark.

Departing guests were reportedly greeted by a flashmob of taxi drivers honking horns in protest at May’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month in which she said Uber had got things wrong but should not be shut down.

As reported in

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/08/black-and-white-ball-dinner-with-defence-secretary-goes-for-30000-at-tory-fundraising-ball

“Two Freemasons’ lodges operating secretly at Westminster”

Expect to see a comment from Owl’s East Devon Freemason’s spokesperson on this one!

“Two Freemasons’ lodges set up for members of parliament and political journalists are continuing to operate secretly at Westminster, the Guardian has learned.

New Welcome Lodge, which recruits MPs, peers and parliamentary staff, and Gallery Lodge, established for members of the political press corps known as the lobby, both remain active, according to Freemasonry records.

A third lodge called the Alfred Robbins Lodge, which was also set up for journalists, also continues to meet regularly in London.

The identities of the members of these three lodges remain unknown outside the world of Freemasonry, however, and so discreet are the members of Gallery Lodge that few journalists working in the lobby appear to be aware of its existence.

One current member of New Welcome told the Guardian that its members keep Gallery Lodge masons at arm’s length, on the grounds that while they are fellow members of the brotherhood, they are still journalists, and “they wouldn’t want journalists listening to their conversations”.

David Staples, the chief executive of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), the governing body for Freemasons in England and Wales, said there was no contradiction between the practice of journalism and membership of Freemasonry.

“Contrary to populist perception, being a Freemason helps those members in roles serving society in the broader sense, including journalists, politicians, policemen and lawyers, to be better in those jobs by encouraging them to act as better people themselves. Their membership is a positive for both them as individuals, and for society at large,” he said.

More Freemasons would declare their membership, he added, if they did not fear prejudice and discrimination: “There should be no conflict between an individual choosing whether to declare their membership or not with that individual’s ability to do their job well. But there is, because some choose to believe otherwise, and some of our detractors are doing so based on nothing other than blind prejudice.”

The disclosure that both political journalists and politicians are Freemasons comes after the outgoing chair of the Police Federation alleged that Freemasons were blocking reforms in policing and thwarting the progress of women and officers from black and minority ethnic communities.

After three years as the chair of the Police Federation, Steve White said: “I found that there were people who were fundamentally against any kind of change and any kind of progress, and they always happened to be Freemasons.”

The charge brought an angry denial from the UGLE. In a letter to the press, Staples said: “We are quietly proud that throughout history, when people have suffered discrimination both in public and social life, Freemasonry has welcomed them into our lodges as equals.” He added that many Freemasons chose to keep their membership secret in order to avoid being discriminated against.

At Westminster, MPs and peers are not obliged to declare their membership of the Freemasons, although the Commons authorities say they can disclose this information voluntarily on the registers of members’ and Lords’ financial interests. None currently do so.

Nor do any political journalists declare their membership of the Freemasons on the register of journalists’ interests, which is maintained by parliament.

The three lodges each meet four times a year at Freemasons’ Hall, the UGLE’s headquarters in Covent Garden, London.

The UGLE said Gallery Lodge currently has 45 members and Alfred Robbins Lodge – which is named after a former newspaperman and prominent mason – has 18 members.

“None of the members who have joined either of these two lodges since 2000 have their occupation recorded as journalist or anything obviously linked to the newspaper industry,” the spokesman said.

It is unclear how many of their members joined before that year, however, and UGLE will not identify the lodges’ members.

The Guardian understands past members of Gallery Lodge have included former journalists at the Times, the Daily Express, the Scotsman, and several Hansard reporters.

While the New Welcome lodge has about 30 to 40 members, the Guardian understands only about four of the current members are MPs, and that none are peers. Most of the members of the lodge are former MPs, parliamentary staff or police officers who have served at Westminster. MPs who are Freemasons are members of other lodges, however.

Although New Welcome lodge was set up following the 1926 general strike, to admit Labour politicians who had previously been refused entry to Freemasonry, the Guardian understands that none of its current members are Labour MPs.

Many are said to have left the Freemasons in the 1980s, fearing they would lose their seats if they were questioned about membership while reapplying for the Labour party’s nomination in between general elections, which had become a requirement at the start of that decade.

At least one Labour MP is said to have left New Welcome Lodge when facing reselection at this time, and arranged for his membership to be held in abeyance so that he could be quietly readmitted once he knew his parliamentary seat was secure.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/04/two-freemasons-lodges-operating-secretly-at-westminster

“Why money still rules the roost in British Politics” and why the very, very few control the not so many in the Tory Party

Electoral Reform Society:

If ever there was a story which revealed the disproportionate influence exerted by big party donors, it was the on the front page of The Times on Tuesday.

The article set out what has been described as a ‘donors’ revolt’ over Theresa May’s leadership, based on an account of a fundraising event held last week.

At the event it was reported that “about a quarter of the 50 donors present were said to have demanded her resignation.”

The story reflects the nature of power in the UK: a handful of wealthy individuals can buy access to government Ministers – and with it, the ability to ensure their views are heard on the front pages.

What distinguishes these individuals from most other people, of course, is the fact they are bankrolling the Conservative Party led by Mrs May.

