Tories funded by rich few, Labour by poorer many!

Tories funded by big donations from the (very, very rich) few, Labour funded by the (very, very much poorer) many!

“Labour generated 10 times more in party membership fees than the Tories in 2016

Labour received ten times more than the Tories in party membership fees in 2016 as the scale of the difference between the number of rank and file supporters for each was laid bare.

The Conservatives generated £1.5 million in membership fees last year while Labour coffers were boosted to the tune of £14.4 million, according to new figures published by the Electoral Commission.

Meanwhile, the Tories brought in £800,000 through membership in 2015 while the Labour figure was £9.5 million.

The size of the membership money gap between the two parties is likely to reignite speculation about the current size of the Tory party membership after previous claims that it may have dipped below 100,000.

Membership figures for the Conservatives have not been made available since 2013 when the party had about 150,000 paid up supporters.

That figure represented a sizeable reduction on the size of the membership during the 2005 leadership contest when it stood at a reported 253,000.

In stark contrast the most recent estimate of Labour Party membership from March of this year was 517,000.

The cost of standard membership of the Conservative Party costs £25 and £48 for Labour but both parties offer other, less costly membership packages for certain groups of people like young people and armed forces personnel.

The Conservative Party declined to comment on the current size of its membership.

A Labour Party spokeswoman said: “Labour is a mass membership party, proud to be funded by our members and working people.

“It is this broad funding base that makes us the party of ordinary working people, while the Tories increasingly rely on a small pool of super-rich donors.”

While Labour enjoys a huge financial advantage over the Tories on the issue of membership income, it is the Conservatives who are ahead when it comes to donations.

The Tories received almost £19 million in donations in 2016 while Labour received £14.7 million.

In 2015, a general election year, the Tories received about £32 million in donations compared to about £19 million for Labour.

Both Labour and the Tories spent less than what they generated in income in 2016.

Labour’s total income was just shy of £50 million with the party spending about £43 million while the Tories’ total income was just over £28 million with expenditure totalling just under £28 million.

The Liberal Democrats ranked third on the list of party expenditure, spending £7.7 million, followed by the SNP on about £6 million and Ukip with just shy of £3 million.

The SNP spent more than it brought in, recording income of just under £5 million.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/31/labour-generated-10-times-party-membership-fees-tories-2016/

Tory donor and tax avoider – go together like a horse and carriage

The Canary has provided a handy copy-and-keep list of the top Tory election donors, and it’s a real rogues’ gallery. Check out these creeps:

The Tories’ top donors included:

JCB Service – £1.5m. It’s owned by Anthony Bamford, who was not only named in the Panama Papers, but who operates JCB out of tax haven Bermuda.

John C Armitage – £1.1m. Armitage is the founder of Egerton Capital, a hedge fund that enables [xml] tax avoidance for investors.

John Griffin – £1.03m. Griffin and his private hire firm Addison Lee were caught up in a lobbying scandal in 2012.

Mark J. C. Bamford – £750,000. The younger brother of Anthony Bamford, owner of JBC Service, he was caught up in a row over a JCB subsidiary, JCB research, which, while only worth £27,000, was the biggest Tory donor in the run-up to the 2010 general election.

Andrew E Law – £525,000. Law is a hedge fund owner [paywall] whose firm Caxton Associates is registered in the US tax avoidance state of Delaware.
David J Rowland – £312,500. The Canary conducted a major investigation into Rowland in 2016, and described his offshore tax affairs as “mind blowing”.
Lord Michael Ashcroft – £500,000. Ashcroft has been involved in several tax avoidance scandals. He also co-authored the book at the centre of the David Cameron ‘Pig gate’ scandal.

Other Tory donors [pdf p3-5] during the election period included:

Sir Henry and Lady Keswick – £150,000. Keswick’s company Jardine Matheson was linked to tax avoidance via Luxembourg and has numerous subsidiaries in tax haven Bermuda.

Charles ‘Julian’ Cazalet – £10,000. Cazalet is a non-executive director of NHS private provider Deltex Medical Group.

Malcolm Healey – £100,000. Healey was fined by HMRC in 2015 for making £8.6m [pdf] by using a tax avoidance scheme.

Bruce Hardy McLain – £100,000. McLain’s private investment firm CVC Capital Partners is currently embroiled in a £5m bribery and tax avoidance scandal involving Formula One.

Ayman and Sawsan Asfari – £100,000. Ayman is currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. He also runs oil company Petrofac, which avoids tax via Jersey.

Rainy City Investments – £100,000. Owned by Peter and Fred Done, who were fined £800,000 by the Serious Fraud Office over money laundering allegations.

Investors in Private Capital Ltd – £150,000. Co-owned by James ‘Jamie’ Reuben, family friend of George Osborne, it paid no UK corporation tax in 2014 [pdf p13], despite a turnover [pdf p17] of £35m.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/08/27/top-tory-election-donors-appear-to-be-tax-avoiders-money-launderers-and-private-health-bosses/

Cash for votes – Conservatives win by millions

“British political parties received a record £40m of donations in the three months before the election, with the Conservatives bringing in more than twice as much cash as Labour.

