Labour Funding controversy AGAIN!!!!

#1
Labour are at it again with dodgy funding deals:


Labour is braced for controversy this week when it discloses receiving major donations from three financiers amid the row over corporate asset stripping.

Records due to be released by the Electoral Commission will show that Nigel Doughty, Sir Ronald Cohen and Jonathan Aisbitt gave £250,000 each during the final quarter of 2006, according to sources.

Together, their donations are expected to account for more than a third of the £2m the party received over the period.

The funding immediately came under fire from trade unions, who have been running a high-profile campaign against allegedly bad practices by private equity firms.

GMB general secretary Paul Kenny called on the party's ruling National Executive Committee to investigate the donations.

"Only in the last few weeks has the GMB campaigning put names and faces to the multi-millionaire elite who run the private equity industry and made clear what they do," he said.

The GMB and other unions - many of whom are also major donors to Labour's coffers - raised concerns in the wake of job losses at the AA and Birds Eye following takeovers by venture capitalists. Damon Buffini, of Permira which owns the AA, has rejected claims the industry is secretive and destroys jobs.

Mr Doughty, 49, is chairman of Doughty Hanson, a leading British-based private equity firm. He has a personal fortune estimated at £120 million.

Mr Aisbitt is thought to be worth £98 million - much made in the flotation of merchant bank Goldman Sachs, where he was a partner. Sir Ronald is a leading supporter of Gordon Brown who started the private equity vehicle Apax with three friends in the 1970s. He is believed to be worth £260 million.

A Labour Party spokesman said: "All donations given to the Labour Party fully comply with guidelines laid down by the Electoral Commission who publish them regularly on their website."
Does it ever end.
 
#2
I'm sorry, failing to see what part if any of this is 'dodgy'. So a bunch of rich city financiers, who made their money perfectly legally as far as I know, have openly donated a large whack of cash to the Labour party. Aside from the unions throwing a hissy fit over it how isn't this just business as usual?
 
#3
I cannot understand why any obviously successful persons could support the Labour Party.

This really is quite a puzzle to me. So much so that I would judge any such extraordinary action to be 'suspicious'.
 
#4
lsquared said:
I cannot understand why any obviously successful persons could support the Labour Party.

This really is quite a puzzle to me. So much so that I would judge any such extraordinary action to be 'suspicious'.
Cash for honours?

Peter
 
#5
Brick - because these individuals make their money taking over failing firms, working them near to death for a couple of years to make the books look good and then asset stripping them to make the max profit. As the unions are trying to look after the workers it seems fair that they see some concern.
 
#6
Why don't the Trade Unions simply stop funding this Tony B-Liar party for once and concentrate on getting them out of power and reinstate the old Labour practises where they care for the oridnary working class people of this country.
 
#7
TartanJock said:
Why don't the Trade Unions simply stop funding this Tony B-Liar party for once and concentrate on getting them out of power and reinstate the old Labour practises where they care for the oridnary working class people of this country.
Because no one would vote for them then, of course.

Quite right too, I certainly wouldn't want to be governed again by a party ruled by clause 4. The utopian idea of a "caring" left wing Labour Party a la 1970s/80s doesn't bear close scrutiny imho; they'd be unelectable. Even if (perish the thought) they managed to get into power, how long would it be before we'd be back to a 3 day week and the winter of discontent?

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be a more honest party, just fcuking useless at either getting elected or governing.

You'd be better off voting for the Libdems than for Old Labour. That gives you an idea how crap an idea it would be.
 
#8
lsquared said:
I cannot understand why any obviously successful persons could support the Labour Party.
I'm sure it's not the case with this individual instance. However look at how much money have been put into P.F.I. contracts by The Future Leader.
 
#9
I don't think there is anything dodgy about the funders. My understanding is that the unions don't like theses people as they buy whole failing firms as a job lot, carry out radical revisions, (some call this asset stripping) and re-sell them or keep them on as going concerns (an example is Travelodge). Unions hate this process as it inevitably results in job losses. Hardly criminal though. Bit of a non-story?
 
#10
The unions hate this practice for one reason. It robs them of money through union subscriptions and trade union reps will have to find another job. One where they will have to work instead of poncing around the shop floor spying on the workers to make sure that they are doing what the union rules state.
 
