I've received a number of e-mails from people asking my view about the proposed replacement for the ageing Trident nuclear weapons system. In fact, this is a topic I've mentioned in my first election leaflet - although the correspondence suggests that the price tag is now £97 billion instead of the £75 billion I had last heard - but there's inflation for you I suppose!
Keeping the budget deficit in check after the disastrous bank bailout will require some tough choices on tax increases and public spending; however, surely one not-so-tough option is to decide not to replace a weapons system that protects us from nothing and no-one. I'm reliably assured that there is no current evidence of plans by any neighbouring country to invade the United Kingdom, so surely in the longer term investing in health, education, infrastructure and science will be of far greater benefit to us. Just to add to that, I believe we should also avoid unnecessary wars of choice, such as that in Iraq, which put military personnel in danger - and surely if we are going to be involved in conflicts, our troops should have the best possible protective equipment. I'm not sure how Trident protects us from roadside bombs planted by terrorists.
The letter also makes the perfectly valid point that, with Obama now seriously talking about cuts in the number of weapons, other countries need to be willing to follow suit to rid the world of as many nuclear bombs as possible. If we are serious about stopping nuclear proliferation elsewhere, we ought to stop proliferating ourselves!
It's also the official policy of the Green Party not to replace Trident, and I'm delighted to offer my full support to that.
Tuesday 30 March 2010
Sunday 28 March 2010
Jam today and jam tomorrow
Firstly, I should say that I got a comment on the previous post about whether or not York Central is a marginal seat, and I've posted a response there. No doubt this is a topic that will crop up again.
On Saturday morning, I attended a Friends of the Earth action at Lendal Bridge, which involved handing out jam sandwiches and tarts to passers-by. The objective of this exercise - apart from attracting some slightly puzzled looks - was to highlight the fact that the council's current consultation on traffic levels does not include any option that involves reducing traffic - the only choice is on the level of increase we want to support.
This is coupled with recent data that have shown a sharp deterioration in air quality around the city centre - some particular hot spots are at the Bootham/ Gillygate junction, and at Holgate Road. There are now numerous sites where the EU limit of 40 micrograms/cubic metre for NO2 are being exceeded.
This should occasion some though about how we manage the city's traffic. It's clear from my own observations (I live next to the inner ring road) that the kind of problems that used to exist at peak times are now spreading through the day as roads clog up. This is without all the additional development that York is expected to sustain over the forthcoming years - an extra 1,000 houses or so a year, along with employment opportunities. It's clear there are two options - to simply manage an increasingly dysfunctional transport system, with jams in the centre getting ever worse, or to look at radical options, combining better public transport with measures - which could include congestion charging - to actually limit the amount of traffic that can drive into the city centre.
I make no apologies for favouring the latter of these alternatives. Where the other parties stand is an issue that will no doubt be addressed in the campaign.
On Saturday morning, I attended a Friends of the Earth action at Lendal Bridge, which involved handing out jam sandwiches and tarts to passers-by. The objective of this exercise - apart from attracting some slightly puzzled looks - was to highlight the fact that the council's current consultation on traffic levels does not include any option that involves reducing traffic - the only choice is on the level of increase we want to support.
This is coupled with recent data that have shown a sharp deterioration in air quality around the city centre - some particular hot spots are at the Bootham/ Gillygate junction, and at Holgate Road. There are now numerous sites where the EU limit of 40 micrograms/cubic metre for NO2 are being exceeded.
This should occasion some though about how we manage the city's traffic. It's clear from my own observations (I live next to the inner ring road) that the kind of problems that used to exist at peak times are now spreading through the day as roads clog up. This is without all the additional development that York is expected to sustain over the forthcoming years - an extra 1,000 houses or so a year, along with employment opportunities. It's clear there are two options - to simply manage an increasingly dysfunctional transport system, with jams in the centre getting ever worse, or to look at radical options, combining better public transport with measures - which could include congestion charging - to actually limit the amount of traffic that can drive into the city centre.
I make no apologies for favouring the latter of these alternatives. Where the other parties stand is an issue that will no doubt be addressed in the campaign.