More than half of the money was given to the Conservative party, which raised almost £25m between April and June compared with £9.5m for Labour.

The funding received beat the previous record high for a three-month period, which was set during the runup to the election in 2015, by more than £9m.

The biggest donation to the Conservatives was £1.5m from Anthony Bamford, a Conservative peer and industrialist who also helped fund the Brexit campaign. Labour’s largest sum was from Unite, the trade union, which donated £1.3m.

Other wealthy businessmen who gave more than £1m each to the Tories including John Armitage, a hedge fund manager, John Gore, a musical theatre impresario, and John Griffin, the founder of the Addison Lee taxi firm.

The Liberal Democrats raised about £4.4m, while Ukip managed to get £150,000, the Greens around £175,000, the Women’s Equality party almost £300,000 and Plaid Cymru just £5,300.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/24/uk-political-parties-received-record-40m-of-donations-before-election

Special interest groups (such as blogs) and democracy

Summary of article:

“How should the interest group process operate in a liberal democracy?

• Elected representatives and politicians should recognise a need for continuous dialogue between decision-makers and different sections of the public over detailed policy choices. Procedures for involving interest groups in consultations should cover the full range of stakeholders whose interests are materially affected by policy choices.

• The resources for organising collective voice and action in pressure groups, trade unions, trade associations, non-governmental organisations, charities, community groups and other forms should be readily available. In particular, decision-makers should recognise the legitimacy of collective actions and mobilisations.

• The costs of organising effectively should be low and within reach of any social group or interest. State or philanthropic assistance should be available to ensure that a balanced representation of all affected interests can be achieved in the policy process.

• Decision-makers should recognise inequalities in resources across interest groups, and discount for different levels of ‘organisability’ and resources.

• Policy makers should also re-weight the inputs they receive so as to distinguish between shallow or even ‘fake’ harms being claimed by well-organised groups, and deeper harms potentially being suffered by hard-to-organise groups.

• Other aspects of liberal democratic processes, such as the ‘manifesto doctrine’ that elected governments implement all components of their election programmes, do not over-ride the need to consult and listen in detail to affected groups, and to choose policy options that minimise harms and maximise public legitimacy and consensus support.

• Since policy-makers must sometimes make changes that impose new risks and costs across society, they should in general seek to allocate risks to those groups best able to insure against them.”

The some paragraphs from the article:

“Between elections, a well-organised interest groups process generates a great deal of useful and perhaps more reliable information for policy-makers about preference intensities. By undertaking different levels of collective action along a continuum of participation opportunities, and incurring costs in doing so, ordinary citizens can accurately indicate how strongly they feel about issues to decision-makers.

So sending back a pre-devised public feedback form, writing to an MP, supporting an online petition to the government, or tweeting support for something indicates a low level of commitment. Paying membership fees to an interest group or going to meetings shows more commitment, and gives the group legitimacy and weight with politicians. Going on strike or marching in a demonstration indicates a higher level of commitments still. A well-organised interest group process will allow for a huge variety of ways in which citizens can indicate their views. …

This area of policy-making has been stable for many years, with occasional fringe scandals. Two small changes have taken place recently. The 2014 Lobbying Act introduced an official register of paid lobbyists operating with MPs in Westminster and in touch with Whitehall departments. But this was on a rather restrictive basis, affecting especially paid-for lobbying firms and some groups with developed governmental or parliamentary liaison operations.

The lobbying industry (estimated by some sources to be worth £2bn a year) also remains self-regulated. For a period during the bill’s passage (2013-14), the Cabinet Office proposals seemed to threaten to make academics, universities and a wide range of charities advocating for policy changes register too. But after much criticism this proposal was fought off. However, the legislation is still somewhat controversial – particularly among charities, who complain that it stifles them before election campaigns. …

Nobody now claims that the UK’s interest group process is an equitable one. There are big and powerful lobbies, medium influence groups and no hopers battling against a hostile consensus. Democracy requires that each interest be able to effectively voice their case, and have it heard by policymakers on its merits, so that the group can in some way shape the things that matter most to them. On the whole, the first (voice) criterion is now easily met in Britain. But achieving any form of balanced, deliberative consideration of interests by policymakers remains an uphill struggle. Business dominance is reduced but still strong, despite the shift to cognitive competition and more evidence-based policy-making.”

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/08/10/audit-2017-how-democratic-and-effective-is-the-interest-group-process-in-the-uk/

How Ireland tightened lobbying rules (and why)

Likelihood of this happening here – zero. All that happened here was the opposite – charities were banned from criticising the government:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/chilling-lobbying-act-stifles-democracy-write-charities-party-chiefs

“Two years after Ireland introduced some of the strictest laws in the world on lobbying transparency, the reforms are being held up as the gold standard for policymakers looking to shine a light on the often murky world of influence peddling.

Calls for transparency are growing louder across Europe, especially in Germany, where a series of scandals have put a spotlight on the car industry’s close ties with senior politicians.

Ireland’s experience, say proponents of the law, has dispelled worries that tough lobbying rules would cripple the industry or limit the ability of politicians to do their job — as MEPs in Brussels resisting similar obligations have argued.

