Posts tagged "Peter Cruddas"

PM says he owes Peter Cruddas ‘an apology’

PM says he owes Peter Cruddas ‘an apology’

Former Tory treasure dismissed from role after Sunday Times reported he was charging £250,000 to meet David Cameron. Read more…

Posted by admin - August 7, 2013 at 14:25

Categories: News   Tags: , ,

City lobbying: their pay, their say, their way | Editorial

Our stories on the finance industry’s lobbying machine must serve to toughen up the coalition’s proposals

For the ramifications of our stories on the City’s lobbying machine, you need simply browse through the rest of the website. Here is an item about how George Osborne is fighting Brussels for the right of bankers to pay themselves untenably large bonuses. There is the report on the admission by the Barclays chairman, Marcus Agius, about how watchdogs had only belatedly taken on the bank about its years of antisocial behaviour: the tax-dodging, the loophole-seeking, the contempt for the normal rules – after years of letting its millionaire executives go wild.

The Collins dictionary defines lobbying as attempting “to influence (legislators, etc) in the formulation of policy”. Whether it is pay or taxes or market supervision, the City has had its say and got its way. Over and over again. The results are all around us and will have to be paid for in taxes, debt and damaged economic prospects for years to come.

The response from the lobbying industry to all this was the same on Tuesday as it has been for ages. “Lobbying is an absolutely integral part of the democratic process,” wrote the Public Relations Consultants Association. Members of all industries and none must be entitled to make their views known to policymakers. The trouble with the City’s influence is that it is so large and pervasive: there are 26 industry bodies and 38 public affairs organisations, and nearly one in every five lords has a direct interest in finance. If anything, the £93m lobbying budget quoted by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism is an understatement: it leaves off conferences, thinktank funding and much of the quotidian entertainment and lunching that goes into buttering up powerbrokers.

Just before becoming prime minister, David Cameron vowed to lessen the grip on the policymaking process exerted by lobbyists and their paymasters. “We don’t know who is meeting whom,” he declared in 2010. “We don’t know whether any favours are being exchanged. We don’t know which outside interests are wielding unhealthy influence.” The truth of that statement has only been amplified through all the stories about Frédéric Michel and Jeremy Hunt, Adam Werrity and Liam Fox, and former Conservative treasurer Peter Cruddas and his demands for £250,000 donations in return for dinners with the prime minister.

Yet in office Mr Cameron has shown less resolve in tackling lobbyists’ power. The lobby register that his coalition is currently consulting on would ignore whom lobbyists are meeting and why, and how much they are being bankrolled. It would leave off the vast majority of professionals engaged in lobbying work. The results of the consultation will be announced this month. Our stories this week must serve to toughen up the proposals.


guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds





Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin - July 11, 2012 at 08:08

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,

Tories to shelve ‘no-fault dismissals’

Vince Cable warned ministers that proposal would leave ‘dead hand of fear’ hanging over employees

Whitehall is expecting Downing Street to abandon its support later this summer for one of the central recommendations in a controversial report by a Tory donor which called for companies to be given the right to sack workers at will.

A lack of support from business leaders and a furious backlash from Vince Cable, who has warned ministers that the proposal would leave a “dead hand of fear” hanging over employees, is expected to persuade No 10 that the proposal should be quietly dropped later this summer.

The prime minister was giving no public indication of a climbdown last night when he said he was still interested in the Beecroft proposal that employers should be allowed to sack unproductive staff without explanation, known as no fault dismissal.

“On the issue of no fault dismissal and other proposals like that, I am interested in anything that makes it easier for one person to say to another person: ‘Come and work for me,’ because we need to make our economies flexible,” the prime minister said in Chicago. “We need to make our labour markets work as flexibly as possible and we will obviously need to examine each proposal on its merits.”

Government sources indicated last night that Cameron is expected to accept that the proposal should be quietly dropped when Cable eventually finalises his plans. A six month “call for evidence” on a diluted version of the original Beecroft proposal – that the “no fault dismissal” should apply to micro companies employing fewer than ten staff – is due to end on 8 June. It is understood that the evidence so far shows little support among businesses for the proposal.

One source close to Cable said of the proposal: “The last thing employees want is the dead hand of fear hanging over them about losing their jobs.”

The coalition partners appeared to be at loggerheads yesterday when the Sunday Telegraph reported on its front page that the prime minister was poised to endorse the controversial report by the Tory donor Adrian Beecroft. The report was commissioned by Steve Hilton, Cameron’s long serving policy guru, who is leaving on a year long sabbatical to the US amid frustration that the prime minister is failing to be sufficiently radical in trimming the state.

The Sunday Telegraph made little mention of the no fault dismissal plan, the central recommendation in the Beecroft report. The newspaper instead focused on areas which have either already been introduced by the government or are not controversial.

One Lib Dem source said the Sunday Telegraph report was designed to show No 10 was standing firm when in fact it is backing down. “This is all part of Steve Hilton’s epic leaving bash,” one source said.

Cable will this week publish the Beecroft report after a series of requests, from the Guardian and the shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna among others, for it to be released under Freedom of Information rules. It is understood that Cable believes that the publication of the report will come as a surprise to many because the 24-page report is seen as thin.

One senior minister told the Guardian last year: “It is a flimsy piece of work. If an official sent me a piece of work like that I would send it back.”

Cable showed his irritation with the report when he told friends that he was surprised that No 10 has shown such interest in a report from a donor. Cameron faced embarrassment after the recent resignation of the Tory treasurer Peter Cruddas when it emerged that he encouraged donors to put their thoughts down on paper.

A source close to Cable said: “It is surprising that No 10 backs a report compiled by one of the Tory party’s biggest donors. But it has been noticeable that since last Wednesday, No 10 has been moving towards more evidence-based policy. The reasons for that remain to be determined, but we can assume that as a result reports like this will be a less prominent in the future.”


guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin - May 21, 2012 at 14:07

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,

Miliband offers £5,000 union cap in party funding reforms

Labour leader wants cap on individual donations that is 10 times lower than limit proposed by David Cameron

Ed Miliband has offered to sacrifice millions of pounds of funding from unions to the Labour party as he set out a comprehensive package of measures to reform the system of party donations.

The Labour leader said he wanted political parties to adhere to a £5,000 cap on individual donations – which would include one-off big cheque donations from unions.

The proposed £5,000 cap is 10 times lower than that previously put forward by David Cameron, but Miliband told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that the cap should not affect the system under which 3 million union members individually make a £3 payment to Labour’s coffers, a payment which is automatically debited from members.

“I’m determined to move on this … it’s going to be uncomfortable. All political leaders are going to have to make decisions that are uncomfortable for them.

“We’ve got to have the low cap on donations. Not the £50,000 the prime minister talks about. £50,000 is double the average wage,” Miliband said.

Blogging about his reform proposal, Miliband wrote that a cap set at £50,000 would be unacceptable to him: “David Cameron has said he does not regard any donation of less than £50,000 as ‘significant’. But how many people could even consider giving such a sum in one year to a political party? A cap set at £50,000 would be unacceptable because it would still keep big money in politics and still leave parties open to questions about buying access.”

He also said that there should be a significantly lower spending limit during election time, which he said is currently around £20m.

“We’ve got to have tougher limits on spending. More comprehensive limits on spending and lower limits on spending.

“Parties are going to have to diversify where they get their income from.”

Miliband said he was proud of the union link, which helped keep the party in touch with working communities, but hoped that the other party leaders would be willing to “take a bit of pain” in the interest of democracy and negotiate a comprehensive plan on funding reform.

“I’m proud of what the Labour party does in terms of raising money from its members,” he said. “I think we do more than any other political party but we’ve got to do a lot more. And I want to see big change in this.

“I value the link with the trade unions. That link stays and I believe in that link … It is not just that working people founded the Labour party, it is that they keep us rooted in our communities now and I don’t want them disenfranchised.”

But he said that large, one-off donations would stop. “Let’s take the big money out of politics,” he said.

“Politics is at a low ebb … Trust in politics is perhaps lower than it has been for a generation.

“I hope David Cameron and Nick Clegg will come forward with their own proposals which say, ‘Look, we’re willing to take a bit of pain too. We’re willing to make changes which will actually make things harder for our political party but is in the interests of our democracy.’”

He added that he was not in favour of extra public money being pumped into party politics in the “current economic climate” and was “perfectly happy” to publish his own tax returns in a move towards greater income transparency.

A 15-month inquiry last year proposed a £10,000 cap on donations in a bid to end “cash for influence” scandals and corruption allegations – partly paid for by a £23m-a-year taxpayer subsidy.

Representatives of the three main parties at Westminster sat down for face-to-face talks last week in the latest bid to start the reform process.

Pressure for change has been increased by the resignation of a senior Tory fundraiser, Peter Cruddas, after he was secretly filmed by undercover reporters from the Sunday Times boasting that he could provide access to Cameron and other ministers, and influence over policy for “premier league” donors giving £250,000 to the party.

One union welcomed the announcement. “Unite supports Ed Miliband’s efforts to restore faith in politics, and is pleased that the vital link between Labour and millions of working people is valued and will be retained,” a spokesman said.

“The affiliation to the party is the most transparent money in politics. Now more than ever, it is something to be proud of.”


guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin - April 15, 2012 at 13:40

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,

No 10 publishes Chequers donor guest list in third U-turn of the day

List of donors invited to PM’s country residence is revealed as Downing Street tries to draw a line under cash-for-access row

Downing Street embarked on its third U-turn in 24 hours when it published the names of donors who have been invited by David Cameron for lunch or dinner at Chequers.

Lord Ashcroft, the party’s former deputy chairman, leads the list of Tory donors invited to the prime minister’s official country residence. He was invited on 6 June 2010, a month after the general election.

Other donors invited to Chequers included David Rowland and his wife, who had lunch at Chequers in August 2010. Rowland resigned as Conservative treasurer that month, two months after his appointment, following a campaign led by a senior Tory.

Downing Street instructed Tory party officials to trawl through the Chequers guest list to find the names of donors as the prime minister struggled to contain a row over party funding in the wake of the resignation of the Tory treasurer Peter Cruddas.

The move came as Ed Miliband intensified the pressure on the prime minister by replying to a Commons statement by Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister. Maude started the day by saying it was “nonsense” to suggest that details of private dinners hosted by the prime minister should be published.

A few hours later Cameron sought to draw a line under the row by announcing the party would publish details of all Downing Street dinners attended by major donors who had given more than £50,000. Downing Street published a list of dinners in Downing Street attended by 11 donors and their spouses.

As Labour turned the spotlight on dinners hosted by the prime minister at Chequers, Downing Street initially said that it would be too complicated to publish a list of all guests invited to the prime minister’s official country residence. No 10 publishes details of guests whose meals are funded by the taxpayer.

But Downing Street said it would be too difficult to publish the names of those whose meals are funded by Cameron himself or by the Conservative party. “We don’t want to publish a list that turns out to be misleading,” one source said shortly before Maude stood up in the Commons at 3.30pm.

Within 20 minutes, however, Downing Street announced that it would try to publish a list of donors invited to Chequers. The decision on Chequers was the third U-turn since the row erupted over the weekend when the Sunday Times published a video showing that Cruddas had been offering access to the prime minister for donations of between £200,000 to £250,000. Andrew Feldman, the Tory co-chair, was initially placed in charge of a party investigation. But he withdrew after it became clear that he appointed Cruddas. Lord Gold, a Tory lawyer, will take charge of the enquiry.

Amid a feeling in Downing Street that Maude misjudged the mood in his Today programme interview, Cameron tried to regain the initiative by announcing a series of measures at the start of a speech on dementia. Shortly afterwards, the Tory party published details of four dinners in Downing Street attended by “major” donors.

Speaking on Radio 4′s The World at One, Jack Straw, the former Labour foreign secretary, said of the U-turn: “This is symptomatic of pandemonium that has broken out inside the Conservative party at the highest reaches of government. Why on earth could they not have said this on Saturday night?”

