LibDem Auditors Think £2.4m Fraud Money a Liability
When Guido first claimed that the LibDems would have to pay back the stolen £2.4m that was their biggest donation, the blog's comments were filled with claims from LibDems that it was sensationalist nonsense. Guido stuck to his guns that the LibDems and Sinn Fein were the only two parties in British politics dependent on bank robberies for their funding.
It seems their auditors agree with Guido. They only signed off the latest accounts on the basis that the £2.4m was a contingent liability for the party. The LibDems may not be benefiting from the proceeds of crime for much longer...
It seems their auditors agree with Guido. They only signed off the latest accounts on the basis that the £2.4m was a contingent liability for the party. The LibDems may not be benefiting from the proceeds of crime for much longer...
21 comments:
The Tories of course, just rely on money from crooks like Asil Nadir and encouraging the insane, like Branislav Kostic to hand over their cash...
I see Alistair Graham in the Mail calling for bliar to he held to account over cash for peerages. Lets hope he has made his pledge!
>> allan said...
Ah, first Troll sighting of the day.
A lesson Allan: The Tories flaw is sex, Labour's is money. Always has been. Funny that, the self-proclaimed saviour of the poor, and Nu Labs primary instinct in power is to line their own pockets, and screw everyone else - particularly the middle classes that they so despise.
Back to basics. There should be no central funding for election campaigns. Each and every candidate should fund his own campaign with donations allowed only from registered electors in a particular constituency. That way MPs might be reminded that their primary, indeed only, duty is towards their electors.
"The Tories of course, just rely on money from crooks like Asil Nadir and encouraging the insane, like Branislav Kostic to hand over their cash... "
Therefore, the LibDems must be innocent.
Not.
"What it says Guido is: "The party has received notice of possible claims over the donation. The report says: "No provision has been made in the party's financial statements in relation to these donations, which have since been expended, as the party has continued to receive legal advice that any such claim, if made, would not succeed."
Seems fairy normal sort of thing to put in accounts.
Actually Allan, the Tories rely on a network of 300,000 members who colectively produce far more than any individual. Very different from the LibDems who took 50% of their income in 2005 from a convicted fraudster. A substantial proportion of their revenue since from the Joseph Rowntree Trust, a company established originally to promote social reforms outside the mainstream politicial process, and whose founder stipulated that it should not be given to political parties (more than 80 years before the LibDems were even formed), but which now appears to have been hijacked by senior members of the LibDems who sit on the board of the company. Unlike other parties who may receive funding from people who are later convicted of criminal offences, the LibDems just steal the money themselves.
NuLab of course, rely on the institutionalised and corrupt scheme of arrangement with their union friends, whereby they may influence policy and laws for dosh, on the understanding that there's nice little knighthoods for the boys at the top and jobs on the Quango gravy train in later life for the senior fraternity.
At least the LibDems didn't offer Brown a peerage for the £2.4. If he'd have given it to Labour he'd have been welcomed as Lord Brown of Financial Fraud and dodgy passports.
Allan - why exactly did all eligible major donors to the Labour party get nominated for hounours? Eight of the twelve in fact?
And not forgetting the money that the very-honest Sir Robert Maxwell (ex. Labour MP) gave to the Labour Party
You seem to have a very short memory of the whiter-that-white and purer-than-pure Labour party and its totally transparent financial dealings. Not
Jim Kurtz, not sure how I'm a "troll" any more than you are, suspect I've been reading and contributing to this site longer than you - that fact that you disagree with me is neither here nor there. Of course the Brown donation is dodgy. It just seems hypocritical for Tories to claim "clean" hands, especially when the Lib Dems are the party most dependent upon family and individual denotions, and least in the thrall of Turkish crooks, Unions or Lord Cashpoint.
Allan - why exactly did all eligible major donors to the Labour party get nominated for hounours? Eight of the twelve in fact?
How the hell should I know? At a guess, Labour were selling peerages. Why?
The Lib Dems are a liability, and I consider myself to be quite liberal.
NULABOUR are crooked, self serving and arrogant!
The LIBDEMs are crooked,arrogant and self serving!
The NUCON are incompetant, crooked and self serving!
So in conclusion they are all scumbags who have feathered their own nests quite nicely thankyou and they have been bought and sold by the EU superstate!
The commisars seem to live by the prinicple of, SCREW THE PROLES & IM ALRIGHT JACK!
NOTICE TO TROLLS!
NULAB hates the working class more than the tories!
If you're going to mention "The Bouncing Czech" let us not forget Lord Kagan of Gannex.
I thought the auditors had to give an opinion on whether they had complied with applicable law & regulation. Surely they should have qualified the accounts on grounds that the LibDems haven't done so.
Adding to my earlier comment about the Lib Dems being liabilities, take a gander at this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=470983&in_page_id=1770
The Lib Dems appropriation of the Rowntree money is a bigger scandal than the £2.4m crook's money.
Imagine if another party got its people onto the Board of a charity founded 50+ years ago and then diverted the cash into its coffers to support its candidates! It is a trick the mafia would be proud of.
Why does the BBC's Panorama programme not look into it?
How come little is said in the Guardian or Independent?
Since they're the ONE major party not to sell peerages for cash, I'll give them a little slack.
Harvey, oh yes they have given big donors peerages in the past.
Here is a more honest way a Lib Dem is raising funds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=470983&in_page_id=1770
Which donors and when? And if so, why was the Police invesigation into the Lie-bour and Tawdry Parties?
The story is even funnier. Due to a glitch in the drafting of the Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act, a strict reading of the law would require the Lib Dems both to forfeit the donation to the Treasury and repay it to its rightful owners. So they're potentially on the hook for £4.8m. I expect the only reason the Lib Dems have not yet been made to cough up is that lawyers are arguing among themselves over this.
Post a Comment