“Transparency is catching hold,” said Sherry Perreault, head of lobbying regulation at Ireland’s Standards in Public Office Commission, who’s traveled across Europe to showcase the Irish reforms. “To see this catching fire outside of Ireland is really terrific.”

The Irish reforms are simple. Any individual, company or NGO that seeks to directly or indirectly influence officials on a policy issue must list themselves on a public register and disclose any lobbying activity. The rules cover any meeting with high-level public officials, as well as letters, emails or tweets intended to influence policy.

For those in the business, the impact of the register and its requirements are primarily about the way the industry is perceived — and, broadly, they’re happy about it.

“I’ve not heard anybody suggest the Lobbying Act has impacted in any way the willingness or the ability to influence [policymakers],” said Conall McDevitt, CEO of Hume Brophy, one of Ireland’s largest lobbying firms. “It’s always better in our industry to have transparency, we’re all the stronger for it.”

Indeed, the push for more transparency is often advocated by lobbyists themselves, eager for legal clarity and happy to present themselves as fulfilling a vital role in modern democracies through the information they provide to policymakers.

“Lobbying has got a very bad name because of the actions of some individuals,” said Cian Connaughton, president of the Public Relations Institute of Ireland. “What the register has done is clarify to people what is happening, who is doing what.”

“It means people can’t say, ‘God knows what’s going on there,’” he added. “The fact that [the] new regime has hopefully increased people’s trust in the system, it’s a big plus.”

Popular revulsion

The tougher laws have their origins in the 2008 financial crisis that brought the Irish economy to its knees. The country’s travails are widely regarded as a consequence of the close relationships between politicians from the Fianna Fáil party, in power at the time of the crisis, and Ireland’s property developers.

“The fact that we had gone through this economic collapse [and that there was] a broadly held belief that influence had been peddled, there was such a ground swell of support for reform,” said Brendan Howlin, currently leader of the Labour Party and minister for public expenditure and reform between 2011 and 2016.

Popular revulsion at corruption had been building for decades. Several inquiries — including one into Ireland’s planning system that found widespread corruption had taken place in the 1980s and 1990s — had concluded that underhand payments had become endemic in the country.

To write what would become the 2015 Regulation of Lobbying Act, Howlin looked at existing rules across the world, including Canada’s, whose government first introduced transparency requirements in 1989 and subsequently strengthened them four times.

“There wasn’t much opposition to the concept,” Howlin said.

The law uses one of the broadest possible definitions of a lobbyist: anyone who employs more than 10 individuals, works for an advocacy body, is a professional paid by a client to communicate on someone else’s behalf or is communicating about land development is required to register themselves and the lobbying activities they carry out.

That means NGOs and other civil society organizations are just as much subject to the rules as groups representing multinationals or local industries.

Failure to register or filing incorrect information can result in a fine of up to €2,500 and a two-year prison sentence. …”

http://www.politico.eu/article/ireland-lobbying-clampdown-model-for-europe/

Councillors and developers – a (happy for them) marriage made in hell

Journalist Anna Minton wrote a damning report in 2013 (“Scaring the Living Daylights out of People”) heavily featuring the chilling antics of the East Devon Business Forum and its disgraced Chairman, former EDDC councillor Graham Brown and mentions this in today’s article in The Guardian:

Click to access e87dab_fd0c8efb6c0f4c4b8a9304e7ed16bc34.pdf

This article on the politicisation of planning is reproduced in its entirety as there was not one sentence that Owl could cut. Although the article concentrates on cities it applies equally to areas such as East Devon.

“The politicisation of planning has come with the growth of the regeneration industry. While once planning officers in local government made recommendations that elected members of planning committees generally followed, today lobbyists are able to exert far greater influence.

It’s not easy to see into this world, but there are traces in the public domain. Registers of hospitality, for example, detail some of the interactions between councillors and the commercial property business. Take a week in the life of Nick Paget-Brown, the Kensington and Chelsea leader who resigned in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire. In October last year he had lunch at the five-star riverside Royal Horseguards Hotel courtesy of the property giant Willmott Dixon. The previous evening he had been at a reception put on by the business lobby group London First, whose membership is dominated by property and housing firms. He had breakfast with the Grosvenor Estate, the global property empire worth £6.5bn, and lunch at Knightsbridge’s Carlton Tower Hotel. This was paid for by the Cadogan Estate, the second largest of the aristocratic estates (after Grosvenor), which owns 93 acres in Kensington, including Sloane Square and the King’s Road.

Rock Feilding-Mellen, the councillor in charge of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, who has stepped down as the council’s deputy leader, had his own list of engagements. As the Grenfell Action Group noted earlier this year, he was a dinner guest of Terrapin, the firm founded by Peter Bingle, a property lobbyist renowned for lavish hospitality.

Bingle is also a player in the other big regeneration story of recent weeks: Haringey council’s approval of plans for its HDV – Haringey development vehicle. This is a “partnership” with the Australian property developer Lendlease, a lobbying client of Terrapin’s. The HDV promises to create a £2bn fund to build a new town centre and thousands of new homes, but local residents on the Northumberland Park housing estate, whose homes will be demolished, are vehemently opposed. The Haringey leader, Claire Kober, has lunched or dined six times at Terrapin’s expense.