Friday 26 March 2010
The responsibility gap
I met a personal friend of mine this week who has been experiencing horrendous neighbour nuisance. He lives in a terraced house in the city next door to someone with a record of drug abuse and mental health problems who has also been dealing in drugs from his home. What is salutary about this story is that none of the agencies who should have been dealing with the situation - social services, health agencies, the police and the property owner - have been able to prevent it dragging on for years.
I'm certainly not advocating a return to the days when people were incarcerated for years because of teenage angst. However, because of the pressure to reduce the number of beds, the modern health service seems to have adopted the same sort of model as is now used for operations - the patient is whisked in, treated, and then is out of the hospital again before their feet have a chance to touch the ground. Now this may work for ingrown toenails, but for mental health issues it simply doesn't. Drugs are not always the appropriate solution and attempting to diagnose and treat too quickly can exacerbate things.
Perhaps even more of a problem is that the lack of mental health beds resulting from this policy means that people more or less have to sit in a queue waiting for treatment - just the same as for an eye operation. However, whilst they await a place in hospital, those people around them - friends, neighbours and family - have to try and manage desperately difficult situations. In the same way, the police have been aware of the drug dealing from the property, but the drug dealing has continued.
It is also an interesting case study into the problems caused by buy-to-let landlords. The landlady, who lives in the south of England, is an elusive character who seems to change her telephone number regularly and makes a point of being as difficult to contact as possible - so much so that, in the time since the problems began to occur, the police have never been able to speak to her. There is an answer to this - in Scotland, where landlords fail to take reasonable measures they can be recharged for doing so by the local authority. In my view, this ought to go much further - if landlords fail to co-operate with other agencies, then the local authority should be able to take over the property for a specified period of time - say five years - and should receive all rent due on the house in that period of time. Unfortunately no legislation has been enacted in England and Wales to allow this to happen.
In any case, I can only hope his situation improves. Whatever the answer is, we certainly haven't found it at the moment.
I'm certainly not advocating a return to the days when people were incarcerated for years because of teenage angst. However, because of the pressure to reduce the number of beds, the modern health service seems to have adopted the same sort of model as is now used for operations - the patient is whisked in, treated, and then is out of the hospital again before their feet have a chance to touch the ground. Now this may work for ingrown toenails, but for mental health issues it simply doesn't. Drugs are not always the appropriate solution and attempting to diagnose and treat too quickly can exacerbate things.
Perhaps even more of a problem is that the lack of mental health beds resulting from this policy means that people more or less have to sit in a queue waiting for treatment - just the same as for an eye operation. However, whilst they await a place in hospital, those people around them - friends, neighbours and family - have to try and manage desperately difficult situations. In the same way, the police have been aware of the drug dealing from the property, but the drug dealing has continued.
It is also an interesting case study into the problems caused by buy-to-let landlords. The landlady, who lives in the south of England, is an elusive character who seems to change her telephone number regularly and makes a point of being as difficult to contact as possible - so much so that, in the time since the problems began to occur, the police have never been able to speak to her. There is an answer to this - in Scotland, where landlords fail to take reasonable measures they can be recharged for doing so by the local authority. In my view, this ought to go much further - if landlords fail to co-operate with other agencies, then the local authority should be able to take over the property for a specified period of time - say five years - and should receive all rent due on the house in that period of time. Unfortunately no legislation has been enacted in England and Wales to allow this to happen.
In any case, I can only hope his situation improves. Whatever the answer is, we certainly haven't found it at the moment.
Sunday 21 March 2010
The sound of stable doors being slammed firmly shut....
Well, it's a topsy-turvy world. Apparently the Tories are proposing a new tax on banks, which has in turn been slammed by Alastair Darling because it could cause severe damage to the City of London. On that question, I can only quote George Monbiot's excellent riposte on the subject of the 50p top rate of income tax:
"It’s a bitter blow. When the government proposed a windfall tax on bonuses and a 50p top rate of income tax, thousands of bankers and corporate executives promised to leave the country and move to Switzerland. Now we discover that the policy has failed: the number of financiers applying for a Swiss work permit fell by 7% last year. The government must try harder to rid this country of its antisocial elements."
..which was pointed out to me by a Green Party colleague.
