Funding row hits Labour...again - 'phantom' donors?

[afleitch]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=496244&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

'A builder who lives in a former council house in Newcastle and "can't stand" Labour has been named as one of Gordon Brown's biggest donors – prompting fresh questions over the party's finances.

Ray Ruddick, who drives a battered Transit van, is officially listed as having contributed more than £104,000 to the national party's coffers since Mr Brown became Prime Minister less than five months ago.

His contributions, combined with those of a woman he is linked to, make him Labour's third biggest donor under Mr Brown, behind Lord Sainsbury who gave £2million and Anglo-Iranian businessman Mahmoud Khayami, whose latest donation in September was £320,000.

Since 2003, Mr Ruddick's total contributions to Labour are listed as £196,000. But standing outside the semi he bought for just £12,000 and wearing a paint-splattered fleece top, the 55-year-old initially told The Mail on Sunday he had no recollection of ever giving to the party.

However, Mr Ruddick works closely with David Abrahams, a wealthy property developer who is a prominent figure in the North East Labour Party.

He was in the front row when Tony Blair made a speech to activists in his Sedgefield constituency in May announcing his decision to quit as Prime Minister. Last night, 53-year-old Mr Abrahams, the son of a former Lord Mayor of Newcastle, refused to say whether it was, in fact, him who funded the donations.

The Labour Party refused to discuss what checks they made before accepting Mr Ruddick's donations, saying: "We are totally satisfied that these donations are in line with the rules."

But the Tories called on Labour to give a full explanation as to how a builder with modest means and no interest in politics could come to be one of the party's leading sponsors.

Conservative frontbencher Chris Grayling said: "There is clearly something extremely unusual about all of this. Given the fact that Gordon Brown promised to bring a fresh approach to British politics, he and the Labour Party need to give a pretty clear explanation of the circumstances surrounding these donations."

The disclosures follow a Mail on Sunday investigation into the latest list of Labour donors, published on Tuesday. It shows that in the last financial quarter Mr Ruddick and a woman listed as Janet Kidd both gave £80,000 on the same day in July.

Nor is this the first time that the pair have donated, having contributed a grand total of £381,850 in the past four years, including a combined £62,000 just two days after Mr Brown became Prime Minister on June 27. '

-----

Oh dear.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm tempted to start posting things about certain Tory donors. Ideally written in our Party rag the Daily Mirror. (what's the weather like in Belize at this time of the year? Just curious).

I note that the Hate Mail on Sunday mentioned that it had a trawl through a list of Labour donors to try to find dirt (that something that looks like it might be dirt was found was o/c inevitable, for there's plenty of dirt to be found in the finances of all parties. Even/especially the little ones. As everyone knows). Did they do this for other parties as well? And if so, is a front-page splash likely? Bringing everything out into the open and all that. Surely the Mail  believes that public interest trumps partisan considerations?

Btw, all the ancient allegations about Labour in the North East is full of Boss Tweed types (to which there's an element of truth to; certainly more than the North East S.S.R. stuff. Honestly. Chopwell was the exception that proved the rule... in the rest of County Durham being a Commie in the Watson era was... a mistake...) can be raised the even older (and truer; but then I would say and think that ) allegation that the Tory Party in the Midlands is run by a bunch of racist plutocrats.

EDIT: forgot to add a snide sneering remark about the wills of the mentally ill. In such a post as this, that should have come automatically and this time last year would have done. I'm losing my touch

[afleitch]

While I half expected your beef to be more with the Mail (read: media which is fair enough) than with Labour, this is a pretty serious accusation should it be followed through; i.e the possibility of donations under false names or rather the names of real people without their knowledge. Does that not concern you just a little bit

[Filuwaúrdjan]

this is a pretty serious accusation should it be followed through; i.e the possibility of donations under false names or rather the names of real people without their knowledge.

It should be followed through and so on but only as part of a wider (very wide actually) public investigation into the influence of money in politics (and with powers to recommend sweeping changes). Which is something that should have been set up last year. Trying to find a cure for a disease (or at least some form of pain-relief) is clearly better than trying to investigate one of the symptoms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only morally.

Actually; even if the worst and most lurid take on it is entirely true, it would still be small fry both in terms of dodgy stuff being done to fund political par... ah... no.. causes... political causes would be much more accurate...  and in terms of dodgy stuff going on in regional party machines. And therefore not worthy of any attention whatsoever.

And, just to repeat myself because I'm tired and that's what tired people do, there's no point in poking around one example of odd things going on in political fundraising. Especially if it's done for political reasons. The problem itself has to be dealt with (and I think in Britain we are in an unusual position in that it is actually at least slightly possible to deal with parts of the problem) at some point. And the more professional muckrakers that puts out of a job, the better.