In Southwark, just as in Haringey and Kensington, there is a revolving door between politicians and lobbyists. The former leader of Southwark council, Jeremy Fraser, went on to found the lobbying firm Four Communications, where he was joined by Southwark’s former cabinet member for regeneration Steve Lancashire. Derek Myers, who until 2013 jointly ran Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham councils, is now a director of the London Communications Agency, a lobbying agency with property developers on its client list. Merrick Cockell, the leader of Kensington and Chelsea until 2013, now chairs the lobbying firm Cratus Communications, which also specialises in property lobbying. In Westminster, the hospitality register for the last three years of its deputy leader, Robert Davis – chair of the council’s planning committee for 17 years – runs to 19 pages.

Cities other than London and rural areas also provide examples of worrying relationships. In East Devon a serving councillor was found in 2013 to be offering his services as a consultant to help developers get the planning decisions they wanted. In Newcastle a councillor who worked for a lobbying company boasted of “tricks of the trade” that included making sure planning committees included friendly faces.

Meanwhile the culture of regular meetings and socialising does not stop with councils. The diary of David Lunts, head of housing and land at the Greater London Authority for the first three months of 2017, reveals a lunch in Mayfair with Bingle, a VIP dinner laid on by a London developer, another meal paid for by a housing giant, and dinner on Valentine’s Day with a regeneration firm. Consultants and a developer furnished him with more meals before he headed off to Cannes for Mipim, the world’s biggest property fair. He also had dinner with Rydon, the firm that refurbished Grenfell Tower.

Further up the food chain, it was only because of Bingle’s boasts that we heard of a dinner he gave the then local government secretary, Eric Pickles. Held in the Savoy’s Gondoliers Room, it was also attended by business chiefs, including one who was waiting for a planning decision from Pickles’s department. The dinner was never declared on any register of hospitality because Pickles said he was attending in a private capacity.

Lunt’s former colleague Richard Blakeway, who was London’s deputy mayor for housing until last year, and David Cameron’s adviser on housing policy, became a paid adviser to Willmott Dixon. He is also on the board of the Homes and Communities Agency, the government body that regulates and invests in social housing. Its chair is Blakeway’s old boss, the former London deputy mayor for policy and planning Ed Lister, who is also a non-executive director of the developer Stanhope.

The MP Mark Prisk, housing minister until 2013, advocated “removing unnecessary housing, construction and planning regulations” as part of the government’s red tape challenge. He became an adviser to the property developer Essential Living, eight months after leaving office. Prisk advises the firm on legislation, providing support for developments and “brand” building. Essential Living’s former development manager Nick Cuff was also a Conservative councillor and chair of Wandsworth’s planning committee. A colleague of Cuff’s, who spent 30 years in the south London borough’s planning department, now works for Bingle’s lobbying firm, Terrapin.

This is the world that Kensington’s Paget-Brown and Feilding-Mellen, Haringey’s Kober and countless other council leaders inhabit. Socialising between these property men – and they are mostly men – is used to cement ties, and the lines between politician, official, developer and lobbyist are barely drawn. This culture, and the questions of accountability it raises, must be part of the public inquiry into Grenfell. It is perhaps no surprise that the government doesn’t want it to be.

• Tamasin Cave, a director of the lobbying transparency organisation Spinwatch, contributed to this article”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/14/grenfell-developers-cities-politicians-lobbyists-housing

Don’t let (tax avoiding) Google influence your views

Google spends millions on academic research to influence opinion, says watchdog

“Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed.

Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report.

“Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. “At a minimum, regulators should be aware that the allegedly independent legal and academic work on which they rely has been brought to them by Google.”

In its Google Academics Inc report, the CfA identified 329 research papers published between 2005 and 2017 on public policy that the company had funded. Such studies have been authored by academics and economists from some of the world’s leading institutions including Oxford, Edinburgh, Stanford, Harvard, MIT and the Berlin School of Economics.

Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by Google, according to the report.

The CfA is calling for Google-funded academics to disclose the source of their funding to ensure their work can be evaluated in context.

Google described the report as “highly misleading” as it included any work supported by any organisation to which it has ever donated money. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion

Tax avoidance:
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-03-31/google-accused-of-being-less-than-transparent-after-revealing-latest-uk-tax-payments/

DUP funding secrecy to be stopped – but not for massive Brexit loan

Owl says: Two parties working together, both using dirty money to buy votes and manipulate power – are East Devon Tory voters happy with this?

“When the law over political donations was overhauled (or rather, introduced – as it had previously been pretty much a secret free-for-all), an exception was made for Northern Ireland. The requirements for transparency of donations in the rest of the UK* was not applied to Northern Ireland as, still fresh from its years of bloody violence, it was felt by many that forcing political donors to be named was not yet appropriate.

That secrecy has, however, come under recent sustained criticism as it has opened up a loophole for secret donations to impact not only elections in Northern Ireland but also UK-wide contests. In particular, a secret £435,000 donation to the DUP went on campaigning in favour of Brexit across the whole UK.