But should that fact alone – particularly when very few people can afford to make significant donations to a political party – entitle them to have such a domineering voice on their leader’s credentials?

In a 21st century democracy, the answer should be a clear ‘no’. The Prime Minister and the government should be accountable to all citizens – regardless of how much money they have.

But the problem of big money in politics is not a new one. Senior politicians from a variety of different parties have been held to ransom by those with the deepest pockets – a fact which has led to scandal after scandal over the years: from Labour’s ‘cash for honours’ crisis, to the Liberal Democrats being caught arranging a private meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for a potentially illegal donor.

As we noted in our report, ‘Deal or No Deal: How to Put an End to Party Funding Scandals’, there is an expectation that comes with donations. The Committee on Standards in Public Life interviewed several of the major party donors in 2011, throwing up some uncomfortable if wholly logical conclusions about the relationship between donations, policy influence and honors.

Donor Stuart Wheeler suggested it was ‘natural’ and unobjectionable that donors would gain policy influence: “If it is influence in the sense of being able to put their views on what is best for the country and how the country should be run, I do not see any objection to that.”

House of Lords appointee Michael Farmer suggested that many donors would expect an honour in return for their finance:

“You cannot get away from the fact that the word ‘peerage’ is connected to large donations, so if you are giving a large donation there is a part of your mind somewhere that every now and then thinks about it”

The problem with the UK’s big-donor culture, even when the donations are legitimate, is that it gives those with the most money a disproportionately large say.

The story this week concerned just a handful of very rich individuals. Compare that to the 12.4 million people who voted for the Conservative party at last year’s election.

It highlights once again that the system of party funding in this country is broken and skews politics away from ordinary people who should be at the forefront of politicians’ minds when they are making decisions.

The ability to purchase political influence is damaging to trust and confidence in our democratic institutions. It is time we had a fairer model for funding our politics – one which put voters at the centre.”

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/why-money-still-rules-the-roost-in-british-politics/

Tory ex-Ministers hawk their influence for cash

Owl says: Does this disgraceful behaviour go top down, bottom up – or both? Owlis of the opinion it is the latter!

Former cabinet ministers have been exposed attempting to profit from a new cash for Brexit gravy train in Westminster, following an undercover investigation.

Lord Lansley, the former health secretary, was secretly filmed offering to use his knowledge and connections from within West­minster to provide “intelligence” on Brexit to a Chinese company offering him tens of thousands of pounds.

The peer, who has previously been accused of “ripping the heart” out of a bill to regulate lobby­ing, showed he was willing to pick up information from a key Brexit cabinet minister. He advised how the deal could be kept secret from the authorities by employing him through his wife’s company.

Peter Lilley, the former deputy Conservative Party leader, was also willing to approach key ministers on the Chinese company’s behalf. As part of his pitch for the job he described how he attended two advisory groups with influence over the Brexit minis­ters, one of which has never previously been revealed.

A third former minister, Andrew Mitchell MP, also appeared happy to give paid Brexit advice to the Chinese company. He charges £6,000 a day and disclosed that he was looking to work up to 10 weeks a year for private clients despite being paid £74,962 as an MP. “My constituents don’t mind what I’m paid,” he said.

The three men were secretly filmed as part of a joint undercover investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches into politicians improperly making money from Britain’s negotiations to leave the European Union. …”

[there follows several pages of sleazy revelations]

Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)

Councillor planning conflicts ghost raises its head … in Torbay this time

Owl says: the story below the link seems disturbingly familiar:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

Unfortunately this government seems not to worry about any of these things.

“Opposition Liberal Democrats on Torbay Council have made a formal complaint about a Conservative councillor, claiming he shouldn’t be advertising his elected position on his business website.

Thomas Winfield is a director of a firm of chartered surveyors.

On the firm’s website it states that he has the “benefit” of being elected as a local councillor for Torbay, and that he is on the Torbay Planning Committee.

The Lib Dems say this is inappropriate, because of a perceived conflict of interest.

However, Mr Winfield has told the BBC that he works in finance for commercial lending, as opposed to planning work.

Mr Winfield called the Lib Dems “small minded” for making an issue of it.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-42730712

Tory donors and that “men only” fundraiser – sleaze isn’t a good enough word

“A journalist has revealed the shocking details of how young women were allegedly harassed and degraded while working as hostesses at a men-only charity gala at Mayfair’s Dorchester.

Politicians have lined up to condemn the prestigious dinner after a damning report in the Financial Times claimed female agency workers were repeatedly victims of groping and propositioning.

Two undercover reporters posing as hostesses spent six hours at the “most un-PC event of the year” – for which they were instructed to wear skimpy black outfits and matching underwear.