[afleitch]

I agree that there has to be reform, but it has to be a reform not just of private donations. The unions have more monetary clout than the Ashcrofts of this world (and have infact donated more to fight marginal seats outwith an election campaign than Ashcroft did), and unless that is up for discussion then cross party talks are going to break down. It doesn't mean that unions should disaffiliate from Labour (unless the members wish) but they should not be allowed to contribute to election funding if the Tories 'traditional' method of donations i.e 'private big bucks' is curbed. If we have state funding, then fair enough bout we have to be consistent. That means public funding of the BNP no matter how abhorent that would be.

EDIT: I notice that David Abrahams has admitted he handed out money to two individuals to contribute ib his behalf for 'publicity' reasons.

[Silent Hunter]

Guess I won't be getting any more emails from him....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7113255.stm

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Guess I won't be getting any more emails from him....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7113255.stm

Seeing as he knew about it and all that, he's got no choice but to resign.

This would be a good moment to resume all-party talks about dealing with fundraising; all parties live in glass houses after all...

[afleitch]

Guess I won't be getting any more emails from him....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7113255.stm

Seeing as he knew about it and all that, he's got no choice but to resign.

This would be a good moment to resume all-party talks about dealing with fundraising; all parties live in glass houses after all...

Our lot only walked out of the last set of talks because of the union issue. We were happy for a cap of £50,000 on 'lump' donations whether from a businessman or a trades union.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think any compromise worth the paper it's written on is likely over how much money a party can raise; budging on the Union issue would be semi-suicidal for both parties. Might be possible in two other areas though:

*How much money a party can spend on election-related activities.
*Transparency in the fundraising process.

The alternative would be state-funding, but I don't think the electorate would be too happy about that.

[afleitch]

The alternative would be state-funding, but I don't think the electorate would be too happy about that.

It would mean funding the 'diddy parties' and the Nick Griffins of Britain. Tieing funding to electoral performance would also give the governing parties an advantiage. They would have to do a '4-4-3' split BBC style. It would also have to go hand in hand with electoral reform. It would take a whole parliamentary session to sort out unfortunately.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The alternative would be state-funding, but I don't think the electorate would be too happy about that.

It would mean funding the 'diddy parties' and the Nick Griffins of Britain. Tieing funding to electoral performance would also give the governing parties an advantiage. They would have to do a '4-4-3' split BBC style. It would also have to go hand in hand with electoral reform. It would take a whole parliamentary session to sort out unfortunately.

Which is why it, probably, won't happen. I'm a little surprised that the two main parties (with the exception of, I think, Jack Straw) don't seem to have realised that spending caps would, if implemented in a certain way, benefit them greatly.

[Democratic Hawk]

Guess I won't be getting any more emails from him....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7113255.stm

Seeing as he knew about it and all that, he's got no choice but to resign.

This would be a good moment to resume all-party talks about dealing with fundraising; all parties live in glass houses after all...

Our lot only walked out of the last set of talks because of the union issue. We were happy for a cap of £50,000 on 'lump' donations whether from a businessman or a trades union.

Yes but trade unions represent thousands of members, who does one businessman represent? Himself

Dave

[afleitch]

Guess I won't be getting any more emails from him....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7113255.stm

Seeing as he knew about it and all that, he's got no choice but to resign.

This would be a good moment to resume all-party talks about dealing with fundraising; all parties live in glass houses after all...

Our lot only walked out of the last set of talks because of the union issue. We were happy for a cap of £50,000 on 'lump' donations whether from a businessman or a trades union.

Yes but trade unions represent thousands of members, who does one businessman represent? Himself

Dave

Not necessarily; they both represent one 'interest' whether it's a union of workers or a businessman seeking concessions for his business interests.

[afleitch]

Newsnight tonight was...well...interesting

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Newsnight tonight was...well...interesting

I'm currently telly-less so I didn't see it. The BBC do have an article which seems to be based around stiff in Newsnight though; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7116291.stm

[afleitch]

There is likely to be an investigation intow whether or not Mr Abrahams is himself an intermediary after some Labour officials have cast doubt on his personal wealth.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some (though not all or even most) of the coverage and commentary over this in recent days has been subtly anti-semitic. And some of it not so-subtly so... I really do hate the fucking media sometimes. This sort of shit is totally uncalled for and unless it stops I'll start to get very angry.

[Silent Hunter]

Some (though not all or even most) of the coverage and commentary over this in recent days has been subtly anti-semitic. And some of it not so-subtly so...

Can't say I've noticed, what are they doing?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some (though not all or even most) of the coverage and commentary over this in recent days has been subtly anti-semitic. And some of it not so-subtly so...

Can't say I've noticed, what are they doing?

Have a look at the frontpages on todays papers. One in particular. Crops up in other places as well, but that's the worst I've seen and the worst I want to see.