#11
Themanwho said:
TartanJock said:
Why don't the Trade Unions simply stop funding this Tony B-Liar party for once and concentrate on getting them out of power and reinstate the old Labour practises where they care for the oridnary working class people of this country.
Because no one would vote for them then, of course.
I suspect a number of the 'working classes' would, as well as the usual collection of doleys and layabouts.

There are a lot of people who are fed up of being ground in the wheels of economic management. 'Globalisation' and the 'trickle down economy are seen in a lot of quarters as parlour tricks for the further enrichmment of a few already rich blokes. Whether Old Labour are competent or not, if they stand four-square behind the ordinary working bloke, they might just seem enough of a breath of fresh air to get in.

Doubt they'd stay in long as they'd make a complete tit of things as per SOP, but then again you don't win money betting on the sensibility of the voting public.
 
#12
nurse_ratched said:
I don't think there is anything dodgy about the funders. My understanding is that the unions don't like theses people as they buy whole failing firms as a job lot, carry out radical revisions, (some call this asset stripping) and re-sell them or keep them on as going concerns (an example is Travelodge). Unions hate this process as it inevitably results in job losses. Hardly criminal though. Bit of a non-story?
I disagree that these private equity firms necessarily sell these assets on as a going concern.

The problem with these firms is down to lack of transparency. Quite often the "buy out" is conducted with huge amounts of borrowed moneyand inevitably job cuts ensue, asset stripping, and finally selling off to the next highest bidder. Private equity is hardly a long term investment, resulting in the axe hanging over the firm for a couple of years with the pending job losses looming. Buy in, rationalise and sell up quick to make a profit.

The opening bids produced by private equity firms as mentioned are oft built on huge borrowing freezing out companies with genuine interest in expanding and inwardly investing in the company.

Certainly not criminal admittedly, (Lets look forward to some investigative journalism to see if any "sweetners" were given in response to these donations) however, slightly against the Labour mantra IMHO.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
I think it's common sense on the part of the asset strippers. They've got Bliar to thank for all the ruined businesses, so they might as well thank him with some of the profits from stripping said businesses.

The asset stripping boys are going to have bumper years in the next two to three thanks to Brown's policies, so I'm sure they'll keep on donating if that fat waster gets in power.
 
#14
nurse_ratched said:
I don't think there is anything dodgy about the funders. My understanding is that the unions don't like theses people as they buy whole failing firms as a job lot, carry out radical revisions, (some call this asset stripping) and re-sell them or keep them on as going concerns (an example is Travelodge). Unions hate this process as it inevitably results in job losses. Hardly criminal though. Bit of a non-story?
No.

What asset strippers do is buy companies that have valuble assets - successful or not - and rather than take the profits of that company over a number of years, they sell off the good bits and then close the company down.
 
#15
Asset stripping is essentially anti-capitalist (discuss?) so obviously it is in keeping with good Labour party principles...

...said a Downing Street spokesman...
 
#16
Cuddles said:
Asset stripping is essentially anti-capitalist (discuss?) so obviously it is in keeping with good Labour party principles...

...said a Downing Street spokesman...
How so? Seems like rampant capitalism to me. Just what our Dear Leader stands for.

I hate Blair more every day. Socialist my arrse. Millionaire lawyer, married to a milionaire lawyer, best mates all millionaire lawyers. Hooray for equality!
 
#17
PoisonDwarf said:
Cuddles said:
Asset stripping is essentially anti-capitalist (discuss?) so obviously it is in keeping with good Labour party principles...

...said a Downing Street spokesman...
How so? Seems like rampant capitalism to me. Just what our Dear Leader stands for.

I hate Blair more every day. Socialist my arrse. Millionaire lawyer, married to a milionaire lawyer, best mates all millionaire lawyers. Hooray for equality!
Irony is dead? I didn't even know it was sick...
 
#18
TartanJock said:
Why don't the Trade Unions simply stop funding this Tony B-Liar party for once and concentrate on getting them out of power and reinstate the old Labour practises where they care for the oridnary working class people of this country.
TJ - are you old enough to remember the 1970s ?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top