The paper reports that at an after-party, many of the female workers – some of them students – were “groped, sexually harassed and propositioned”, while among the prizes up for grabs at the evening’s fundraising auction were an evening at a Soho strip club and a course of plastic surgery to “add spice to your wife” for the lucky winner. …

The Presidents Club – which denies any knowledge of wrongdoing at its events – is chaired by Mayfair property developer Bruce Ritchie and David Meller, who sits on the board of the Department for Education and the Mayor’s Fund for London. …”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/men-only-charity-mayfair-harassment_uk_5a67c154e4b002283007ada8

Of course, Mr Richie is also a super-rich Tory donor and property developer:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/12/conservatives-tycoons-fundraising-black-and-white-ball

and Meller is a property developer academy schools investor:
http://www.mellereducationaltrust.org/meet-our-people/david-meller

“LANDLORD FORCING TENANTS TO PAY FOR REMOVAL OF FLAMMABLE CLADDING IS A SUPER RICH TORY DONOR”

“The Guardian has published a rip-roaring story about wealthy landlord who’s trying to get his tenants to pay for fire safety improvements needed to avoid a repeat of the Grenfell tragedy – but they’ve missed one important detail.

It reveals how the owners of a block of flats in Croydon have refused to remove and replace flammable cladding on the building until the tenants stump up the £2 million cost of the work.

That amounts to a charge of £31,300 per flat – more than a year’s salary for many of the tenants who say they are “terrified” about the cladding since Grenfell.

The owner of the block of 93 flats is Proxima GR Properties, which the Guardian points out is “owned by the family trust of the multi-millionaire property mogul Vincent Tchenguiz.”

It notes that Tchenguiz is: “Believed to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds and last year bought a new 165-foot superyacht moored in the Mediterranean called Da Vinci. He is said to own 300,000 freeholds in the UK, including 10 Hilton hotels.”

On top of all that, Scrapbook can reveal that Tchenguiz is also a Tory donor – he gave the party more than £21,000 before the 2010 general election.

His brother, Robert, has also given the Tories a five figure sum and his sister, Elizabeth, made a donation of £100,000 in 2008.

Presumably that means Vincent Tchenguiz’s contact details are hanging around Tory HQ somewhere.

So Sajid Javid should have no problem in getting in touch to sort out this absolute scandal.

If you’ve got enough money to throw some of it at the Tories, you’ve got enough money to keep your tenants safe… “

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/01/landlord-forcing-tenants-to-pay-for-removal-of-flammable-cladding-is-a-super-rich-tory-donor/

Electoral Reform Society publishes four hard-hitting articles

There’s a lobbying scandal brewing in the House of Lords”

“As if the House of Lords did not already look like a private members’ club, an investigation by The Times has revealed that peers can continue to use the House of Lords’ subsidised dining rooms even after they retire.”

That means former politicians, who were not elected but selected for the role – are enjoying cheap food and drink thanks to taxpayers’ hard-earned cash. …”

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/theres-a-lobbying-scandal-brewing-in-the-house-of-lords/

Referendum spending is a murky world – when it should be crystal clear

Negotiations on the UK’s exit from the European Union will dominate much of the political agenda this year. But 18 months on from the Brexit referendum, questions are still being asked about whether campaigners played by the rules when it came to spending. …”

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/referendum-spending-is-a-murky-world-when-it-should-be-crystal-clear/

Political parties are too reliant on big donors – and it has to change

“The Mirror today published research findings showing that 39% of all cash donations to the Conservative Party declared so far this year are from 64 individuals and their businesses.

The 64 in question are all members of an exclusive donor club with a £50,000 annual membership fee.

This grants them access to senior party figures via swanky dinner events. Ministers who have attended in the first half of this year include Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Philip Hammond and Jeremy Wright. …”

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/political-parties-are-too-reliant-on-big-donors-and-it-has-to-change/

Ministers are ignoring the elephant in the room when it comes to boundaries

Because of the current winner-takes-all voting system for electing Members of Parliament, 22 million votes were wasted at last year’s General Election – that’s 68% of the total votes cast.

So no matter what the size of your constituency is, most votes went into the black hole of our voting system.

That means 22 million people not just being under-represented – but not being represented at all in Parliament’s elected chamber.

Their votes are being thrown on the scrapheap – and the result is a highly distorted legislature that fails to represent the country. …”

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/boundaries-need-reforming-but-the-real-affront-to-democracy-is-first-past-the-post/

“A THIRD of Tory donations come from a tiny group of rich men who enjoy lavish dinners with Theresa May”

Owl says: The Conservative Party – DEFINITELY for the FEW and not the MANY!

“More than a third of donations to the Tories last year came from a tiny group of super-rich men who enjoy lavish secretive dinners with Theresa May.

Research reveals how much Britain’s party of government depends on a band of millionaires for survival.

And it comes despite Mrs May vowing in 2007: “To restore public trust we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors.”

Labour analysed donations by the 64 people – 62 of them men – who attended ‘Leader’s Group’ dinners, hosted by the Prime Minister and other senior ministers, in the first half of last year.

The Conservative Party trousered £12.9million from these donors or their firms in 2017, Labour’s research shows – 39% of all cash donations to the Tories across the year declared so far.

More than a third of the dinners’ attendees were on the Sunday Times Rich List, which brings together the 1,000 wealthiest people in Britain.

And almost half were from the world of finance including hedge fund bosses Sir Michael Hintze, a billionaire knighted under David Cameron who gave £345,000, and Andrew Law who gave £604,000.