Now, however, the government has announced that donations in Northern Ireland will be subject to the same transparency rules as in the rest of the UK.

One catch – up until now, the source of large secret donations has still had to be recorded even if not published. The government’s plan is for those records to remain secret despite the Electoral Commission’s calls for transparency over donations made in recent years too. So the full story of that £435,000 for the Brexit referendum may never be known.

* This transparency is not perfect, as continuing disputes over unincorporated associations in particular demonstrates, but it is pretty widespread.”

https://www.markpack.org.uk/150676/northern-ireland-political-donations-transparency/

Company Chairman stumps up cash when shareholders object to political donation

“After a shareholder revolt, the chairman of a City firm which made £25,000 worth of donations to Conservative candidates has agreed to reimburse the firm for the money given:

The chairman of City trading outfit NEX is paying back the £25,000 of shareholders funds the company donated to Tory election candidates in an attempt to keep out Remain backing Liberal Democrat MPs, including Sir Vince Cable.

Charles Gregson said he would refund the money from his own pocket following consultations with investors and governance groups…

NEX, run by former Tory Party Treasurer Michael Spencer, targeted seats where sitting Tories enjoyed narrow majorities over Liberal Democrat challengers, including Twickenham, which Sir Vince ultimately won back from the sitting Conservative MP Tania Mathias…

Pirc, which advises investors with billions of pounds under management, said it believed this to be an inappropriate use of shareholders cash in a critical report issued ahead of the company’s AGM.

[The Independent]

https://www.markpack.org.uk/150680/nex-conservative-party-donations/

“Too busy” Prime Minister dines on green asparagus and truffle salad with Tory donors this evening

“Theresa May was schmoozing multi-millionaire Tory donors at the Savoy while Grenfell Tower residents faced homelessness and talks with the DUP stalled, HuffPost UK can reveal.

The Prime Minister spent 50 minutes hobnobbing with Conservative backers at the lavish London hotel on Tuesday, despite aides insisting she was too “busy” for other engagements.

Her appearance comes in the wake of recent terror attacks, as Brexit negotiations open and the day before the Queen’s Speech is put before Parliament.

May was accused of a lack of “humanity” after she dodged survivors of the Grenfell Tower blaze during a swift 15-minute tour of the site in the immediate aftermath.

But at the Savoy event – where tables cost up to £5,000 – the Prime Minister posed for selfies and a bottle of champagne was raffled to raise funds.

Ian Lavery, chairman of the Labour Party, hit out at May’s decision to attend the event, adding: “At a time when the country is facing some of the most difficult and challenging times in recent memory, it speaks volumes of the Prime Minister that her priority was to spend time raising money for the Tories.

“One day before the Queen’s Speech and in the midst of the Brexit negotiations, Theresa May should be focused on providing the leadership this country so badly needs, not wining and dining big Tory donors so that she can refill her party’s election coffers.

“This is yet another example of the appalling lack of judgement and tact she has shown over recent days. The British people deserve a government that will stand up for the many; what they’ve got is a Prime Minister and government that always stands up for the few.”

…At the Savoy event, which HuffPost UK attended, May devoted almost an hour of her time to party members, delivering a lengthy speech and joking the election result “didn’t turn out quite as I planned”.

Guests ate a green asparagus salad with truffle and soft boiled egg, followed by slow roasted salt marsh rump of lamb with caramelised heirloom carrots and a tarragon jus.

Among the guests at the luncheon were a string of wealthy City bankers and Ukrainian-born British businessman Alexander Temerko, who has provided a steady stream of cash to the Tories when David Cameron was leader.

…Conservative association chairman Patrick Evershed pleaded with the super-rich guests to hand over cash before he introduced the prime minister.

He asked those gathered to show “even more generosity” because “times are very tough”.

He said: “This election is not what we all hoped for and it certainly is not what we deserve. Despite that Theresa May got 5% more votes than David Cameron did two years ago.”

“We need a lot more to do even better than we have in the last one, so please be very generous.

“The minimum prescription is 25 but I think several of you here are pretty well off.”

The party received £12.7m in donations between May 3 and June 8, while Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party received £4.5m and the Lib Dems £1.1m.

The Government has also stressed the Prime Minister is making “some progress” in helping Grenfell Tower victims after a fund was set up.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-savoy_uk_59493a8ce4b07499199ed1a6

At least one local paper stands up for itself – but not here

“While taking Conservative cash to place the ad, The Blackpool Gazette ran a headline above it which read: Poverty-hit families are forced to rely on food bank handouts. And inside, the paper ran a special report detailing the impact of Conservative austerity on local families [as quoted below]:

Food bank Britain

Britain is hungry. The figures from the Trussell Trust, Britain’s largest network of food banks, reveal a staggering rise in emergency food dependency across the country. As shown below, food bank dependency was virtually a non-issue in 2008/9. But the number of emergency food supplies given out now essentially accounts for one in every 60 adults in the UK.”

