A Death By Eight Million Cuts

redux

Did the Conservative Party ever pay back a series of donations by Lord Ashcroft made while he was not resident in the UK?

I think there is some irony in the Conservatives having opinions about democracy within the Labour Party after tens of thousands of its supporters have taken advantage of a blunder in Labour rules and helped to elect Corbyn.

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

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 ...

No. Trade union members are asked whether or not they want to pay the political levy. But as far as I'm aware there is no mechanism by which contributors can chose to have their money to got to a party other than the Labour Party. Or when it is paid.:)

N1AK wrote: »

...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.

As I see it, both companies and trades unions have equal freedom to donate to political parties.

redux wrote: »

Did the Conservative Party ever pay back a series of donations by Lord Ashcroft made while he was not resident in the UK?...

No, because the Electoral Commission ruled that there was no case to answer. Mainly because Ashcroft never donated any money. His company did. Which was resident in the UK. And therefore it was all hunky dory. Don't blame me if you don't like that. Blair made up the rules.

redux wrote: »

...I think there is some irony in the Conservatives having opinions about democracy within the Labour Party after tens of thousands of its supporters have taken advantage of a blunder in Labour rules and helped to elect Corbyn.

I'm perplexed. What does the question of political donations have to do with "democracy within the Labour Party"?

In any event, whilst the Conservatives may well have "opinions" about democracy within the Labour Party, what do you think they are, and why would it matter?

Andy_L

antrobus wrote: »

No. Trade union members are asked whether or not they want to pay the political levy. But as far as I'm aware there is no mechanism by which contributors can chose to have their money to got to a party other than the Labour Party. Or when it is paid.:)

They could always get elected to the committee and/or raise a motion at conference

More seriously a TU has to vote every few (4?) years if they wish to keep a political fund.

antrobus

Andy_L wrote: »

They could always get elected to the committee and/or raise a motion at conference...

Sure you can. But it's hard enough to get members to blinkin' vote, let alone raise a motion at conference. For example, turnout in Unite ballots to appoint the General Secretary has been just north of 15%.

Besides, couldn't you just get members who've signed up to the levy to tick a box labelled Labour, or UKIP, or whatever? It's their money after all. Seems straightforward to me.:)

Andy_L wrote: »

..More seriously a TU has to vote every few (4?) years if they wish to keep a political fund.

Every ten years. It's companies that are subject to the 4 year rule.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

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.:)

I stand corrected and a little humble!

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?:)

Fair enough. I do not have the stamina to read all of CA2006 but am I correct that despite all of the legalese in this, the last bit of the relevant requirements in para 378 states that donations under £5K are exempt? And that therefore they do not need approval as below?

If or to the extent that a donation is exempt by virtue of this section from the requirement of authorisation under this Part, it shall be disregarded in determining what donations are authorised by any resolution passed for the purposes of this Part.

In which case is this correct:

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

BobQ

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans


Some more information

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans


Some more information

Fascinating.

Looking at a few periods at random I think we can safely say:

1. Corporate donations are dwarfed by trade union and individual ones, especially when you note that the biggest corporate donor to the Tories by a very long way is a lotto that is really just a way of channeling small donors' money to the Cons.
2. All trade union money goes to Labour

Going back over the entire period since 2001:

Individuals have given £292,241,431
Companies have given £120,961,906
Unions have given £156,139.975
Taxpayers have given £90,635,758

'Others' (whatever that means) gave Labour over £19,000,000 over the period, £12,000,000 was paid to the Co-Operative party (and presumably straight on to Labour) and LLPs (used to disguise donations in the US, no idea about the UK) paid £2.5 million each to Labour and Tories.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

...Fair enough. I do not have the stamina to read all of CA2006 but am I correct that despite all of the legalese in this, the last bit of the relevant requirements in para 378 states that donations under £5K are exempt? And that therefore they do not need approval as below?...

Yes, there is a £5,000 threshold for approval as I mentioned in post #25 above. The threshold for disclosure in the accounts is £200.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

Fascinating.

Looking at a few periods at random I think we can safely say:

1. Corporate donations are dwarfed by trade union and individual ones, especially when you note that the biggest corporate donor to the Tories by a very long way is a lotto that is really just a way of channeling small donors' money to the Cons..

In other places the EC refers to the National Conservative Draws Society as an 'unincoporated association'. Like when they were getting fined £1,200 for breaking the rules.:)

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/electoral-commission-concludes-unincorporated-association-case

What I have concluded is that there isn't much difference between large individual donations and corporate donations. John Mills for example decides to give the Labour Party £1.6m by giving them some shares in John Mills Ltd, so that's an individual donation. Richard Desmond decides to give UKIP £1.0m but gives it in the form of cash routed through Northern & Shell, so that's corporate.

Corporate donations seem to come from companies that are controlled by one person.

princeofpounds

Interesting discussion.


So, how much does it cost, do you think, to really have a sway over a party? These are big sums of money for an ordinary person, but they aren't actually all THAT big in the grand scheme of things.