Skip to main content

Osborne and Hain - donation declarations

It is important for people to know who any substantial funders of politicians are. Such declarations of interest should be public. However, there has to be a sensible approach to techical issues.

George Osborne declared his funding to the Electoral Commission, but not the parliamentary commissioner for standards. I don't see this as anything other than a technical breach.

Peter Hain, however, failed to declare his funding sources to anyone. At the same time an attempt to conceal the sources was made. It is this attempt to conceal the sources of funding that causes me most concern.

The reason for declaring funding sources is to identify whether or not politicians are offering "cash for questions" type deals. If we don't know who the paymaster is then we don't know which tunes to look out for.

There has, however, to be a sensible and coherent approach to declarations. I need to declare things to Birmingham City Council, The Electoral Commission, The Liberal Democrats and the Parliamentary Commissioner for standards.

The rules are different, the cycles are different and it is easy by mistake to declare to one and not another. For example dormant companies are declared to local authorities, but only trading companies to the Parliamentary Commissioner.

In a sense we need a politicians funding register so the funding streams anyone active in politics (and potentially as a candidate as well) can be identified without a massive bureaucratic overload.

For a period of time I had to declare when I refused a dinner worth £25 or over. Because it was too much hassle to find out which were worth so much I simply declared everything through the BCC Deputy Leader's Office. Potentially this is a solution although declaring when one turns down an offer of something does seem a bit unnecessary.

This area of multiple declarations does need to be looked at in detail. Hiding a substantial funding stream cannot be acceptable and I don't think Peter Hain will stick this one out.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…