But coming back to the point, we should get a couple of things in perspective. We may imagine Dave donning his polo-necked sweater and making off with his mates to a bender in Glastonbury where they are about to plot the downfall of world capitalism - but we should also bear in mind that the Tories fully support the great bank bailout in 2008 - indeed, George Osborne actually called for it before Alastair Darling approved the idea. In my view, this is where the most profound mistake was made.
Let's take RBS as a case in point. In 2007 a consortium involving RBS gained control of ABN AMRO, an investment bank. Like most other investment banks, ABN AMRO was very hard hit when the financial crisis occured, and when RBS reported a £28n loss in January 2009, £20bn of this was down to its partial acquisition of ABN. By its nature, investment banking is a risky business, and it's very unclear why so much taxpayer's money was put into bailing out this operation - except for the fact that years of regulatory failure allowed it to become so heavily entwined with the more basic parts of the financial system that its collapse could have had unpleasant ramifications.
Those unpalatable problems should have been faced in 2008, when the affairs of the insolvent banks should have been wound up in an orderly manner. That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been a charge to the taxpayer - the branch network should have been nationalized and those ordinary RBS savers who had deposits should have been compensated - but this would have cost a fraction of the amount that was actually spent shoring up the whole rotten system. In fact, there are investment banks, hedge funds and other bodies in the appropriately named "shadow banking system," mainly based in tax havens, who should thank their lucky stars for the generosity of British, and other taxpayers - not that they pay any tax in the UK themselves, of course. Still, if you happen to be passing the Cayman Islands any time soon, I'm sure they might be civil enough to offer you a dry Martini in exchange.
Going back to the "bank tax," one should remember that in its original incarnation, it was billed as a sort of insurance fund in case the banks had to be bailed out again. In my view, this gives the worst possible message to the risk takers. However, given that we are where we are, I would support the bank tax so that ordinary people can claw back some of their money that has been so unwisely invested. The question is whether we can really look forward to a reduction in jobs in the City as a result.
The dominance of the financial sector has actually been like a powerful and unhealthy drug to the British economy. Successive chancellors have found it convenient to rub along with their mates in the city because of the money that it brought in for the Treasury - until 2008, of course, when a lot of it went back again. But it has also gradually but profoundly distorted the economy - destroying manufacturing because of the overvalued pound, making us dependent on cheap imports and the retail sector and increasing the disparity between the economy of the south east and other regions. The large bonuses so gleefully handed out have also helped to drive a ten-year housing boom, which at its height meant that many homeowners were making more money on paper from the appreciation in the value of their house than they were earning at work; all these things were symptoms of the "money for nothing economy."
That's why I put in my latest leaflet that we need to be supporting science, innovation and manufacturing for the 21st century. This is partly about dealing with climate change and creating "green technologies," but it's also about back to basics - earning our brass by producing goods and services that people want to buy. If that means that some bankers leave the country, then goodbye and don't forget to send us a postcard.
"It’s a bitter blow. When the government proposed a windfall tax on bonuses and a 50p top rate of income tax, thousands of bankers and corporate executives promised to leave the country and move to Switzerland. Now we discover that the policy has failed: the number of financiers applying for a Swiss work permit fell by 7% last year. The government must try harder to rid this country of its antisocial elements."
..which was pointed out to me by a Green Party colleague.
But coming back to the point, we should get a couple of things in perspective. We may imagine Dave donning his polo-necked sweater and making off with his mates to a bender in Glastonbury where they are about to plot the downfall of world capitalism - but we should also bear in mind that the Tories fully support the great bank bailout in 2008 - indeed, George Osborne actually called for it before Alastair Darling approved the idea. In my view, this is where the most profound mistake was made.
Let's take RBS as a case in point. In 2007 a consortium involving RBS gained control of ABN AMRO, an investment bank. Like most other investment banks, ABN AMRO was very hard hit when the financial crisis occured, and when RBS reported a £28n loss in January 2009, £20bn of this was down to its partial acquisition of ABN. By its nature, investment banking is a risky business, and it's very unclear why so much taxpayer's money was put into bailing out this operation - except for the fact that years of regulatory failure allowed it to become so heavily entwined with the more basic parts of the financial system that its collapse could have had unpleasant ramifications.
Those unpalatable problems should have been faced in 2008, when the affairs of the insolvent banks should have been wound up in an orderly manner. That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been a charge to the taxpayer - the branch network should have been nationalized and those ordinary RBS savers who had deposits should have been compensated - but this would have cost a fraction of the amount that was actually spent shoring up the whole rotten system. In fact, there are investment banks, hedge funds and other bodies in the appropriately named "shadow banking system," mainly based in tax havens, who should thank their lucky stars for the generosity of British, and other taxpayers - not that they pay any tax in the UK themselves, of course. Still, if you happen to be passing the Cayman Islands any time soon, I'm sure they might be civil enough to offer you a dry Martini in exchange.
Going back to the "bank tax," one should remember that in its original incarnation, it was billed as a sort of insurance fund in case the banks had to be bailed out again. In my view, this gives the worst possible message to the risk takers. However, given that we are where we are, I would support the bank tax so that ordinary people can claw back some of their money that has been so unwisely invested. The question is whether we can really look forward to a reduction in jobs in the City as a result.
The dominance of the financial sector has actually been like a powerful and unhealthy drug to the British economy. Successive chancellors have found it convenient to rub along with their mates in the city because of the money that it brought in for the Treasury - until 2008, of course, when a lot of it went back again. But it has also gradually but profoundly distorted the economy - destroying manufacturing because of the overvalued pound, making us dependent on cheap imports and the retail sector and increasing the disparity between the economy of the south east and other regions. The large bonuses so gleefully handed out have also helped to drive a ten-year housing boom, which at its height meant that many homeowners were making more money on paper from the appreciation in the value of their house than they were earning at work; all these things were symptoms of the "money for nothing economy."
That's why I put in my latest leaflet that we need to be supporting science, innovation and manufacturing for the 21st century. This is partly about dealing with climate change and creating "green technologies," but it's also about back to basics - earning our brass by producing goods and services that people want to buy. If that means that some bankers leave the country, then goodbye and don't forget to send us a postcard.
Friday 5 March 2010
PCS Strike
The PCS union is organizing two days of industrial action on 8th and 9th March. This concerns unilateral changes being made by the government to the civil service compensation scheme, which will mean that those unfortunate enough to lose their jobs could lose a large chunk - in some cases over a third - of their redundancy pay along with some of their pension entitlement.
An Early Day Motion (EDM 251) has been signed by around 150 MPs of all parties - Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative - calling for a rethink over these changes and a return to negotiations. Hugh Bayley's name does not as yet (6th March) appear next to the motion but I sincerely hope he will be willing to support it. If cuts are to be made, surely the last thing we should be doing is stripping those unfortunate enough to be made redundant of their rights, many of whom may have given years of service.
I will be supporting those taking industrial action on Monday.
An Early Day Motion (EDM 251) has been signed by around 150 MPs of all parties - Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative - calling for a rethink over these changes and a return to negotiations. Hugh Bayley's name does not as yet (6th March) appear next to the motion but I sincerely hope he will be willing to support it. If cuts are to be made, surely the last thing we should be doing is stripping those unfortunate enough to be made redundant of their rights, many of whom may have given years of service.
I will be supporting those taking industrial action on Monday.
That'll teach me
Well, there I am again opening my big mouth. An (anonymous) commenter to the last post asked me whether I had checked the tax status of every single individual who has made one of the 403 cash donations to the Green Party since 2001 (as stated on the register of donations to political parties, freely available on the Electoral Commission website, a question that of course I can't answer. Well, it does at least prove that someone is reading the blog!
