A Death By Eight Million Cuts

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

I meant whatever % the Tories received in 2015 which was less than 40%, although it was not something I could be bothered to look up.

But since you mention it, had Blair passed legislation stipulating that limited companies could not donate to a political party without creating a political fund approved by a ballot of individual shareholders would you have considered that fair and reasonable? If he had then given individual shareholders the right to opt out of contributing to the political fund would that have been fair?

Going down that road would be something I'd favour but not in that way.

I think companies should report political contributions as part of the annual reporting process as that gives shareholders a chance to vote on it.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Going down that road would be something I'd favour but not in that way.

I think companies should report political contributions as part of the annual reporting process as that gives shareholders a chance to vote on it.

Surely that's considerably different in both method and impact to what BobQ suggested. It seems odd that you support unions having to get opt-in permission from members to donate, but believe businesses should be allowed to donate then retrospectively tell their owners about it; who might then be able to vote to stop future donations.

It seems to me that whether an organisation is a business, union, charity, or club the rules on how they can interact with political parties should be universal.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

I meant whatever % the Tories received in 2015 which was less than 40%, although it was not something I could be bothered to look up....

I keep trying to tell you lot that you should Always Check Your Facts, but none of you pay much attention. It'll be detention next you know.:)

BobQ wrote: »

...But since you mention it, had Blair passed legislation stipulating that limited companies could not donate to a political party without creating a political fund approved by a ballot of individual shareholders would you have considered that fair and reasonable?...

He did. It was in PPERA 2000, which amended CA 1985, although the rules are now in CA 2006. A company can only make a political donation when it is authorised by a resolution of the members.

Now do you see what I mean by Always Check Your Facts?:)

BobQ wrote: »

... If he had then given individual shareholders the right to opt out of contributing to the political fund would that have been fair?

Doesn't really much sense as a rule. Shareholders don't contribute any money to a company in the same way as trade union members do as regards a union. I suppose you might be able to construct some legal jigger-pokery that tried to achieve a similar result by linking donations to dividends, but I doubt it would have much practical effect, as I believe that most corporate donations come from privately owned entities.

Generali wrote: »

Going down that road would be something I'd favour but not in that way.

I think companies should report political contributions as part of the annual reporting process as that gives shareholders a chance to vote on it.

Not only are companies required to seek authorisation from shareholders before making donations, they are also required to disclose donations in the Directors' report.

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

Surely that's considerably different in both method and impact to what BobQ suggested. It seems odd that you support unions having to get opt-in permission from members to donate, but believe businesses should be allowed to donate then retrospectively tell their owners about it; who might then be able to vote to stop future donations.

It seems to me that whether an organisation is a business, union, charity, or club the rules on how they can interact with political parties should be universal.

As things stand at the moment; companies have to seek prior approval of donations of over £5,000. So the shareholders know how much money is being given and who is getting it. Whereas trade union members who sign up to the political fund have no control over how much money is being given and who is getting it.

Perhaps they should be asked? Perhaps some of them would prefer that the money went to UKIP?:)

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Not only are companies required to seek authorisation from shareholders before making donations, they are also required to disclose donations in the Directors' report.

I know the Aus and US systems best and that isn't the case there. I don't dispute that it works as you describe in the UK (I have a vague recollection of reading something about this when the rules changed).

Even then, the voters aren't really the people that own the shares, it's the fund managers who manage the shares on behalf of future pensioners and future dead people (life insurance float).

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

I know the Aus and US systems best and that isn't the case there. I don't dispute that it works as you describe in the UK (I have a vague recollection of reading something about this when the rules changed)....

If you want to bone up on it, it's all in part 14 of CA 2006.:)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/14

Generali wrote: »

...Even then, the voters aren't really the people that own the shares, it's the fund managers who manage the shares on behalf of future pensioners and future dead people (life insurance float).

Yes, except that doesn't really happen. The likes of Tesco for example, might well make a 'political donation' in the sense that they sponsor fringe meetings at party conferences, and they tend to be even handed about such things, i.e they hedge their bets, but they don't hand over cash to political parties.

I'm not aware of any PLC that makes significant political donations. I don't know for certain, but I have had a look through the Electoral Commission's quarterly lists of Top 10 donors. The Conservative Party's big donors mostly seem to to be individuals, and where there are corporate donations, they are all from companies that are privately owned, where the voters are the people who own the shares. Such as Northern & Shell, which has given a lot of money to UKIP. Or mutually owned, such as the Co-Op, which gives money to the Co-Op Party, which is really just part of the Labour Party.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

If you want to bone up on it, it's all in part 14 of CA 2006.:)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/14

Thank you antrobus. Maybe [STRIKE]never[/STRIKE] another day.

Every time I read a regulation I remember why I'm not in compliance. I had to re-read FSC 13 today. You know why I had to re-read it? It was so boring my brain refused to remember it.

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, except that doesn't really happen. The likes of Tesco for example, might well make a 'political donation' in the sense that they sponsor fringe meetings at party conferences, and they tend to be even handed about such things, i.e they hedge their bets, but they don't hand over cash to political parties.

I'm not aware of any PLC that makes significant political donations. I don't know for certain, but I have had a look through the Electoral Commission's quarterly lists of Top 10 donors. The Conservative Party's big donors mostly seem to to be individuals, and where there are corporate donations, they are all from companies that are privately owned, where the voters are the people who own the shares. Such as Northern & Shell, which has given a lot of money to UKIP. Or mutually owned, such as the Co-Op, which gives money to the Co-Op Party, which is really just part of the Labour Party.

Interesting that the only company as such with significant political donations gives to the Labour Party.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

...Interesting that the only company as such with significant political donations gives to the Labour Party.

I was trying to find some source that showed an analysis of the source of political donations. I did find one by Unlock Democracy, who at least sound as if they might be independent. They do have a list of the top ten donors over the ten year period 2001-2011. They include 5 trade unions, 3 individuals, 1 non-charitable trust, and the Co-Op which gave £5.4m to its eponymous party.

http://action.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/page/-/publications/Donations%20Report%20Q1%202012.pdf

Their little bar charts seem to suggest that the Conservatives get the bulk of their money from individuals. I don't know this for sure, but my best guess would be that they are very wealthy individuals who have made money running a hedge fund, or a chain of dog grooming parlours, or whatever.

N1AK

antrobus wrote: »

As things stand at the moment; companies have to seek prior approval of donations of over £5,000. So the shareholders know how much money is being given and who is getting it. Whereas trade union members who sign up to the political fund have no control over how much money is being given and who is getting it.

Perhaps they should be asked? Perhaps some of them would prefer that the money went to UKIP?:)

I absolutely think they should be asked, though it worries me that you ask given that the answer is readily available in this very thread

My point is, and remains, that giving companies more freedom to donate to political parties than unions is conservative party politics; only individuals should be allowed to donate to political campaigns and there should be restrictions on the size of such donations.

N1AK

antrobus wrote: »

Their little bar charts seem to suggest that the Conservatives get the bulk of their money from individuals. I don't know this for sure, but my best guess would be that they are very wealthy individuals who have made money running a hedge fund, or a chain of dog grooming parlours, or whatever.

Some really helpful information you've shared here thanks antrobus :beer: