VOTE RIGGING

As if the cash for peerages row is not bad enough, the likely fallout looks even worse.

The scandal, and that is what it is, involves the main 3 parties, albeit primarily Labour and the Tories, arranging loans from wealthy donors. The donors, if not the loans themselves, are then not identified in the party accounts.

Had those loans been outright donations in the form of gifts, then there would have been a legal obligation to declare full details. Labour, in particular, has been asking these donors to make loans so that the details could remain hidden.

Some of those making the loans have been in receipt of highly lucrative government contracts.

Then there are the large number of Labour donors [whether by loans or outright donations] who have been awarded peerages and other honours.

This really is quite disgraceful. Corruption is not too strong a word.

The Labour treasurer claims he knew nothing of the loans. That is incredible. And where did the millions go [£14million is involved]? Did someone hide £14million under the mattress? Just how did Labour think all those cheques were being covered if the money was not flowing through their bank accounts? How were the bills being paid?

Money must go somewhere. £14million is a very large sum to be missing and unaccounted for!

Now the Tories have publicly recommended that donations should be capped at £50,000. Labour are in the process of altering the law so that loans are also disclosed as are gifts.

All the 3 main parties are now suddenly very much in favour of taxpayers’ money being made available for parties as a means of funding. One Tory said that his party should be compensated for the loss of donations that would arise if the size of donations were capped, as a means of justifying the access to taxpayers’ money.

Meanwhile, both Labour and the Tories are complaining that they will suffer financial difficulties if they have to repay the loans. Now the scandal has broken, those businessmen involved now want their loans repaid.

If those businessmen and donors cannot get their money back, that is their look-out. If the 3 main parties find themselves in financial difficulties, then that is their problem. If they cannot spend all they want at the next general election - tough! None of this is an excuse to dip their grasping hands into the taxpayers’ pocket.

Taxpayers should not be expected to repay those loans.

A major ramification of the £50,000 donation cap proposal, is that fringe parties will be disproportionately affected. Fringe parties can be much more dependent upon a few major donors.

For example, The Referendum Party would have been virtually disbarred under such a proposal. Sir James Goldsmith used his own money to launch a party to, as he saw it, save his country from being submerged into the EU. He wanted a referendum on this issue.

Why should anyone spending his own money to promote a cause he believes in, be banned from so doing?

Of course the Tories are adversely affected by such parties. The Referendum Party forced the then pro-EU government of John Major to offer a referendum on joining the Euro, for fear of losing votes at the general election.

It is wholly wrong for the 3 establishment parties to be introducing controls to prevent new parties from raising large-scale funding from donors.

That they should do so as a result of their own sleazy activities is nauseating.

This is just another example of vote rigging.