Financiers at the dinners gave £4.5million between them – while £3.7million came from Brexit backers.

Ferrari-collecting JCB billionaire Lord Bamford and his family, the 35th-richest people in Britain and prominent donors to Vote Leave, topped the list by giving £2.5million to the Tories personally and through their firms in 2017.

Major donor diners also included Addison Lee cab firm founder John Griffin, housebuilding billionaire John Bloor, and spread-betting tycoon and former Tory co-Treasurer Peter Cruddas.

Other attendees were oil tycoon Ian Taylor who rejected a knighthood in David Cameron’s 2016 ‘crony honours’, and Arbuthnot private bank boss Sir Henry Angest and Tory chief executive Sir Mick Davis – both knighted under Mr Cameron a year earlier.

The only two women among the 64 diners gave £328,000 between them.

Socialite, philanthropist and friend of Bill Clinton Alisa Swidler gave £87,000 while Lubov Chernukhin, the banker wife of Russia’s former deputy finance minister, gave £241,000.

David Cameron denied Ms Chernukhin was a “Putin crony” in 2014 when it emerged she had paid £160,000 for a tennis match with the then-Prime Minister and Boris Johnson.

The Conservative Party website boasts tycoons can pay £50,000 to join the Leader’s Group and attend private dinners with Theresa May and ministers as part of efforts “to defeat the rise of socialism”.

Despite David Cameron promising to publish regular lists of attendees, those for the first half of 2017 were only released several months late after pressure from the Mirror.

We revealed Theresa May dined on lobster and beef with several donors at a secret London venue hours after confirming millions of people’s benefits would be frozen.

No minutes of the dinner meetings are ever published, and the Conservatives refuse to say what is discussed at them.

And the meals are limited to a tight circle of ministers, with only Mrs May, Boris Johnson, Philip Hammond and five other Cabinet ministers taking part in the first six months of 2017.

Shadow Cabinet Office minister Jon Trickett said: “The Prime Minister once said her party needed to remove its dependency on large donors and that she would not be driven by the interests of the rich and powerful.

“But after having to wait almost a year for the Tories to come clean about who is buying access to her and her senior ministers, we can see that couldn’t be further from the truth.

“As always with the Tories, the real decisions are made with a small group of wealthy backers.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-how-third-tory-donations-11798246

“DAVID DAVIS WENT FOR DINNER WITH DAILY MAIL EDITOR AFTER BAILING EARLY ON FIRST ROUND OF BREXIT TALKS”

“Remember when David Davis ran out on the first round of Brexit negotiations after less than an hour? Now we know a bit about what he was doing instead.

The Brexit Secretary had declared it was “time to get down to business” ahead of the talks – but then skipped the majority of the discussions.

He turned up in Brussels at 8am on July 17, spent 15 minutes having a “friendly chat” with EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier and another 45 minutes in a meeting with their respective officials.

After being photographed without any papers and a quick press conference, he was on the Eurostar back to London.

A Government spokesperson told the media at the time that Davis had planned to leave early but denied that the decision was connected to a vote in Parliament.

So what did he get up to upon his return to London? Something more useful than dealing with the nitty gritty of Brexit negotiations?

Transparency documents published by DExEU last night offer us an interesting insight.

They show that on July 18 – while talks were still ongoing in Brussels – Davis had dinner with Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre. …

The Brexit Secretary only reappeared in Brussels when talks finished on July 20 for a press conference which didn’t go well.

Davis was criticised by Barnier over a “lack of clarity” in the Government’s position over the divorce bill.

That’s unsurprising given the extraordinary but real possibility that he may well have spent more time speaking to Dacre than Barnier about Brexit that week.

And it might also explain why, 18 months after the referendum, he’s only just made “sufficient progress” in negotiations.

Proud of yourself, Davis?”

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/12/david-davis-went-for-dinner-with-daily-mail-editor-after-bailing-early-on-first-round-of-brexit-talks/

“THERESA MAY LECTURES CABINET ON TRANSPARENCY – ON THE SAME DAY SHE’S ACCUSED OF HIDING MEETING”

Theresa May today told ministers they need to be more transparent – but was herself accused of keeping the public in the dark over a cash-for-access dinner with super-rich donors.

The Prime Minister’s office has published a letter that May sent to all her Cabinet ministers about the need for government transparency. She writes:

“Online transparency is crucial to delivering value for money, to cutting waste and inefficiency, and to ensuring every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way…

“…The sunlight of transparency also acts in itself as an important check and balance, and helps ensure the highest standards of public life among senior government representatives.”

Very admirable. Sadly though, these principles seem go out the window when it comes to the Conservative party.

Because, in other news today, May has been accused of “hiding her links to billionaires after secretly dining with super-rich donors.”

A source has told the Daily Mirror that May attended a “lavish meal” with a host of super-rich Tory donors, which took place hours after the Government had frozen benefits.

The meal is likely to have been part of the Tory party’s Leaders’ Group, which allows the rich to buy access to the PM and Cabinet ministers for a minimum donation of £50,000.

