City's influence over Conservatives laid bare by research into donations

Naffa · 1 Oct 2011 at 00:37

The Guardian said:
City's influence over Conservatives laid bare by research into donations

Donations from finance account for half of payments to Tories since 2010 general election

The influence of the City over the Conservatives has been laid bare by new research showing that more than half of the Tory party's donations since the general election have come from individuals and businesses working in finance.

Hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms contributed more than a quarter of all the Tories' private donations – which this year poured in at a rate equal to £1m a month – the study by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/30/city-conservatives-donations

It almost makes one laugh that those who would, and will, happily turn a blind eye to this will criticise the Labour party until the cows come home, for taking so much money from trade unions.

EdwardTeach · 1 Oct 2011 at 00:42

I really can't see the problem here.

Surely the unions and labour are a much bigger issue. You have the leader of the opposition who was actually chosen by the unions!

Naffa · 1 Oct 2011 at 00:44

Are you joking? You don't see a slight conflict of interest, when a sector of our economy that is in dire need of huge reform is accounting for over half of our governing party's donations?

Castiel · 1 Oct 2011 at 00:52

I think that political parties should be publicly financed or their donations capped somehow.

Stop all this inane bickering over who is beholden to who....

PMKeates · 1 Oct 2011 at 01:37

Naffa said:
Are you joking? You don't see a slight conflict of interest, when a sector of our economy that is in dire need of huge reform is accounting for over half of our governing party's donations?

Reading the report it is actually the case that 51% came from organisations or individuals in "financial services", which is a pretty broad term. Either way, it pales in comparison to the 91% of Labour funding that came from trade unions in the same period. At least the bankers gave the money with their own free will, rather than all the trade union members having it extorted from them.

dowie · 1 Oct 2011 at 01:52

Some of those donations would have been made simply to whichever party happened to be in power.

As for rich individuals - tis hardly a shocker that they'd be Tory supporters.

In other news trade unions donate to labour and labour (supposedly) look out for trade union interests.

Castiel · 1 Oct 2011 at 01:54

PMKeates said:
Reading the report it is actually the case that 51% came from organisations or individuals in "financial services", which is a pretty broad term. Either way, it pales in comparison to the 91% of Labour funding that came from trade unions in the same period. At least the bankers gave the money with their own free will, rather than all the trade union members having it extorted from them.

Union members can and regularly do opt out of Unions Political funds.

RDM · 1 Oct 2011 at 07:36

Naffa said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/30/city-conservatives-donations

It almost makes one laugh that those who would, and will, happily turn a blind eye to this will criticise the Labour party until the cows come home, for taking so much money from trade unions.

I have no problem at all with party funding reform with caps on individual donors. Reducing the impact of vested interests would be good across the political spectrum.

As to your last point, surely you are guilty of the same though? Ignoring one political party whilst focusing on the other?

MrMoonX · 1 Oct 2011 at 07:47

shock horror, tories funded by fat cat bankers

Scrutinize · 1 Oct 2011 at 08:36

MrMoonX said:
shock horror, tories funded by fat cat bankers

Well, they are not exactly going to get funded by the substantial numbers of benefit claimants resulting from Labour’s policies are they?

Do you really want the alternative government which is propped up by the unions?

ElliorR · 1 Oct 2011 at 08:38

Castiel said:
I think that political parties should be publicly financed............

PMKeates · 1 Oct 2011 at 08:41

Castiel said:
Union members can and regularly do opt out of Unions Political funds.

They do, but that does not mean to say my statement is incorrect; I personally know people who do not want to be in the Union, let alone donate to the political fund, but are peer pressured in to doing so and pay up fully. I would wager it's very unlikely that any of the money that was donated to the Conservatives from the City is so morally dubious

Castiel · 1 Oct 2011 at 08:49

PMKeates said:
They do, but that does not mean to say my statement is incorrect; I personally know people who do not want to be in the Union, let alone donate to the political fund, but are peer pressured in to doing so and pay up fully. I would wager it's very unlikely that any of the money that was donated to the Conservatives from the City is so morally dubious

More fool them. Tbh

Meridian · 1 Oct 2011 at 09:15

PMKeates said:
They do, but that does not mean to say my statement is incorrect; I personally know people who do not want to be in the Union, let alone donate to the political fund, but are peer pressured in to doing so and pay up fully. I would wager it's very unlikely that any of the money that was donated to the Conservatives from the City is so morally dubious

And equally I'm sure that there are many shareholders who don't want their company donating to political parties. But that isn't even put to a vote, unlike union dues to parties. And at least the union donations are right out there in the open.

M

RDM · 1 Oct 2011 at 09:19

Is the issue vested interests or just vested interests you don't agree with?

Gepetto · 1 Oct 2011 at 09:25

Naffa said:
Are you joking? You don't see a slight conflict of interest, when a sector of our economy that is in dire need of huge reform is accounting for over half of our governing party's donations?

PMKeates said:
Reading the report it is actually the case that 51% came from organisations or individuals in "financial services", which is a pretty broad term. Either way, it pales in comparison to the 91% of Labour funding that came from trade unions in the same period.

I am politically naive, and of the opinion that all politicians are useless, lying oxygen thieves, but surely this provides even more of a "conflict of interest"?

Dolph · 1 Oct 2011 at 09:27

Naffa said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/30/city-conservatives-donations

It almost makes one laugh that those who would, and will, happily turn a blind eye to this will criticise the Labour party until the cows come home, for taking so much money from trade unions.

I support donation caps from all sources, businesses, individuals and trade unions.

Nice try on poisoning the well at the well at the start of the thread.

Hades · 1 Oct 2011 at 09:31

Meridian said:
And equally I'm sure that there are many shareholders who don't want their company donating to political parties. But that isn't even put to a vote, unlike union dues to parties. And at least the union donations are right out there in the open.

M

Of course it's "put to a vote"... any shareholder chooses whether or not to buy shares. If the don't like what the company is doing then they can choose to sell the shares.

scorza · 1 Oct 2011 at 09:34

Explains Osborne's obsession with cutting to 50% tax rate and opposition to the EU Tobin tax.

Dolph · 1 Oct 2011 at 09:44

scorza said:
Explains Osborne's obsession with cutting to 50% tax rate and opposition to the EU Tobin tax.

So neither would be anything to do with actual evidence that they don't work very well...

Just because the left is ideology obsessed and will ignore evidence, doesn't mean the other side should behave the same way...