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/07/one-defiant-local-paper-absolutely-shafted-theresa-may-final-day-campaign-image/

“‘Chilling’ Lobbying Act stifles democracy, write charities to party chiefs”

“Charities have been forced to change their key messages to the public during the general election because of the “chilling” effect of the controversial Lobbying Act, a group of leading UK organisations has warned.

Democratic debate on some of the biggest issues in the election campaign has been stifled by the law, a group of more than 50 charities writes in a letter sent to the main party leaders on Monday night.

“Voices are being lost at this crucial time, and our democracy is poorer for it,” they said. Their concerns echo those of many charities, particularly in the field of social care, which told the Guardian they were unable to raise vital concerns over, and experiences of, the impacts of current and future policies.

Charities say ‘gag law’ stops them speaking out on Tory social care plans
The Lobbying Act restricts what non-governmental organisations can say in the year before a general election. Billed as a brake on corporate lobbying as well as NGOs when it was brought in, its provisions have fallen harder on the non-profit sector, leading to an independent commission and the House of Lords recommending amendments.

In their letter, more than 50 UK charities called for the urgent reform of the controversial legislation, which they said was having a “chilling effect” on debates over policy ahead of Thursday’s snap election. They warned that charities were “weighed down by an unreasonable and unfair law which restricts our ability to contribute fully to a democratic society”. …

Theresa May’s decision to call a snap general election caused particular consternation because it means all charities’ communications in the preceding year fall under the rules retrospectively. When the act was introduced under the coalition, charities were reassured by ministers that parliamentary elections would be on a five-year cycle, giving them time to formulate and publicise key messages ahead of the formal start of any election campaign.

A review by the Conservative peer Lord Hodgson found that “the right balance” had not been struck in the act “as presently drafted”, and a House of Lords committee found the rules “threaten the vital advocacy role of charities”.

Labour and the Green party have called for the legislation to be repealed, while the Liberal Democrats and the SNP have urged reform. Baroness Parminter, the Lib Dem peer, said the act was “pernicious” and was having a chilling effect on democratic debate.

Within the next few days, the UN special rapporteur will present what is expected to be a critical review of the act and its impact.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/chilling-lobbying-act-stifles-democracy-write-charities-party-chiefs

“Conservatives’ donors give 10 times as much as Labour’s in one week”

Tories: £3.77 million from donors this week
Labour: £331,499 this week
Liberal Democrats: £310,500 this week
Women’s Equality Party: £71,552 this week
UKIP: £16,500 this week

Claire Wright: £12,000 since her campaign started – all from small, local donors as Claire does not accept corporate donations

The Conservatives raised more than 10 times as much as Labour last week, partly thanks to a donation of over £1m from the theatre producer behind The Book of Mormon and The Phantom of the Opera.

John Gore, whose company has produced a string of hit musicals, gave £1.05m as part of the £3.77m received by the Conservatives in the third week of the election campaign.

In the same time, Labour received only £331,499.

The Electoral Commission only publishes details of donations over £7,500, so the smaller donors who make up most of Labour’s fundraising are not identified. Almost all Labour’s larger donations came from unions, including £159,500 from Unite.

The new figures show the Conservatives have received £15.2m since the start of 2017, while Labour has received £8.1m. The large donations came as the poll lead held by the Conservatives and Theresa May appeared to fall following controversies around her social care policy.

In the week starting 17 May, the Liberal Democrats received £310,500, of which £230,000 came from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and £25,000 came from the former BBC director general Greg Dyke.

The Women’s Equality party received £71,552, with Edwina Snow, the Duke of Westminster’s sister who is married to the historian Dan Snow, giving £50,000. Ukip’s donations fell dramatically to £16,300 from £35,000 the previous week.

Political parties can spend £30,000 for every seat they contest during the regulated period. There are 650 seats around the country, meaning that parties can spend up to £19.5m during the regulated period in the run-up to the election.

Other large donations to the Tories in the third week of the campaign included £500,000 from JCB Service, which is run by the manufacturing billionaire Anthony Bamford. Lord Bamford, who strongly supported the leave campaign, received a peerage from David Cameron in 2013.

John Armitage, founder of the Egerton Capital hedge fund, also gave £500,000, bringing his donations this year to £1.125m. Mark Coombs, chief executive of the investment manager group Ashmore, gave £300,000.

Jersey House (Developments) Ltd, which is owned by the telecommunications entrepreneur Charles Wigoder, gave £250,000.

The haulage millionaire Steve Parkin gave £125,000. Parkin, who reportedly paid Robbie Williams £1m to perform at one of his parties, founded the delivery business Clipper Logistics.

The large sum from Gore is believed to be his first political donation. He is a seven-time Tony winning and Emmy-nominated producer and owns the John Gore Organization, which is headquartered in New York. The company presents shows, including Wicked and Jersey Boys, across the US, Japan and in London’s West End. Gore’s early investments included the original London production of Cats.

Last week, it emerged that the Conservatives had raised £1.6m in the second week of the general election campaign while Labour raised £383,000.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/01/conservatives-donors-give-10-times-as-much-as-labours-in-one-week

Billionaires and developers rush to fill Tory election coffers

“The Conservatives received a huge boost in donations in the three months before Theresa May called a surprise general election, according to figures published by the Electoral Commission.

