Compare and contrast

The Electoral Commission on the Lib Dems and that £2.4m donation from Michael Brown:

“The Electoral Commission has previously made clear its view that it was reasonable for the Liberal Democrats - based on the information available to them at the time - to regard the donations they received from 5th Avenue Partners Ltd in 2005, totalling just over £2.4m, as permissible.

“It remains the Commission’s view that the Liberal Democrats acted in good faith at that time, and the Commission is not re-opening the question of whether the party or its officers failed to carry out sufficient checks into the permissibility of the donations.”

The House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges on David Cameron’s use of his taxpayer-funded Commons office for Tory Party fundraising:

33. The lack of a specific rule saying that Members' offices, provided at public expense for Parliamentary purposes, cannot be used for party political fundraising needs to be seen in the context of the overarching principle that offices and facilities on the Parliamentary estate are provided to enable Members to carry out their Parliamentary duties, that is, to facilitate the discharge by them of the duties and functions of the office of Member of Parliament. This principle is, I submit, clear…

39. […] The fundraising purpose of [David Cameron’s] Leader's Group is clear from the promotional literature circulated at the Conservative City Circle, and the incentives offered to prospective members specifically include the opportunity to meet the Leader "in his office after Prime Minister's Questions". Furthermore, it is clear that this benefit has been taken up by Group members on a number of occasions. In my submission the Parliamentary estate is not provided out of the public purse to be used as part of a device to attract party fundraising and the suggestion that it is so being used is not one likely to enhance the public reputation of the House.

42. While there is no reason in principle, I submit, why Mr Cameron cannot meet, in his office or elsewhere in the Parliamentary estate, those who donate to his party, what neither he nor his Party (nor indeed any other Member or party) can properly do is employ their Parliamentary office as part of a party fundraising stratagem. In my view, that is, on the facts, precisely what happened in this case. I therefore recommend that [Lib Dem MP] Mr Baker's complaint be upheld.

It’s only fair to point these things out…

Not voting for Christmas to come early

Yesterday, the House of Commons debated the ‘Communications Allowance’, a £10,000 a year public subsidy to be given to MPs to help them hold on to their seats improve their dialogue with their constituents.

Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson summed the arguments against the measure succinctly and well:

As a Member of Parliament, I believe that communication is incredibly important. As a former marketing manager, perhaps I know more than many the benefits of good communication. Those of us who oppose the allowance do not say that ensuring that we are in touch with our constituents, reporting back and making sure that people in our constituencies are engaged in politics are not important parts of a Member of Parliament’s job. Far from it. My problem is the cost that the taxpayer will incur. Through interventions, I have already expressed my disappointment that the communications allowance will cost an extra £6 million, with a perhaps an additional £1 million in increased postage costs. That means that the taxpayer must bear the brunt of an additional £7 million. … Some hon. Members may suggest that a forthcoming general election is a factor. I urge hon. Members to oppose the allowance.

Here’s the full roll-call of honour of those Lib Dem MPs who did oppose the allowance:

Baker, Norman; Barrett, John; Brooke, Annette; Bruce, rh Malcolm; Carmichael, Mr. Alistair; Clegg, Mr. Nick; Farron, Tim; Goldsworthy, Julia; Harris, Dr. Evan; Heath, Mr. David; Holmes, Paul; Horwood, Martin; Howarth, David; Hughes, Simon; Huhne, Chris; Laws, Mr. David; Leech, Mr. John; Öpik, Lembit; Rennie, Willie; Sanders, Mr. Adrian; Stunell, Andrew; Swinson, Jo; Taylor, Matthew; Webb, Steve.

The full list from the division lobby of ayes and noes is available here.

Counting the cash

Here’s a fun thing for a cold, dark evening - browsing the Electoral Commission’s register of donations to political parties. This, for example, is the breakdown for the Lib Dems for each of the past six years.

2001 = 312 donations with an overall total of £1,537,428.32
2002 = 247 donations with an overall total of £937,629.10
2003 = 386 donations with an overall total of £2,964,902.85
2004 = 445 donations with an overall total of £3,889,052.56
2005 = 646 donations with an overall total of £6,934,233.53
2006 = 545 donations with an overall total of £4,912,266.14

Encouraging to see a generally upward trend over the last six years; and in particular the healthy £4.9m of donations last year - an especially impressive total given both the, erm, challenging year the party endured, and the stage of the electoral cycle we’re at (just compare it with 2002’s total).

Of course, the real fun to be had is from nosing through the list looking for names you recognise...

Just how well-endowed are the Tories?

So the Conservative Party is less in debt, at last, thanks to the sale of its former HQ, 32 Smith Square. The £30m transaction is reputed to have netted the party a cool £15m profit, and should bring down the Tories’ total loans to a more manageable £5m or so.

I’m sure the party is breathing a sigh of relief at this result. But it’s interesting to compare the flogging of assets to pay down debt with the slightly loftier aspirations which Michael Howard articulated in December 2003, when, in one of his first acts as Tory leader, he announced the sale of Smith Square. Here’s what the Tory press release said:

The [Conservative Party] Foundation will be responsible both for raising money for the Party's general election campaign and for building a Conservative Endowment Fund. The Foundation will receive, as a founding endowment gift, the proceeds of the disposal of the Party's Smith Square headquarters. Michael Howard wishes to see the capital, realised by the disposal, invested in the Party's future - not spent on the day to day costs of Central Office.

Michael Howard said: "The asset of the freehold of 32 Smith Square is a great legacy from previous generations of Conservative leaders to our generation. I want the Foundation to ensure that my successors also receive a long lasting bequest".

Hmmm. Not so much of a long lasting bequest, then.

Are we really in the Brown stuff?

Those two well-known friends of the Lib Dems, The Times and Iain Dale, are once again enjoying making hay from the party’s discomfort at having accepted a £2.4m donation from Michael Brown, who was subsequently convicted of fraud.

There’s no new story, and certainly no smoking gun. But that won’t stop ‘em. Read The Times story carefully, and it becomes clear that Mr Brown covered his tracks pretty assiduously. The paper quotes High Court judge Mr Justice Cooke as saying:

“It is also clear that Michael Brown tried to hide the fact that there had been no legitimate trading with the funds supplied to him.”

The Lib Dems were obliged to carry out due diligence on Mr Brown. Were we diligent enough? I don’t know. But we certainly were not obliged to undertake a major fraud investigation.

What Iain and The Times are seeking to do is feed the cynicism that ‘all parties are the same’, that each and every one of us is up to our necks in ordeure. Yet there has never been any suggestion that the Lib Dems promised anything to Mr Brown in return for his donation. In short: the party might have been stupid, but it wasn’t corrupt.

The corruption question mark still hangs over Labour and the Tories, however, with Scotland Yard’s inquiries into the cash-for-peerages row continuing. Let’s see how many Lib Dems are implicated, shall we?

I have heard, from one Tory donor I know, that they were promised a seat in the House of Lords in return for a seven-figure donation. Yet the Lib Dems’ wealthiest backer, Paul Marshall, is applying for his seat through the party’s democratic ‘Peers’ Panel’ process.

Go figure.