What I have done is to list the Green Party's cash donors for 2009 (the whole year) below:
Donor Grand Total
Mr Thomas Gordon Roddick £30,000.00
Mr Michael Brook £30,000.00
Mr Ben Goldsmith £30,000.00
Ms Deborah Joffe £25,000.00
Mr Noel Gillian Kirkby £24,012.24
Mr Peter Kindersley £15,000.00
Mr Arthur Nicholas Gillett £15,000.00
Ms Jean Lambert £10,620.00
Political Animal Lobby Ltd status: Company company reg no: 2565899 £10,000.00
Ms Lucy Hall £10,000.00
Mr Michael Constantine £10,000.00
Ms Anne Power £9,500.00
Mr Chris Simpson £8,600.00
Mr Darren Johnson £8,140.00
Mr Nick Robins £7,250.00
Ms Caroline Lucas £7,100.00
Mr Martin Stanley £6,500.00
Ms Sarah Edwards £6,000.00
Mr Jonathan Porritt £6,000.00
Mr Mark Cridge £6,000.00
Mr Brian Fewster £6,000.00
Ms Rosanna Taylor £5,200.00
Mr Ricky Knight £5,180.00
Mr Martin Bevis Gillett £5,000.00
Mr Richard Reed £5,000.00
Mr Martin Beavis Gillett £4,000.00
Ms Mischa Borris £4,000.00
Ms Jenny Jones £3,525.00
Mr Brian Candeland £3,500.00
Ms Janet Alty £3,000.00
Mr Rupert Read £2,500.00
Ms Jennifer Toms £2,400.00
Mrs Jean Lambert £2,305.00
Mr Christopher Simpson £2,250.00
Glastonbury Festivals 2009 Ltd status: Company company reg no: 4348175 £2,000.00
Mr Andrew J P Gray £2,000.00
Environmental Futures Ltd status: Company company reg no: 4570563 £2,000.00
Mr Adam Ramsey £2,000.00
Mr Roger Ross £1,950.00
Ms Beverley A Cross £1,600.00
Ms Deborah Glass £1,400.00
BCMY Ltd status: Company company reg no: 4410148 £1,352.36
Hillingdon Green Print status: Company company reg no: 5203222 £1,300.00
Mr Arthur David Williams £1,224.00
Mr Craig Simmons £1,000.50
Grand Total £340,469.10
So there you have it. If any of these people are card-carrying non-doms I apologize, but as you can see there are no individual donors over £30,000, and many of the largest ones are bequests. As it happens, I do know a significant number of people on this list personally, as they are party members, and Green MEPs and London Assembly members also feature prominently in the list. Like many people in the Green Party, they often reach deep into their own pockets to fund their election campaigns.
Just for comparison, I included the Tory Party's donations for the same period:
Donor Grand Total
David Rowland £1,914,050.00
Stanley Fink £1,591,640.00
Michael Farmer £928,000.00
National Conservative Draws Society status: Unincorporated Association £821,500.00
IPGL Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02011009 £547,100.00
Lord John Sainsbury of Preston Candover £500,000.00
Joseph C Bamford £400,000.00
Michael D Bishop £335,000.00
Focus on Scotland status: Unincorporated Association £316,000.00
JCB Research status: Company company reg no: 00682651 £256,000.00
Mr Jeffrey Whalley £250,000.00
Lord Philip Harris of Peckham £250,000.00
IM Properties Plc status: Company company reg no: 03456022 £250,000.00
Mr Michael Hintze £222,000.00
William Cook Ltd status: Company company reg no: 00074837 £200,000.00
Peter A Cruddas £200,000.00
Mr Mark Bamford £200,000.00
Mr Paul M Ruddock £166,500.00
Michael Freeman £165,500.00
Mr Peter Beak £150,000.00
Ivor Braka Ltd status: Company company reg no: 01840837 £150,000.00
FIL Investment Management Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02349713 £150,000.00
Flowidea Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02463564 £131,170.00
Jeremy Hosking £125,000.00
David Whelan £125,000.00
Mr Abduladem M EL Mayet £118,000.00
Mr Alexander A Fraser £115,000.00
Rainham Steel Co Ltd status: Company company reg no: 01093531 £114,200.00
Mr Hani Farsi £110,968.46
Barbara C Yerolemou £110,000.00
Mr Michael Freeman £105,000.00
David Ord Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02614362 £105,000.00
Mr Anthony N Bickford £101,000.00
Mr James Stewart £100,230.00
Paul A Beecroft £100,000.00
Mr R C W Odey £100,000.00
Mr James Lyle £100,000.00
Mr Chaim P Zabludowicz £100,000.00
GFI Holdings Ltd status: Company company reg no: 03405222 £100,000.00
Fares I Fares £100,000.00
Grand Total £23,737,044.77
Please note I've only separated donations over £100,000 (otherwise they would run to 1,000 lines). So do I decry the Conservatives for accepting any large donation? No. Do I think something should be done to ensure that such large donations are not required in future? Yes. What do the Conservatives or Labour plan to do about this problem? Nothing. As long as this situation persists, there will be a concern that big money donors have too much influence over policy.