The Tories promised to release a list of people attending these meals with ministers once every three months – but they have failed to provide any details of events that have taken place this year.

If May really wants to improve transparency in politics she only needs to walk across the hall to have a word with Patrick McLoughlin, a minister in her department who also happens to be the Chairman of the Conservative party.

Surely she wouldn’t let her party fall below the standards she’s setting her government?”

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/12/theresa-may-lectures-cabinet-on-transparency-on-the-same-day-shes-accused-of-hiding-meeting/

More political donor sleaze

“The publication of Northern Irish political donors’ identities has been postponed to the new year because of a delay by the government in putting the necessary legislation before parliament.

The Electoral Commission had planned to publish information on donors who had given money to parties registered in Northern Ireland for the first time on Thursday.

Ann Watt, the head of the commission in Northern Ireland, said it was “extremely disappointed that we are unable to provide the public with the information they expected on how political parties in Northern Ireland are funded”.

“The continuing secrecy only serves to undermine trust and confidence among the public in the democratic process,” she said. “We were consulted by the Northern Ireland Office several months ago on draft legislation and provided detailed comments.”

The non-disclosure of information on donors to political parties in Northern Ireland dates back to the Troubles. It means that while Northern Irish political parties have to divulge donor information to the Electoral Commission, it cannot publish information identifying those donors.

The provision came under intense scrutiny when it emerged earlier this year that the Democratic Unionist party had spent £425,000 in the run-up to the 2016 EU referendum campaigning for Brexit.

Following questions from the media, the DUP MP Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said the cash had come from the pro-union Constitutional Research Council, chaired by the former Scottish Conservative party vice-chairman Richard Cook. The CRC’s donors are unknown.

The majority of the money was used to pay for a wraparound advert in the Metro newspaper, which is not published in Northern Ireland, while £32,750 was paid to AggregateIQ, a social media political consultancy based in Canada, also heavily used by Vote Leave, the official leave campaign.

Earlier this week, the Electoral Commission announced an investigation into Vote Leave over whether it breached the £7m EU referendum spending limit. The official leave campaign spent £6.8m itself and donated £625,000 to a fashion student’s campaign called BeLeave. At issue is whether BeLeave was genuinely independent of Vote Leave: the money it received was sent directly to be spent on social media marketing for AggregateIQ.

A government spokesperson said: “There remains widespread support for full transparency among the people of Northern Ireland.

“In line with that aim, we have brought secondary legislation before parliament that would provide for the publication of all donations and loans received by Northern Ireland parties.”

The Electoral Commission then updated its position in a second statement from Watt: “We are pleased that the UK government has acted to make this important change a reality. Transparency in how our political parties are funded is key to ensuring public trust and confidence in the democratic process.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/23/publication-of-northern-ireland-party-donors-delayed-until-new-year?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Why do Ladram Bay owners like Hugo Swire so much?

Perhaps this from Swire’s 2016 blog sheds some light on why the Carters are so fond of him (see earlier post today). Owl wonders what he now thinks of local lobbying after he demanded that transparency about it should be increased because of Priti Patel’s involvement with lobbyists?

And remember, the words below are his own, from his own blog, not a puff job from Ladram Bay owners. Ah, except that Mrs Swire, his parliamentary assistant, is said to work on his blog – so he might have had a bit of help from her.

Wonder when we can expect to see Swire is a caravan that doesn’t belong to an Arab sheikh?

“East Devon MP Hugo Swire was given a behind-the-scenes tour of a major holiday park in his constituency this April after it put the finishing touches to a £10 million redevelopment project.

The family owners of Ladram Bay Holiday Park near Budleigh Salterton invited Mr Swire to see the changes and to meet park staff as it gears up for the 2016 holiday season.

He was accompanied on his tour by park directors Zoe House and Robin Carter, two of the four siblings whose family has owned the park for over 70 years.

The MP, who is also Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, heard that holiday bookings are already up by 10 percent compared with this time last year.

Helping to provide an even more memorable experience will be the new facilities completed last year, including a new swimming pool complex and Jurassic-themed adventure golf course.

This winter has also seen further improvements such as the newly made-over customer reception area which Mr Swire declared officially open during a ribbon-cutting ceremony.

Mr Swire commented: “It was a pleasure to visit Ladram Bay once again to open their new reception and view their new facilities. The business continues to thrive and grow, which is good news for local employment and the wider East Devon economy”.

The MP also toured Ladram’s bright new park shop which puts a special emphasis on locally sourced food and drink, from artisan bread to Devon-brewed craft ales.

Other developments fresh for 2016 include improvements to Ladram’s Seaview Shack on its private beach where families can hire boats and watersports equipment, and enjoy light refreshments with stunning views along the coast.

There are also additional brand new holiday homes with the emphasis on five-star comfort, and early summer will see the installation of new super-luxury glamping pods.

Mr Swire was also shown a pair of colourful historic gypsy caravans which the park has had in its proud possession for many years, and which have now been renovated using traditional construction skills and hand-painted decoration.

The MP congratulated the Carter family on their long history of providing top quality and good-value holidays to tens of thousands of Devon visitors each year.