The party received £5.46m from January to March this year, more than twice the £2.65m given to Labour.

By the time the prime minister called the election on 18 April, the Tories had received £1.85m more in donations during the first quarter of the year than it had in the last three months of 2016.

The biggest individual donation came from the Conservative party treasurer, Michael Davis, who gave the party £317,000. The South African-born former mining executive is overseeing the party’s fundraising efforts, which have targeted wealthy businesspeople and city figures.

Last week, it emerged that the Conservatives had raised £1.5m more than Labour in the first week of the general election campaign, receiving more than £4.1m while Labour raised just over £2.7m.

The Conservatives are expected to get close to the £19m maximum they are permitted to spend during an election campaign. Labour is expecting to spend less than the Tories, amid a drive for donations from its 500,000 members. …

Other major donations to the Conservatives include £55,000 from the Rigby Group, which owns exclusive hotels including Bovey Castle in Devon, where the Olympic diver Tom Daley recently celebrated his wedding.

A company called Anglesource, run by the billionaire Arora brothers, also gave £50,000.

A property firm owned by a Palestinian-born businessman has given £65,000 to the Conservatives this year. CC Property UK is owned by Said Khoury, a billionaire who also owns CCC, the largest construction firm in the Middle East.

Other major donations came from Leopold Noe, the property developer, who gave the Conservatives £130,000. The hedge-fund manager John Armitage gave £125,000.

JS Bloor (Services), linked to the property tycoon John Bloor, gave £120,000. JS Bloor and Armitage also made donations in the first week of the election campaign, which are subject to different reporting rules.

According to the Electoral Commission, the Tory party also has a credit facility of £5,554,000, while Labour has access to borrowing £113,000.”

Labour received £1.96m from trade unions, including £657,702 from Unite. Public funds are also listed for each party, which predominantly boost the totals for opposition parties. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/23/tories-5m-donations-boost-before-may-called-snap-general-election

Tory donors and diners from oil companies get well treated in Conservative manifesto?

“Oil executives whose industry is promised further government support if the Conservatives are returned to power have given more than £390,000 to the party since Theresa May became prime minister.

They include Ian Taylor, the chief executive of Vitol, whose firm was fined for making payments to an Iraqi state-owned firm, and Ayman Asfari, the chief executive of Petrofac, who was recently interviewed by the Serious Fraud Office over suspected corruption.

Three of the donors have attended dinners with May or senior ministers since she took office.

The payments will raise eyebrows because the 2017 manifesto includes a specific commitment to build upon previous “unprecedented” government support for the oil and gas industry. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/oil-bosses-have-given-390000-to-tories-conservatives-under-theresa-may

“Loads of Britain’s 100 richest people have donated more than £19 million to the Tories and nobody’s at all surprised”

“Some 35 of the richest 100 people in Britain have given £19 million to the Tories, it was revealed today.

More than a third of the Sunday Times Rich List, published today, are Conservative donors, according to a Labour party analysis.

The wealthy backers, who include property moguls, financiers and retail CEOs, have a combined net worth of more than £123 million. …”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/loads-britains-100-richest-people-10375139

The tax woes of a big Tory donor

Lycamobile, the international phone call business and a major donor to the Conservative party, is embroiled in a £26m tax dispute with HMRC over VAT.

Accounts filed with Companies House show that Lycamobile’s UK division nearly doubled its pre-tax profits to £10.9m last year on turnover of £194m.

But the company, owned by Sri Lankan-born tycoon Allirajah Subaskaran, also revealed that it could face a bill of £26m from HMRC, including “potential penalties”, due to a dispute over VAT. …

… Auditors from KPMG have revealed that they are unable to form an opinion on the accounts due to a lack of “sufficient appropriate audit evidence”.

Last year, the accounting firm flagged up its confusion over £134m in funds owed to Lycamobile UK by related companies, adding that the knock-on effect on this year’s accounts meant it was still lacking information.

“Because of the significance of the matter […] we have not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion,” said KPMG. “Accordingly we do not express an opinion on the financial statements.”

It added: “We were unable to determine if adequate accounting records have been kept by the parent company.”

Lycamobile UK’s own directors’ report admitted that the tax dispute and complex structure create “material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the company’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

The Labour party and tax experts said the accounts raised questions for the Conservative party, which accepted £614,300 from Lycamobile in 2016 and nearly £1m the year before.

Tax accountant Richard Murphy said KPMG’s audit report and the VAT dispute raised “massive uncertainty” about Lycamobile’s financial position.

He said: “In the circumstances anyone dealing with the company has been given notice as to the risk they take. And the Conservative party is especially vulnerable. Taking donations from a company subject to this level of doubt as to its true financial position looks unwise. They’d do themselves a favour by saying no to further offers for the time being.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/03/tory-donor-lycamobile-in-26m-tax-dispute

Dirty lobbying

We do it the other way around in East Devon – we gave a senior officer to a lobbying group viz former EDDC Economic Development Officer Nigel Harrison who was offered up as Secretary to the East Devon Business Forum (a group of local developers under the Chairmanship of disgraced ex-Tory councillor Graham Brown) AND EDDC paid all its expenses!