Policy supported by the Green Party conference:
RPA06.2: Peerages and Party Funding (Originally passed – Spring 2006)
Conference notes:
The controversy over the appointment of new Labour peers. That peerages appear to be given to major donors. That secret loans to the Labour Party were not even declared to the party treasurer.
These scandals highlight two problems:
The Green Party supports a fully elected House of Lords and state funding for political parties. These changes would remove the dependence of parties on wealthy donors and the temptation for parties to reward donors with honours.
Conference instructs GPEx to commend these policies to the Electoral Commission.
So we need an end to large donations to political parties, an end to non-dom tax status and an end to an appointed House of Lords. And I can tell you that if there are any large donations to my campaign, you'll hear about them on this blog!
What I have done is to list the Green Party's cash donors for 2009 (the whole year) below:
Donor Grand Total
Mr Thomas Gordon Roddick £30,000.00
Mr Michael Brook £30,000.00
Mr Ben Goldsmith £30,000.00
Ms Deborah Joffe £25,000.00
Mr Noel Gillian Kirkby £24,012.24
Mr Peter Kindersley £15,000.00
Mr Arthur Nicholas Gillett £15,000.00
Ms Jean Lambert £10,620.00
Political Animal Lobby Ltd status: Company company reg no: 2565899 £10,000.00
Ms Lucy Hall £10,000.00
Mr Michael Constantine £10,000.00
Ms Anne Power £9,500.00
Mr Chris Simpson £8,600.00
Mr Darren Johnson £8,140.00
Mr Nick Robins £7,250.00
Ms Caroline Lucas £7,100.00
Mr Martin Stanley £6,500.00
Ms Sarah Edwards £6,000.00
Mr Jonathan Porritt £6,000.00
Mr Mark Cridge £6,000.00
Mr Brian Fewster £6,000.00
Ms Rosanna Taylor £5,200.00
Mr Ricky Knight £5,180.00
Mr Martin Bevis Gillett £5,000.00
Mr Richard Reed £5,000.00
Mr Martin Beavis Gillett £4,000.00
Ms Mischa Borris £4,000.00
Ms Jenny Jones £3,525.00
Mr Brian Candeland £3,500.00
Ms Janet Alty £3,000.00
Mr Rupert Read £2,500.00
Ms Jennifer Toms £2,400.00
Mrs Jean Lambert £2,305.00
Mr Christopher Simpson £2,250.00
Glastonbury Festivals 2009 Ltd status: Company company reg no: 4348175 £2,000.00
Mr Andrew J P Gray £2,000.00
Environmental Futures Ltd status: Company company reg no: 4570563 £2,000.00
Mr Adam Ramsey £2,000.00
Mr Roger Ross £1,950.00
Ms Beverley A Cross £1,600.00
Ms Deborah Glass £1,400.00
BCMY Ltd status: Company company reg no: 4410148 £1,352.36
Hillingdon Green Print status: Company company reg no: 5203222 £1,300.00
Mr Arthur David Williams £1,224.00
Mr Craig Simmons £1,000.50
Grand Total £340,469.10
So there you have it. If any of these people are card-carrying non-doms I apologize, but as you can see there are no individual donors over £30,000, and many of the largest ones are bequests. As it happens, I do know a significant number of people on this list personally, as they are party members, and Green MEPs and London Assembly members also feature prominently in the list. Like many people in the Green Party, they often reach deep into their own pockets to fund their election campaigns.