The park’s high standards have been recognised with a raft of awards, and Ladram now boasts a top five-star accolade from VisitEngland, putting it among an elite of UK holiday parks.

Zoe House said the family was delighted that Mr Swire was able to take time out to visit the park and officially open the new reception area. …”

https://www.hugoswire.org.uk/news/seaside-parks-£10m-splash-wins-mps-backing

Swire says MPs should be transparent about lobbying – where to start!

Do you see what he is doing here?

Deflecting people away from the Paradise Papers. And Ms Patel wanting to offer international aid to Israeli soldiers. And Boris Johnson opening his big rather stupid mouth and endangering a Brit’s wife imprisoned in Iran. And sex scandals galore in the Houses of Parliament

Like Trump going on about “crooked Hillary” when his Russian links or tax documents are mentioned Swire looks for a diversion where a Tory government will NEVER change its policy of not just welcoming lobbying but actively encouraging it.

Remember (way back) when Swire was Foreign Office flunky and Cameron arranged for big businesses to be palled up with MPs?

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/02/25/the-tory-access-for-influence-buddy-system-that-pairs-high-ranking-mps-including-our-own-hugo-swire-with-multinational-corporation-executives/

On lobbying, can we perhaps now look forward to Mr Swire and all MPs publishing their diaries and list all schmoozing appointments (and who they sat with!) for the last 5 years to see which lobbyists they have met?

BUT ALSO:

Can we force all MPs to sign declarations that they have no offshore funds? (Nothing at all to do with lobbying but Owl refuses to be deflected!).

Owl thinks he doth protest too much!

“Conservative MP for East Devon, Hugo Swire, says MPs should “open their books” and be “entirely transparent” about lobbying.

The former foreign minister told the House of Commons that the spotlight was on Parliament and it was finally time to “address the issue of access, privileged access and lobbying and funding if we are not to have this repeated time and time again”.

Mr Swire was speaking following an urgent question on private meetings held with International Development Secretary Priti Patel, whilst she was on holiday in Israel.”

Don’t punish the bully, punish the victim, says Tory donors

This is extraordinary. In any other walk of life a bully would be punished and his or her victim given support. In this increasingly mad party, it is the other way round. In this case the bully is being joined by other bullies to force the victim out of a job.

And as for raising more money from “ordinary” voters – do people not realise that these donors are now desperately squirreling away their cash to cushion them against Brexit problems. With lots of it probably going to those tax havens they love so much.

As an employer – for that is what Tory donors are – these rich donors who are calling the tune – it should be ashamed of themselves. But alas, shame is something rich Tory donors have never and will never experience.

And every member of the Conservative Party shares in this – including our MPs Swire and Parish if they stay silent and join in bearing in mind Swire tweeted his support of bully-boy Johnson very recently, after his attack on May.

Tory party members – you are all complicit with the behaviour of these bullies. Pay your subs and be one of the rabble they will call up on their behalf – that’s your role. And take over paying for their share while they still pull your strings.

“Conservative donors have called for Theresa May to stand down because she is being “bullied” by colleagues including Boris Johnson.

Following an ill-fated conference speech and rumours of a backbench plot against the prime minister, two wealthy supporters said the party must act quickly and install another leader.

In a further development, the party is discussing plans to emulate Labour and widen its financial support away from large donations from a select group of wealthy donors to smaller donations from its ordinary members.

Charlie Mullins, the founder of London-based Pimlico Plumbers, said May must leave because she was being bullied and undermined by Johnson.

He said: “She has got to go for her own sake. It is getting embarrassing. If this was a boxing match, the fight would have been stopped. She has been put in a position where she is being bullied, she is being intimidated, they are making her life hell. These are Conservative people who are destroying this woman and it needs to stop.”

Mullins, who has donated £50,000 and spent £30,000 on a stall at this year’s conference, said the foreign secretary had been successfully undermining the prime minister.

“She is a broken woman. They are setting her up,” he said. “Boris is not a fool. He knows what he is doing. Boris is knocking her at every opportunity he gets because he wants to be prime minister. Boris has been a big part of destroying this woman. …

A second donor said May appeared to be too weak to fight the business community’s corner and should leave by Christmas if the party wants to retain financial support from entrepreneurs.

The businessman, who has given more than £300,000 in total, said: “[The party] is losing support in the City. People worry that the Tories are taking us over a Brexit cliff edge and May looks too weak to control her ministers.

“We need to act now. Whether she is replaced by an old guard member like Michael Fallon or new blood, I am not sure.”

The Conservatives have grown increasingly concerned about the party’s failing support from big donors in the business community.

While the Tories generated £1.5m in membership fees last year, Labour raised £14.4m, according to figures published in August by the Electoral Commission.

John Griffin, the founder of taxi firm Addison Lee who has given more than £4m to the Conservatives, told the Guardian that he has had preliminary talks with party officials about helping to widen financial support from a select few individuals to other less wealthy donors.

“I think the party has performed very poorly in that particular area, so I have a cunning plan and we will be having meetings about that this month. They have underperformed in the area of collecting money,” he said.

“We don’t really want donors to give large sums. We want lots of people to give smaller sums. That is the plan. The Labour party are making a better fist of it. We need to consider that and emulate them.”