“Whitehall’s lobbying tsar has launched an inquiry into concerns that informal parliamentary groups set up by MPs and peers are being used to bypass lobbying rules.

Alison White, the registrar of consultant lobbyists, has interviewed officials from all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) after receiving reports that lobbyists are acting as secretaries to gain access to legislators.

The inquiry comes after a growth in the number of APPGs, which are allowed use of the Palace of Westminster’s catering facilities and can invite senior ministers and civil servants for meetings with donors.

There are more than 550 APPGs, which exist to help MPs and peers discuss major issues of the day, according to the parliamentary register. The groups have received more than £5.4m in external funding since the beginning of 2015. …

…Private firms and individuals can sponsor APPGs to help pay for “secretariat services”, trips abroad or reports. Any APPG is allowed to include a secretariat from an outside body, and it is this position that can be easily abused, according to White.

There are more than 200 people or organisations listed as secretariats for APPGs who are not registered on the register of consultant lobbyists, which requires that meetings with ministers or permanent secretaries be disclosed. White believes some APPG secretariats may be breaking this rule. White is planning to issue advice to all organisations that offer specialist services to APPGs later this month.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/06/lobbying-inquiry-registrar-parliamentary-secretaries

Ex-Chancellor breaks lobbying rules

“George Osborne has received a stern letter from the Government’s lobbying watchdog over his activities since being sacked by Theresa May.

The former chancellor initially failed to declare that he was setting up a Northern Powerhouse think-tank despite having launched the same policy as Chancellor.

The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) was only told of Mr Osborne’s plans after they appeared in the press.

Former ministers are barred from lobbying the Government for two years after they leave office and “must seek advice from Acoba about any appointments or employment they wish to take up within two years of leaving office”.

The body however has no actual powers to sanction Mr Osborne for the late declaration.

In a letter to Mr Osborne, Acoba said: “The Committee would also remind you that advice should be sought on all appointments, paid or unpaid, before they are taken up or announced.”

Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said: “The Chancellor has been rapped over the knuckles for not following due process – having been in the government for the last few years he should know these rules and abide by them.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-rapped-by-governments-lobbying-watchdog-northern-powerhouse-a7389591.html

LEP creates its own “Business Forum” – but it’s independent, honest guv!

Owl’s view: Unfortunately, it still walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is still one hundred percent an LEP duck! Oh, and who is on it’s board – LEP Board member Tim Jones – quack, quack!

“A new business group has been formed to advise Government decision makers – but stressed it is not in competition with other South West business organisations.

B4SW will provide information and reports to the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HotSW LEP) and ensure businesses across the region have a strong voice in discussions over Government investment.

“We have no intention of competing with other business groups,” Mr Marrow said. “They are doing good stuff.”

He explained that B4SW may be new, but is actually a “restructuring” of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership’s (HotSW LEP) business forum.

That body was set up by the LEP, but was nevertheless independent of it, in order to provide business engagement.

But the forum was often mistaken as being part of the LEP, Chris Marrow, B4SW chairman, explained.

So, he said, B4SW has been formed as a community interest company (CIC), a type of social enterprise, to provide “a better structure to that of the forum, which had been “an informal group”.

Mr Marrow said the new organisation would report to the LEP, the organisation created by the coalition Government in 2011 to determine investment priorities, but is not constrained by the HotSW area of Devon and parts of Somerset.

“We meet around the region and will cover Cornwall,” Mr Marrow said, at an early meeting held in Plymouth.

“It’s a forum in which business people can come together and explore ideas and put their expertise back into the community for the advantage of the region.”

Mr Marrow said B4SW is composed of business people with vast experience in sectors such as maritime, supply chain, education, rural development and overseas trade.

“We have business people with particular expertise, a lot of experience in international affairs, with overseas contacts, and work with people in Africa and China,” he said.

He said the executive board has links to various other organisations such as universities and colleges, Chambers of Commerce, and the Federation of Small Businesses.

“The objective is to help businesses develop in the South West,” he said. “That includes improving exports, productivity, and job creation.”

He said B4SW would provide “blue sky thinking” and supply reports to the LEP.

He gave examples of studies into biofuels, ballast water management and kelp (seaweed) farming.

B4SW has also arranged a visit from transport training experts in South Africa and had discussions with Plymouth University and Flybe about maritime and aviation training.

Tim Jones, a B4SW board member, said the aim is also to bring together all business organisations across the HotSW and Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEPs.

He said it was vital businesses shared a unified voice in order to push for Government investment, especially as political devolution is on the agenda.

“A combined business voice is essential, and becoming more so as we move down the devolution agenda and anther round of Government austerity,” he said. “So the cooperation of the business community is crucial.

“With devolution, although there is talk about business engagement, there’s a fear the voice of business will diminish.

“Combine that with the problems Whitehall has about infrastructure investment in the South West, it’s vital we have a single voice coming from the business community.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/new-business-group-set-up-to-push-for-government-investment-in-south-west/story-29775868-detail/story.html