Straw criticised the Tories after Cameron said:

• The Conservative party would publish details every quarter of “any meals attended by any major donors, whether they take place at Downing Street, Chequers or any official residence”.

• The Conservative party would publish a register of major donors who attend the Leaders’ Group. This is open to anyone who donates at least £50,000 a year to the party.

• Nobody in the No 10 policy unit met anyone suggested by Cruddas, who had said he had passed on concerns to the No 10 policy committee. Cameron said there was no such committee. But he said that in future, if any ministerial contact with a party donor prompted a request for policy advice, the minister would refer it to his or her private office who could seek advice from the department’s permanent secretary.

• All political parties needed to embark on a renewed push for reform of party funding. Cameron said there should be a £50,000 cap on donations. “I am ready to impose a cap on individual political donations of £50,000, without any further need for state funding. But to be fair this must apply equally to trade unions as well as private citizens. We could do that tomorrow, and take the big money out of British politics once and for all,” he said.

Straw rejected this, telling The World at One: “I noticed that Mr Cameron said he would be happy with a donation cap of £50,000. I am not surprised because all the modelling shows that if you have a cap of £50,000 this hugely biases the funding system in favour of the Conservatives. If you are going to have a cap it must be lower.”

Tony Blair’s former chief fundraiser, Lord Levy, who called for private meetings at Downing Street to be revealed, said he was not aware of any such meetings having taken place at No 10 or Chequers when Blair was prime minister.

Maude caused some alarm in No 10 when he dismissed the significance of the Downing Street dinners in his early morning radio interview. He told Today: “This is a bit of a nonsense, this obsession with the fact that … someone like Michael Spencer – who has been treasurer of the party, who is a personal friend of the prime minister and the prime minister’s wife – may have gone to supper at the prime minister’s expense in his private residence, which happens to be in Downing Street.

“The fact that that happens does not mean that what you get as a donor to the party is the ability to be invited to Downing Street as a guest of the prime minister.”

Earlier, Maude told ITV’s Daybreak: “The key thing to say about Peter Cruddas is that actually what he was saying was both wrong and not true … No one in the treasurer’s department knew he was having that meeting and actually we are pretty meticulous about doing these things properly.

“He had been told that there are very strict rules around how you raise money and he was off on a bit of private enterprise there.”

Levy told Today that Blair, who faced allegations that the Formula One boss, Bernie Ecclestone, had sought to influence policy in 1997, had not to his knowledge met fundraisers at No 10 or Chequers.

“Until there is a change in the system, this is going to continually happen in one form or another. I do not really want to personalise this but one has to say that a party cannot have their policy directorate open,” he said.

“Any meetings that are held must be disclosed. I certainly never gave any form of access to policy. That was something that was absolutely banned.”

Cross-party talks on the funding of political parties, which were due to start in a few weeks, have been brought forward to this week.


guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin - March 26, 2012 at 21:11

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,

David Cameron publishes details of donor dinners in cash-for-access row

Prime minister attempts to draw line under Tory funding row after government earlier refused to reveal details of meetings

David Cameron has sought to draw a line under the Tory funding row by announcing the party is to publish details of all dinners attended by major donors who have given more than £50,000.

Hours after the Cabinet Office minister, Francis Maude, said details would not be released, Downing Street published a list of dinners in Downing Street attended by 11 donors and their spouses.

The move came as Ed Miliband intensified the pressure on the prime minister by announcing he is to reply to a Commons statement this afternoon by Maude.

The prime minister began a speech on dementia in central London by announcing a series of measures following the resignation of the party’s treasurer, Peter Cruddas, who admitted selling access to Cameron and other senior ministers.

Shortly after his speech, the party published details of four dinners in Downing Street attended by “major” donors. They were:

• 14 July 2010 in No 10 attended by Murdoch Maclennan, the chief executive of the Telegraph Media Group, and the veteran Tory donor Anthony Bamford and his wife Carole.

• 28 February 2011 in the prime minister’s flat above No 11 Downing Street attended by David Rowland and the Tory co-chair Lord Feldman. Rowland had stood down as Tory treasurer in August 2010 after just two months in the post following a campaign against him orchestrated by a senior Tory.