Griffin declined to go into further details but said he raised the idea with May at a fundraising dinner at the Dorchester hotel in central London last month. “She supports the idea in principle,” he said.

Griffin, who gave £1m to the party before this year’s election, said he wantedMay to remain as prime minister and called for Johnson to be given a “smacked bum” for undermining her.

“Boris has been a naughty boy and needs a smacked bum. That’s where I stand. He is a nice bloke, but there is a time for everything and he needs a bit more dignity,” he said. “I have encouraged the prime minister to make sure that these people in the cabinet stand in line and she must exercise her power.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/05/conservative-donors-call-for-may-to-stand-down-over-bullying-by-johnson

MP getting £3,000 per month from a lobbying, that’s fine – isn’t it?

David Mitchell nails it in The Observer:

“The Tory politician James Duddridge pockets £3,300 a month from a lobbying company, but don’t worry. If it were a problem, it wouldn’t be legal.

What is the advantage of letting sitting MPs work for lobbying firms? What are the pluses of that, for the country? Because we do allow it, so I’m assuming there must be some upside.

After all, there are clear advantages to many things we don’t allow: smoking on petrol station forecourts, for example. Allowing that would mean, if you’re addicted to smoking, or enjoy smoking, or think smoking makes you look cool, you could do it while filling your car with petrol, polishing its bonnet, going to buy snacks, checking the tyres and so on. You wouldn’t be inconvenienced by either the discomfort of nicotine withdrawal or a hiatus in the image of nonchalant suavity that having a fag in your mouth invariably projects.

And the same goes for those essaying auras of Churchillian defiance and grit, or Hannibal from The A-Team-style twinkly maverick leadership, to which a lit cigar clamped between the teeth can be vital, particularly if you’ve got a weak chin.

Similarly, if you’re a pipe-smoking detective of the Sherlock Holmes mould and are, perhaps, investigating a crime on a petrol station forecourt, or merely passing across one while contemplating the intricacies of a non-forecourt-related mystery, you wouldn’t have to suffer a lapse in the heightened analytical brain function that you’ve found smoking a pipe crucial to attaining. Interrupting such processes to buy petrol may cause murderers to walk free.

And then there’s the possibility that allowing smoking at petrol stations will marginally increase overall consumption, and therefore sales, of tobacco products – all the Holmeses and Churchills and Bonds will be able to get a few more smokes in before they die of cancer – which would slightly improve trade and GDP, and so create jobs.

Maybe Duddridge just pops in once a month and is a master of clearing photocopier jams.

Nevertheless, I am not, on balance, in favour of allowing smoking on petrol station forecourts. The manifold advantages are, in my view, outweighed by the several disadvantages: passive smoking for non-smoking users of the forecourt, nicotine staining of the underside of the canopy, and various others I can’t currently bring to mind.

But you’d think, in a system that flattered itself as non-mad, as I believe the British one still does, practices that are legal would be bristling with more boons for the community than those that aren’t. That’s got to be the vague rule of thumb, right? So then, what are the good things about allowing sitting MPs to take paid work from lobbying firms? What are the upsides to that?

The downsides are as hard to miss as a few hundred thousand litres of subterranean petrol suddenly exploding. Let’s take an example from the news last week. It was reported that James Duddridge, a Tory MP who was minister for Africa from 2014 to 2016, is being paid £3,300 for eight hours work a month by a lobbying company called Brand Communications.

It’s one of the few lobbying companies not to have signed up to the industry’s code of conduct, which prohibits employing sitting MPs. You may say that makes it a nasty firm, but I don’t blame it. Why would it sign up to extra rules if it doesn’t have to? That’s like volunteering to observe a lower speed limit than the one prescribed by law.

The law is absolutely fine with Duddridge’s little earner. Former ministers’ jobs just have to be approved by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, itself described by the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee as a “toothless regulator” (these committees are so bitchy!), since it has no statutory powers of redress. Then again, as its rulings are almost invariably “That’s fine”, what powers does it really need?

Duddridge himself says it’s all legit because Brand Communications is “not a public affairs company”, but the company’s website says “James will bring his deep knowledge of Africa, experience of operating at the highest levels of government and extensive networks to Brand Communications”, which sounds a bit public affairsy to me.

But I don’t know: maybe it’s fine. We can’t know it’s definitely not fine. Admittedly, according to the Times, the head of one of Britain’s leading lobbying firms called it “an appalling example of bad practice”, and the chairman of the Association of Professional Political Consultants said, “MPs should not be lobbyists. It is wrong to be a lobbyist and make the law at the same time,” but maybe it’s still fine.

Maybe James just pops in once a month and is incredibly helpful in ways that don’t conflict with his public duties. Maybe he’s full of creative ideas, a huge boost to office morale and a master of clearing photocopier jams. And then he pops back to parliament and doesn’t think about Brand Communications until the next month, no matter what issues concerning their interests cross his desk as an MP and member of the Commons International Development Committee. Yes, maybe it’s fine.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/01/lobbying-firms-mps-james-duddridge-brand-communications

Minister criticises her own government on charity gagging

“A minister today took a swipe at her own Government for refusing to relax rules restricting the campaigning charities can do the year before elections.

