Labour plunges into new cash crisis

Labour plunges into new cash crisis
Labour plunges into new cash crisis as Donorgate tycoons demand their money back Gordon Brown has been snubbed by millionaires embroiled in Labour’s ‘cash for honours’ scandal who are now demanding the return of their controversial loans. All but two of the dozen tycoons who secretly gave Labour almost £14million in the run-up to the General Election three years ago have refused to turn their loans into donations, despite a concerted bid by senior party chiefs to persuade them. Only former Labour Science Minister and supermarket boss Lord Sainsbury, who donated £2million, and Indian food company boss Sir Gulam Noon, who gave £250,000, have told Labour it can keep their money. Labour officials had tried to persuade all of the donors to convert their loans into outright gifts to help the party reduce its £18.9million of debt. But a senior source has disclosed the party is due to announce within the next fortnight that nine of the millionaires among the original 12 want their money repaid – a total of £12.65million. One source close to the deal struck with the donors after months of secret talks said last night: ‘The number one objective of the party was to turn all these loans into donations but they have failed to do so in all but two cases. ‘The party now finds itself in a similar position to the many people in this country who have been hit by the credit crunch and the squeeze on house buying.’ In the months before the 2005 General Election, the millionaires were approached to help bankroll Labour’s campaign. Individual written deals were made with each of the donors, who agreed the cash would be repaid at 2 per cent above the bank base rate. They were asked to make loans rather than donations, because these would not have to be declared to the Electoral Commission. But after the Election, Labour officials were keen for the loans to be turned into gifts and tried to persuade the donors to write them off. The snub leaves Labour increasingly reliant on the unions for financial support. snip http://tinyurl.com/5utd9g So how's Broon (or whoever's labour leader by then) going to finance the 2010 GE campaign? Or won't they bother?

Ah, it seems like only yesterday that siren voices were predicting the imminent demise of the Conservative Party. I didn't buy that one, either. :wink: Political parties have an infinite capacity for re-inventing themselves. Spartacus

Although the Tories problems were related to credibility and infighting, not financial. Labour have all three. How are they going to pay for the next GE campaign? Will the unions pony up the multi-million cost of that as well as financing the existing debt? Or will we see some legislation before the next GE allowing Gordon (or whoever) to dip the pockets of the electorate?

Although the Tories problems were related to credibility and infighting, not financial. Labour have all three. How are they going to pay for the next GE campaign? Will the unions pony up the multi-million cost of that as well as financing the existing debt? Or will we see some legislation before the next GE allowing Gordon (or whoever) to dip the pockets of the electorate? So would you care for a modest wager that the Labour Party will not exist in its present form by, say, 2012? I need any income I can get to sustain me in my twilight years. :wink: Spartacus

Although the Tories problems were related to credibility and infighting, not financial. Labour have all three. How are they going to pay for the next GE campaign? Will the unions pony up the multi-million cost of that as well as financing the existing debt? Or will we see some legislation before the next GE allowing Gordon (or whoever) to dip the pockets of the electorate? I think we can bet with confidence that Broone - or whoever succeeds him - will find some way to make us pay off their debts for them. "In the National Interest", innit? Sparty, the Liberal Party did not go away just because it became unelectable. It is still (for God knows what reason) not entirely without members, and it still (with what seriousness only God knows) announces "policies". Should the Labour Party move down to become the new third party (which looks possible, if not probable), it will do the same. And the Liberals will move up to become the "Official Opposition" and have to take on the job of shedding their Cloud Cookiness in the hope of being in government one day. But they will all be around to bother us for as long as we encumber the earth, I fear. :wink:

Reading this, Bear, a far more cynical man than I might conclude that your ideal of Democracy consists of either one party with exactly the same political views as your good self or of two or more parties with exactly the same political views as your good self. I'm sure they'd be wrong, though ... :wink: Spartacus

Ah, it seems like only yesterday that siren voices were predicting the imminent demise of the Conservative Party. I didn't buy that one, either. :wink: Political parties have an infinite capacity for re-inventing themselves. Just because they have the capacity doesn't mean that they'll use it. I don't think that the Labour Party will die off, but I think that the difference is that there is another party on the left to which Labourites could defect (though it would have to be changed significantly in the process) whereas there wasn't another right-wing one. I think that the demise of the Labour Party would be a bad thing for the country, at least in the near future. We've swung from 18 years where the Tories mostly had very large majorities to 11 years (and counting) where Labour had them - I think that this has been damaging to the country, and would much rather more competitive Parliamentary arithmetic. This would be difficult if the left was undergoing a realignment. Also I trust the LibDems about as far as I can spit them - they're nasty, underhanded and will say anything to get their grubby hands on power.

Reading this, Bear, a far more cynical man than I might conclude that your ideal of Democracy consists of either one party with exactly the same political views as your good self or of two or more parties with exactly the same political views as your good self. I'm sure they'd be wrong, though ... :wink: Spartacus Perhaps you need to attend one of your own English Comprehension classes, Sparty. There is nothing whatever in my post to justify your remark. There now! See what you made me do! Broken - nay, smashed!- is my self-imposed rule not to respond to this sort of provocative nonsense .... I decided to leave it to Max.

I think that the demise of the Labour Party would be a bad thing for the country, at least in the near future. We've swung from 18 years where the Tories mostly had very large majorities to 11 years (and counting) where Labour had them - I think that this has been damaging to the country, and would much rather more competitive Parliamentary arithmetic. This would be difficult if the left was undergoing a realignment. I agree TJ, big mandates lead to big egos making big changes, What we need is stability and boring government. Cabinet ministers should be largely anonymous imo, not feted celebrities. If there must be change then it should be by evolution driven by pragmatism, not revolution driven by ideology.

I don't think that the Labour Party will die off, but I think that the difference is that there is another party on the left to which Labourites could defect (though it would have to be changed significantly in the process) whereas there wasn't another right-wing one ... also, I trust the LibDems about as far as I can spit them - they're nasty, underhanded and will say anything to get their grubby hands on power. Not sure about that, tjw. There have been plenty of attempts - the SDP to the centre-left, Scargill's SLP, Galloway's Respect to name but a few. Any study of modern Western history suggests that politics gets its momentum from the creative tension between a broad-based party of the Right and a broad-based party of the Left. I see little sign of that changing, much as the Party Hacks of either side might want it to. And I agree with you about the Lib Dems! Spartacus

Perhaps you need to attend one of your own English Comprehension classes, Sparty. There is nothing whatever in my post to justify your remark. There now! See what you made me do! Broken - nay, smashed!- is my self-imposed rule not to respond to this sort of provocative nonsense .... I decided to leave it to Max. As I said, I wouldn't dare suggest that you would think that way and I'm sure my hypothetical cynic has totally misunderstood you! :wink: I have to admit that you and Max make a wonderful team, though! :wink: It was probably a wise move to invite him back - whoever did. Spartacus

As Sparty said ... and I agree with him (!) ... political parties are very hard to kill off. There is no need to fear the demise of Labour, TJ. If the Liberal Party has declined to enter the tomb for all these years, I doubt if Labour will do so. I think, and hope, that they will be given a crushing defeat when the time comes, but I am sure they will come back, even if it as the third party in our three-party system. I would welcome the realignment of the left, if only because it might call a full halt to the "all things to all men" practices of the Liberals. If they had a serious shot at government they would pull their act together, and have a consistent approach locally and nationally. It is absurd, for instance, that local liberals advocate grammar schools, or else their abolition, depending on which council you are asking. (Don't ask me for chapter and verse. I read this somewhere, but can't remember where!)

View Full Version: Labour plunges into new cash crisis