• 2 November 2011 in the prime minister’s No 11 flat attended by the veteran Tory donor Michael Farmer and his wife and by Henry and Dorothy Angest.

• 27 February 2012 in the No 11 flat attended by the former Tory treasurer and Cameron friend Michael Spencer and his wife.

Speaking on Radio 4′s The World at One, Jack Straw, the former Labour foreign secretary, said of the U-turn: “This is symptomatic of pandemonium that has broken out inside the Conservative party at the highest reaches of government. Why on earth could they not have said this on Saturday night?”

Straw criticised the Tories after the prime minister announced that the Tory peer and lawyer Lord Gold would take charge of a party inquiry into funding. Cameron said:

• The Conservative party would publish details every quarter of “any meals attended by any major donors, whether they take place at Downing Street, Chequers or any official residence”.

• The Conservative party would publish a register of major donors who attend the Leaders’ Group. This is open to anyone who donates at least £50,000 a year to the party.

• Nobody in the No 10 policy unit met anyone suggested by Cruddas, who had said he had passed on concerns to the No 10 policy committee. Cameron said there was no such committee. But he said that in future, if any ministerial contact with a party donor prompted a request for policy advice, the minister would refer it to his or her private office who could seek advice from the department’s permanent secretary.

• All political parties needed to embark on a renewed push for reform of party funding. Cameron said there should be a £50,000 cap on donations. “I am ready to impose a cap on individual political donations of £50,000, without any further need for state funding. But to be fair this must apply equally to trade unions as well as private citizens. We could do that tomorrow, and take the big money out of British politics once and for all,” he said.

Straw rejected this, telling The World at One: “I noticed that Mr Cameron said he would be happy with a donation cap of £50,000. I am not surprised because all the modelling shows that if you have a cap of £50,000 this hugely biases the funding system in favour of the Conservatives. If you are going to have a cap it must be lower.”

Labour said Ed Miliband would be appearing in the Commons to focus attention on the prime minister. A Labour source said: “This is about David Cameron’s conduct. It is about his dinner parties, his policy unit.”

Earlier, Maude insisted the Tories would not disclose details of private meetings between Cameron and party donors in the wake of claims by Cruddas that large cash payments could secure intimate dinners with the prime minister.

Maude said demands for a list of visitors to Cameron’s flat in Downing Street were unreasonable, but insisted the party had nothing to hide.

Tony Blair’s former chief fundraiser, Lord Levy, who called for private meetings at Downing Street to be revealed, said he was not aware of any such meetings having taken place at No 10 or Chequers when Blair was prime minister.

The Tories launched their own inquiry on Sunday after the resignation of Cruddas, whose claims that private meetings could help donors influence policy were filmed by undercover Sunday Times reporters. Mark Adams, a Labour supporter and lobbyist, has reported the matter to police. “The article indicates that the party has done this before,” he said.

Maude told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: “This is a bit of a nonsense. This obsession with the fact that … someone like Michael Spencer – who has been treasurer of the party, who is a personal friend of the prime minister and the prime minister’s wife – may have gone to supper at the prime minister’s expense in his private residence, which happens to be in Downing Street.

“The fact that that happens does not mean that what you get as a donor to the party is the ability to be invited to Downing Street as a guest of the prime minister.”

Earlier, Maude told ITV’s Daybreak: “The key thing to say about Peter Cruddas is that actually what he was saying was both wrong and not true … No one in the treasurer’s department knew he was having that meeting and actually we are pretty meticulous about doing these things properly.

“He had been told that there are very strict rules around how you raise money and he was off on a bit of private enterprise there.”

Levy told Today that Blair, who faced allegations that the Formula One boss, Bernie Ecclestone, had sought to influence policy in 1997, had not to his knowledge met fundraisers at No 10 or Chequers.

“Until there is a change in the system, this is going to continually happen in one form or another. I do not really want to personalise this but one has to say that a party cannot have their policy directorate open,” he said.

“Any meetings that are held must be disclosed. I certainly never gave any form of access to policy. That was something that was absolutely banned.”