Just for comparison, I included the Tory Party's donations for the same period:
Donor Grand Total
David Rowland £1,914,050.00
Stanley Fink £1,591,640.00
Michael Farmer £928,000.00
National Conservative Draws Society status: Unincorporated Association £821,500.00
IPGL Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02011009 £547,100.00
Lord John Sainsbury of Preston Candover £500,000.00
Joseph C Bamford £400,000.00
Michael D Bishop £335,000.00
Focus on Scotland status: Unincorporated Association £316,000.00
JCB Research status: Company company reg no: 00682651 £256,000.00
Mr Jeffrey Whalley £250,000.00
Lord Philip Harris of Peckham £250,000.00
IM Properties Plc status: Company company reg no: 03456022 £250,000.00
Mr Michael Hintze £222,000.00
William Cook Ltd status: Company company reg no: 00074837 £200,000.00
Peter A Cruddas £200,000.00
Mr Mark Bamford £200,000.00
Mr Paul M Ruddock £166,500.00
Michael Freeman £165,500.00
Mr Peter Beak £150,000.00
Ivor Braka Ltd status: Company company reg no: 01840837 £150,000.00
FIL Investment Management Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02349713 £150,000.00
Flowidea Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02463564 £131,170.00
Jeremy Hosking £125,000.00
David Whelan £125,000.00
Mr Abduladem M EL Mayet £118,000.00
Mr Alexander A Fraser £115,000.00
Rainham Steel Co Ltd status: Company company reg no: 01093531 £114,200.00
Mr Hani Farsi £110,968.46
Barbara C Yerolemou £110,000.00
Mr Michael Freeman £105,000.00
David Ord Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02614362 £105,000.00
Mr Anthony N Bickford £101,000.00
Mr James Stewart £100,230.00
Paul A Beecroft £100,000.00
Mr R C W Odey £100,000.00
Mr James Lyle £100,000.00
Mr Chaim P Zabludowicz £100,000.00
GFI Holdings Ltd status: Company company reg no: 03405222 £100,000.00
Fares I Fares £100,000.00
Grand Total £23,737,044.77
Please note I've only separated donations over £100,000 (otherwise they would run to 1,000 lines). So do I decry the Conservatives for accepting any large donation? No. Do I think something should be done to ensure that such large donations are not required in future? Yes. What do the Conservatives or Labour plan to do about this problem? Nothing. As long as this situation persists, there will be a concern that big money donors have too much influence over policy.
Policy supported by the Green Party conference:
RPA06.2: Peerages and Party Funding (Originally passed – Spring 2006)
Conference notes:
The controversy over the appointment of new Labour peers. That peerages appear to be given to major donors. That secret loans to the Labour Party were not even declared to the party treasurer.
These scandals highlight two problems:
- The House of Lords is filled by appointment rather than by election
- Political parties have to rely on rich individuals, big businesses and trade unions for funds
The Green Party supports a fully elected House of Lords and state funding for political parties. These changes would remove the dependence of parties on wealthy donors and the temptation for parties to reward donors with honours.
Conference instructs GPEx to commend these policies to the Electoral Commission.
So we need an end to large donations to political parties, an end to non-dom tax status and an end to an appointed House of Lords. And I can tell you that if there are any large donations to my campaign, you'll hear about them on this blog!
Monday 1 March 2010
Some reflections on the day - party funding and climate change
A couple of political stories in the news today - apparently Tory donor Michael Ashcroft has now admitted that he has "non-dom" tax status and consequently doesn't pay any UK tax on his overseas earnings - just one day after David Cameron assured us that is was our patriotic duty to vote Conservative. But no worries, apparently Lord Ashcroft will do the right thing and condescend to pay tax along with everyone else in the increasingly unlikely event of a Tory government getting elected (if the opinion polls are to be believed).
Michael Gove's response to being questioned on Newsnight seemed to be along the lines of: "Well, this is bad, but Labour (who have several non-dom donors) are just as bad if not worse." If this is the "moral compass" we can look forward to under a Tory government, then I'm afraid I must downwardly revise even my modest expectations. It seems even the Lib Dems have been accepting money from non-doms as well - just to make sure that all of the main parties will think twice about reforming the tax status of this priveleged minority.
The difficulty that is skirted around here is the whole issue of party funding in general. My consistent but unpopular view is that there should be state funding for political parties - something guaranteed to produce a gruff reaction from the average taxi driver: why should we fund that bunch of so-and-sos?