[afleitch]

Some (though not all or even most) of the coverage and commentary over this in recent days has been subtly anti-semitic. And some of it not so-subtly so... I really do hate the fucking media sometimes. This sort of shit is totally uncalled for and unless it stops I'll start to get very angry.

I quite agree, it's subtle and from the usual suspects too. However Al your silence on the issue; that of something going on within the Labour Party has been lacking. Instead you've focused on the messenger and not the message. It makes it difficult even for someone who tends to agree with your view of the media to sympathise with your sentiments.

I don't think I'm being partisan either in pointing that out.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I quite agree, it's subtle and from the usual suspects too. However Al your silence on the issue; that of something going on within the Labour Party has been lacking. Instead you've focused on the messenger and not the message. It makes it difficult even for someone who tends to agree with your view of the media to sympathise with your sentiments.

I don't think I'm being partisan either in pointing that out.

The reason for that is that I don't especially care about "the issue"; I think I've made it fairly clear that I view the entire process of party fundraising to be inherently dodgy, shady and ethically questionable and I don't have any trouble accepting that my party can sometimes be just as bad as the rest in that regard (but our officials (and Deputy Leader!) seem to have an added element of stupidity).
There are certain aspects of the story that I'm not happy about (other than the fact that a law was broken, I'm unhappy about the atmosphere of secrecy that seems to exist high up in the party machine. And when I say unhappy, I mean that), but I can't really think of anything to say or write about them. I could say things about Harman, but I don't feel like indulging in factionalism at the moment.
I've also not yet mentioned that I'm pleased (no... satisfied) about one small part of the affair; the speed at which it was declared that the Party won't be keeping the money. That did actually surprise me. A very, very minor element of things all considered and up to a point it may just be posturing, but a silver lining (even a small one) is a silver lining.
I've chosen to take it as evidence that political culture is shifting, a little, in a better direction. This is obviously a delusion, but I'm deluding myself into thinking that it isn't a delusion.

Btw, me being angry about the outbreak of anti-semitism in the media has nothing to do with partisan considerations. It [anti-semitism] just happens to make me very angry, very quickly. What makes it worse is that this is happening at a time in which anti-semitic attitudes amongst the population as a whole appear to be on the rise again; and now the bloody media are legitimising some of the oldest prejudices.

[afleitch]

I think it's because anti-semitism is so subtle it's almost undetectable, particularly when targeting an individual When it is, there usually is a rightful outcry and a speedy retreat or explanation. Hand on heart i'm not being selective here, the example that comes to mind is the infamous 2005 'Fagin' election poster of Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin.

Unfortunately it's very difficult to approach this subject, particularly in public when it comes to offences comitted, because one particular religious group has a tendency to use anti-semitic language. Same goes for homophobic language and the measurable fact (from attitudes surveys and polls as well as experience) that very casual homophobia exists within ethnic and religious minorities at a greater concentration, particularly amongst the young than it does in 'white' Brits. But the concept that minorities may not like minorities makes for sore heads amongst many of the liberal left and the problem is never confronted head on.

The media use this way of framing things, such as the Suns use of pink in banner headlines involving gay issues (that are usually presented in a lightweight 'and finally' style format) and the use of the word 'gay' in front of someone who commits a sexual misdemeanor when they wouldn't use the word 'straight.'

So I'm quite sensitive when it comes to anti-semitism due to close Jewish links through family friends. The use of shadowy slow motion on the only bit of stock footage of Abrahams the BBC have coupled with, while I can't prove it, some editing on his photo around the nose in one recent newspaper makes my own blood boil too. But he's no saint. While it does not excuse the method of attack used by sections of the media, the character assassination is ultimately derived from his own shoddy past as a PPC.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm a little too tired to respond properly to that until morning (and I think it deserves a proper response), but I'll say one thing now:

But he's no saint.

Absolutely. He is a rather dubious character and has done some odd things in the past (this bizarre donations thing being just the most recent example). But this almost makes it worse; it's perfectly possible to launch a strong attack on him without resorting feeding anti-semitic sentiment. I actually have a more serious concern over this than the attacks on Abrahams, but I'll wait until I'm awake again before posting that.

[Joe Republic]

Some (though not all or even most) of the coverage and commentary over this in recent days has been subtly anti-semitic. And some of it not so-subtly so...

Can't say I've noticed, what are they doing?

Have a look at the frontpages on todays papers. One in particular. Crops up in other places as well, but that's the worst I've seen and the worst I want to see.

What did they say?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Random update; a furious Jack Straw has said that, along with Watt, one or two other people high up in the Party machine had an idea about what was going on, but that he isn't "certain" who they are.

What did they say?

The front page of one newspaper the other day pretty much implied that Abrahams himself was but a cover for some Israeli plot to secretly fund the Labour Party.