Thursday, December 24, 2020
Does it matter who donates money to political parties?
If a political party can be defined by its membership, its leadership and its policies, then it can also be damned by association with those it chooses to take money from.
Politics in the UK is underfunded and as a result all the parties, without exception, do what they can to attract donors to get their messages across and to campaign on key issues. Most are wary of the background of these donors, but on occasion the temptation to accept large donations proves too much and a political party walks into controversy.
One such donation is referred to in this Guardian article. They say that a major shareholder in Arconic, the company that made Grenfell Tower’s combustible cladding, donated nearly £25,000 to Boris Johnson and the Conservative party. The most recent donation was recorded in 2017, the year in which Arconic’s plastic-filled panels were the main cause of the rapid spread of fire that killed 72 people:
The bereaved and survivors on Tuesday night called on the prime minister to return the money to Elliott Advisors UK, the British arm of a US private equity company that has a 10% holding in the $14bn (£10.4bn) annual turnover business.
They said the “cosy relationship” undermined trust in the government’s efforts to get to the truth about the disaster.
Witnesses from Arconic, based in France, are refusing to give evidence to the inquiry despite having been called to do so next month. They have cited an obscure French law in justification, though the French government said it did not apply.
The bereaved and survivors have been lobbying the UK government to put pressure on the French authorities to ensure the Arconic witnesses testify. On 15 December, the inquiry said Claude Wehrle, who used to work for Arconic, and Gwenaëlle Derrendinger, who still does, were still refusing to attend. The inquiry is in discussions with Peter Froehlich, another former employee in Germany, about whether he will appear.
“The Conservatives and the prime minister should return this money,” said Karim Mussilhy, the vice-chairman of the survivors’ group Grenfell United, who lost his uncle, Hesham Rahman, in the fire.
“How can we trust this government to deliver truth, justice and change when they themselves, including the prime minister, take donations from one of Arconic’s major shareholders. Right now Arconic is getting away with not cooperating fully with the inquiry and the government appears not to be doing enough. Is this cosy relationship one of the reasons?”
As the Conservative spokesperson says: “Donations to the Conservative party are received in good faith and are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.". That is going to be scant comfort to those who lost loved ones in the Grenfell fire, however.
Politics in the UK is underfunded and as a result all the parties, without exception, do what they can to attract donors to get their messages across and to campaign on key issues. Most are wary of the background of these donors, but on occasion the temptation to accept large donations proves too much and a political party walks into controversy.
One such donation is referred to in this Guardian article. They say that a major shareholder in Arconic, the company that made Grenfell Tower’s combustible cladding, donated nearly £25,000 to Boris Johnson and the Conservative party. The most recent donation was recorded in 2017, the year in which Arconic’s plastic-filled panels were the main cause of the rapid spread of fire that killed 72 people:
The bereaved and survivors on Tuesday night called on the prime minister to return the money to Elliott Advisors UK, the British arm of a US private equity company that has a 10% holding in the $14bn (£10.4bn) annual turnover business.
They said the “cosy relationship” undermined trust in the government’s efforts to get to the truth about the disaster.
Witnesses from Arconic, based in France, are refusing to give evidence to the inquiry despite having been called to do so next month. They have cited an obscure French law in justification, though the French government said it did not apply.
The bereaved and survivors have been lobbying the UK government to put pressure on the French authorities to ensure the Arconic witnesses testify. On 15 December, the inquiry said Claude Wehrle, who used to work for Arconic, and Gwenaëlle Derrendinger, who still does, were still refusing to attend. The inquiry is in discussions with Peter Froehlich, another former employee in Germany, about whether he will appear.
“The Conservatives and the prime minister should return this money,” said Karim Mussilhy, the vice-chairman of the survivors’ group Grenfell United, who lost his uncle, Hesham Rahman, in the fire.
“How can we trust this government to deliver truth, justice and change when they themselves, including the prime minister, take donations from one of Arconic’s major shareholders. Right now Arconic is getting away with not cooperating fully with the inquiry and the government appears not to be doing enough. Is this cosy relationship one of the reasons?”
As the Conservative spokesperson says: “Donations to the Conservative party are received in good faith and are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.". That is going to be scant comfort to those who lost loved ones in the Grenfell fire, however.
Comments:
<< Home
Were donations from business also involved back in 1985 when the key decision to relax fire inspection regulations was made by the Thatcher government? https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/the-paper-trail-the-failure-of-building-regulations-55445 refers.
Post a Comment
<< Home