The Government last week revealed it will not amend the controversial Lobbying Act – despite a government commissioned review calling for major changes.

And in a move suggesting division in the heart of government over the decision, civil society minister Tracey Crouch retweeted an article criticising the decision.

The article warned the decision will fuel concerns that Theresa May’s administration is a ‘weak minority Government that largely only has eyes for Brexit’.

And it questioned what influence Ms Crouch ‘genuinely has within Government’ if she has not been able to convince her fellow ministers of the need for change.

‘A divided government bogged down by Brexit doesn’t have the time or the inclination to push through sensible changes to poorly-drafted legislation.
‘Tracey Crouch deserves credit for speaking out but the truth is the country is suffering as a result’. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4895914/Tracey-Crouch-s-swipe-government-charity-lobbying.html

Charities politically gagged by Tory government

Note that professional lobbyists have no restrictions – only charities and non-governmental organisations.

“Charities have condemned ministers for rejecting changes to the Lobbying Act which were made by a government-commissioned review body. Campaign groups say they will be left unable to speak out for vulnerable and marginalised people in society because the law has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

The Lobbying Act restricts what non-governmental organisations can say in the year before a general election.

As a result of an outcry from the charities sector, the government commissioned a review of the recommended amendments.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts called for the scope of the act to be reduced to include only activity intended to influence how the public vote. The Conservative peer also called for the period during which its rules apply to be reduced from a year.

But the Cabinet Office has said in a statement it would make no changes to the law. In a statement the Cabinet Office said: “The rules on third-party campaigning in elections ensures that activity is transparent and prevents any individual, company, or organisation exerting undue influence in terms of an election outcome.

“We recognise and value the role that charities play in our society and are keen to work with voluntary bodies to ensure the rules are well understood.”

Charities and NGOs said this amounted to a blanket rejection of recommendations made by by Hodgson’s review.

The Cabinet Office decision comes a few weeks after more than 100 charities sent a letter to the civil societiy minister Tracey Crouch to put pressure on ministers to overhaul the act.

The charities and campaign groups who signed the letter represented a wide range of domestic and global issues including health, social care, global poverty, human rights, environment, and vulnerable groups. They included Greenpeace, Girlguiding, Deafblind UK and Action for Children.

Greenpeace was the first NGO to be fined under the Lobbying Act.

Tamsyn Barton, chief executive of Bond, the UK network of organisations working in international development, said: “How are charities supposed to speak up for the most vulnerable and marginalised people in society, both here and globally, when they are at risk of being penalised by the Lobbying Act? The government is legislating the sector into silence at a time when our voices are needed the most. This is a terrible day for British democracy.”

Greenpeace fined under Lobbying Act in ‘act of civil disobedience’
The Conservative government led by David Cameron passed the act as a result of high-profile corporate lobbying scandals. It amended existing rules on non-party organisations introduced in 2000, requiring groups to register with the electoral commission if they plan to spend more than £20,000 in England or £10,000 in the rest of the UK on so-called “regulated activities”.

Critics say the government’s definition of these activities is so broad it can include any activity that could be interpreted as political.

Vicky Browning, chief executive of the charity leaders network Acevo, said of the government’s decision: “Charity leaders will be dismayed by the Cabinet Office’s decision to ignore wholesale Lord Hodgson’s recommendations to reduce campaigning restrictions. This decision is in direct contradiction with the views of not only Lord Hodgson but the cross-party Lords select committee on charities and over 100 charity leaders from across the country.

“Lord Hodgson insisted that his reforms would ensure the clarity and definition of campaigning boundaries. Without them, the Lobbying Act’s restrictions remain deeply intimidating.”

“MPs declare sports and bookies as most common donors”

“Sports and betting companies top the list of donors treating MPs to gifts and hospitality.

The Ladbrokes Coral group appeared 15 times in the register of members’ interests, more than any other donor.

Out of 187 donations from UK sources registered by MPs, 58 were from the world of sport. A further 19 were from betting companies.
Ladbrokes Coral said it wanted MPs to take decisions “from a position of knowledge”.

But campaigners for tighter rules on gambling said companies could use hospitality to lobby MPs not to change rules on fixed odds betting terminals.

MPs are required to declare any gifts, benefits and hospitality over a value of £300. The latest register was published on 29 August and most declarations date from the beginning of 2016 to July 2017.

The Ladbrokes Coral Group accounted for 15 entries including trips to Ascot, Doncaster and Cheltenham races, the Community Shield at Wembley and dinner at the Conservative Party conference.

Altogether, the group of companies donated £7,475-worth of hospitality to four MPs, Conservatives Philip Davies (eight occasions – totalling £3,685), Laurence Robertson (four occasions -£2,550) and Thérèse Coffey (twice – £890) and Labour’s Conor McGinn (once – £350).

The total does not include any gifts or hospitality worth less than £300 as MPs do not have to declare this.

ITV appeared eight times and Channel 4 was mentioned five times. BBC Northern Ireland appears once. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41027964