Thursday, September 06, 2007
EXCLUSIVE: Electoral Commission Chairman Confirms LibDems May Have to Pay Back £2.4 Million
Last night I interviewed Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission. In this ten minute clip from the hour long interview I ask him about various issues to do with political donations. He...
* refutes the suggestion that the Commission was to blame for the failure of the Police to bring charges in the Cash for Honours Affair
* justifies the decision to appeal the UKIP case
* confirms that the LibDems could face having to pay back the £2.4 donation from Fifth Avenue Partners if it is found that the company was not carrying out business in the UK
The latter point is raised right at the end of the clip. I press him on it and this is the exchange...
ID: Presumably if the donation is found to be an impermissable it should be returned to the Treasury.
SY: Our policy presumption is money is impermissable, it should not remain within the system.
I think it's reasonable to say that that answer was a 'yes'. Sam Younger was unable to say when they would be able to announce their findings as police inquiries into Michael Brown and Fifth Avenue Partners are ongoing. But it is crystal clear that the LibDems are not out of the woods by a long chalk on this.
If you'd like to watch the whole interview you can do so by clicking HERE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Very sorry, Iain, but as the possibility already existed that the LibDems might have had to pay back £2.4m, this isn't huge news... it's just Younger saying that the penalty, in accordance with Electoral Commission policy, has not been taken away.
Good interview, though. It's rather good that there are longer interviews than you might get on the telly and people like Younger.
If and may.
Iain that isn't an exclusive. You had me going for a second...
Will they have to pay it back??
With respect, this is indeed very newsworthy as it is the first time that a named Electoral Commission spokesman has said this on the record.
It all hangs on whether Fifth Avenue Partners was actually "doing business" in the UK. No one has ever been able to quantify what business they did and until they do, it seems likely that they were just a shell company. If so, they would have to return the donation.
Oh I do think it's newsworthy and definately an interesting clip. Just I didn't feel any closer to an answer...
I must say though I can't wait for when you post that they definately have to return the money!
:-)
The Conservatives in Regents Park and Kensington North voluntarily forfeited a £25,000 donation which turned out to be impermissible.
HAHA
Exclusive: Electoral Commission confirm they MAY have to give it back...
Hilarious. This also demonstrates the true partisan roots of 18 Doughty St...
A pedant writes:
I think you'll find that the word is 'impermissible' not impermissable.
Your Sam Younger quote above has an IS which is actually an IF. When you get the right there is nothing new in any of this as Paul Walter says at http://tinyurl.com/24mdt8
Iain, Reading his reply I do not share your reasonable assumption.
If they spoke, wrote or emailed a British based company on their company business. That could be construed as doing business! Does one have to have contracts?
No this Commission is to keep the little boys small! and the thee (why?) 'main' parties in power.
Simply giving back the money isn't good enough. What about all the seats that thisd money bought for them? Given the scale of the donation and the serious impact it had on british politics they should also be fined a similar amount.
Plainly there was no due dilligence applied to the source.
If this was £5 or £5,000 or maybe even £50,000 it would not matter so much...
What on earth do they need these huge sums for? I know that they give work to the otherwise unemployable (engaging them as what i understand are called "policy wonks") but this is hardly useful or necessary.
I am running a very successful campaign on goodwill and a few very modest donations (and have rejected some larger sums)
Sorry to be another pedant, but you cannot refer to the 'latter point' when you have listed three points. Latter can only be employed when there are two alternatives.
I cannot see how the Electoral Commission has any credibility after the cash for honours affair..
And yes: it's all about bashing the small guys..
But then it surely is a device raised by the establishment parties to do just that.
That's the appearance anyway...
"Should not remain within the system"
What the hell does Younger mean by that? Complete obfuscation, as usual. You should have smacked him for it.
I mean, was he there to provide information or merely to build yet another platform for himself? Either he's going to take the cash away or he's not.
As to "it is the first time that a named Electoral Commission spokesman has said this on the record". I'll vouch for that. Still doesn't make any real sense though. So his seniority of position adds precisely nothing. That sort of observation could have been made by the receptionist at his offices - probably was, too.
Post a Comment