The reality is that such a state funding scheme would cost at most around £50m a year - less than £1 for every person in Britain - so it would hardly bankrupt the country. Instead of this, our current system ensures that a small number of major donors, some of whom give many millions to their chosen parties, are able to exercise vast and disproportionate influnce over the legislature - or, to put it another way, we have the country run by crooks. The small amount of money that a state funding scheme would cost - along with a complete ban on all large donations - would be an investment in a cleaner political system.
This episode also gives us a clue as to why, after thirteen years of Labour government, the House of Lords still does not contain a single elected member. Both the main parties have rewarded their donors with Lords appointments - so they have been able to buy influence within the legislature. It's high time the House of Lords became a properly elected and accountable body, not a social club for cronies of the rich and powerful.
And yes, just for the record I can confirm that the Green Party isn't bankrolled by non-doms and neither is my campaign in York Central. I expect to spend about £2,500 on my campaign - around one quarter of the maximum amount allowed. This money has been entirely raised by local fundraising - such as music events and stalls, as well as by the small printing operation that I run myself as a volunteer (which also prints most of our election leaflets).
Climate change
Professor Phil Jones of the UEA was questioned by a parliamentary committee today about the hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit. According to Newsnight, he was pretty robust under most of the questioning but did struggle to respond to a query from Labour MP Graham Stringer about why the basic data and computer code for the climate calculations had not been made publicly available.
This really gets to the key error of judgement made by the CRU in the whole affair - all the station readings and methods of collation should have been published on the internet from the beginning. Attempting to treat this information as proprietary has allowed climate change "sceptics" to spin ludicrous conspiracy theories about "falsified data."
On this matter, we could take some lessons from the United States, where NASA published the basic data and full computer code for its GISTEMP temperature series in 2008. And what devastating demolition of these figures have we heard from climate change sceptics since then? Perhaps they're still preparing something.....
Michael Gove's response to being questioned on Newsnight seemed to be along the lines of: "Well, this is bad, but Labour (who have several non-dom donors) are just as bad if not worse." If this is the "moral compass" we can look forward to under a Tory government, then I'm afraid I must downwardly revise even my modest expectations. It seems even the Lib Dems have been accepting money from non-doms as well - just to make sure that all of the main parties will think twice about reforming the tax status of this priveleged minority.
The difficulty that is skirted around here is the whole issue of party funding in general. My consistent but unpopular view is that there should be state funding for political parties - something guaranteed to produce a gruff reaction from the average taxi driver: why should we fund that bunch of so-and-sos?
The reality is that such a state funding scheme would cost at most around £50m a year - less than £1 for every person in Britain - so it would hardly bankrupt the country. Instead of this, our current system ensures that a small number of major donors, some of whom give many millions to their chosen parties, are able to exercise vast and disproportionate influnce over the legislature - or, to put it another way, we have the country run by crooks. The small amount of money that a state funding scheme would cost - along with a complete ban on all large donations - would be an investment in a cleaner political system.
This episode also gives us a clue as to why, after thirteen years of Labour government, the House of Lords still does not contain a single elected member. Both the main parties have rewarded their donors with Lords appointments - so they have been able to buy influence within the legislature. It's high time the House of Lords became a properly elected and accountable body, not a social club for cronies of the rich and powerful.
And yes, just for the record I can confirm that the Green Party isn't bankrolled by non-doms and neither is my campaign in York Central. I expect to spend about £2,500 on my campaign - around one quarter of the maximum amount allowed. This money has been entirely raised by local fundraising - such as music events and stalls, as well as by the small printing operation that I run myself as a volunteer (which also prints most of our election leaflets).
Climate change
Professor Phil Jones of the UEA was questioned by a parliamentary committee today about the hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit. According to Newsnight, he was pretty robust under most of the questioning but did struggle to respond to a query from Labour MP Graham Stringer about why the basic data and computer code for the climate calculations had not been made publicly available.
This really gets to the key error of judgement made by the CRU in the whole affair - all the station readings and methods of collation should have been published on the internet from the beginning. Attempting to treat this information as proprietary has allowed climate change "sceptics" to spin ludicrous conspiracy theories about "falsified data."
On this matter, we could take some lessons from the United States, where NASA published the basic data and full computer code for its GISTEMP temperature series in 2008. And what devastating demolition of these figures have we heard from climate change sceptics since then? Perhaps they're still preparing something.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