Cross-party talks on the funding of political parties, which were due to start in a few weeks, have been brought forward to this week.


guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin -  at 18:09

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,

Peter Cruddas: from East End lad to ‘Monaco boy’

The ex-Tory party co-treasurer and hedge fund manager is a self-made man, hailing from Hackney

With an estimated £750m fortune, according to the Sunday Times rich list, Peter Cruddas is one of the wealthier members of the Conservative party and had been its co-treasurer since June of last year.

His biography, on the website of his Peter Cruddas Foundation, which aims to benefit “disadvantaged and disengaged” young people in society, states that Cruddas himself came from a disadvantaged background.

Born in Hackney, east London, a lack of family finances forced him to leave Shoreditch comprehensive school with no qualifications at the age of 15, despite having the academic ability.

He would not, he states, be who he is without the Scouts organisation, which enabled him to “escape a violent home situation and the inner city”.

His first job was as a telex operator for Western Union in the City, and after being made redundant he went to work in the trading rooms of banks including the Bank of Iran and Marine Midland.

Following a career in foreign exchange trading, lastly as head foreign exchange dealer at a large international bank, in 1989 he established his own company, CMC Markets plc, with a capital of £10,000. It is now worth an estimated £1.25bn.

Causes he champions include the Prince’s Trust and Duke of Edinburgh Awards, as well as the Royal Opera House and Royal Ballet.

The twice-married father-of four, 59, whose father was a Smithfield market meat porter, disclosed in an interview with a local Hackney website three years ago that he had homes in Monaco, Antibes, Hertfordshire and Piccadilly, and travelled between them in his private jet.

For several years he was one of the City’s “Monaco boys” living in the tax haven and commuting to work via London’s City airport.


guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin - March 25, 2012 at 21:03

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,

Tory co-treasurer Peter Cruddas resigns over cash for access to prime minister

Party co-treasurer sought £250,000 donation from reporters posing as overseas clients

The Tory party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas has resigned after it was revealed he was offering access to the prime minister and chancellor for up to £250,000. He was forced out after footage emerged of him apparently making the offer to undercover reporters.

In his resignation statement last night the senior Conservative official responsible for collecting donations for the party said he deeply regretted the repercussions of his “bluster” during the recorded conversations. He added: “Clearly there is no question of donors being able to influence policy or gain undue access to politicians. Specifically, it was categorically not the case that I could offer, or that David Cameron would consider, any access as a result of a donation. Similarly, I have never knowingly even met anyone from the Number 10 policy unit.

“But in order to make that clear beyond doubt, I have regrettably decided to resign with immediate effect.”

Cruddas, the founder of online trading company Currency Management Consultants, is heard discussing how much access different-sized donations would get, during an undercover operation run by the Sunday Times.

In the footage, he is heard to say: “Two hundred grand to 250 is premier league … what you would get is, when we talk about your donations the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron/Osborne dinners.

“You do really pick up a lot of information and when you see the prime minister, you’re seeing David Cameron, not the prime minister. But within that room everything is confidential – you can ask him practically any question you want.

“If you’re unhappy about something, we will listen to you and put it into the policy committee at No 10 – we feed all feedback to the policy committee.”

A Tory party source said Cruddas’s position had been made untenable by the revelations. He added: “He has only been in position for three weeks but has clearly gone over the top and well beyond anything that would be tolerable to the party. It appears a case of him showing off.”

The newspaper claims the offer was made even though Cruddas knew the money would come from a fund in Liechtenstein that was not eligible to make donations under electoral law. Options said to have been discussed included creating a British subsidiary or using UK employees as conduits. The overseas clients were, in fact, reporters posing as wealth fund executives who had made clear they wished to develop contacts with the prime minister and other senior ministers to further their business.

The revelations will be a considerable embarrassment for the government, especially in the wake of claims in the budget of a crackdown on wealth in offshore havens. Cameron has also made political mileage out of his intention to run a sleaze-free government.

In the last 18 months there have been three major resignations: the chief secretary to the treasury, David Laws, energy secretary Chris Huhne and defence secretary Liam Fox.

During a three-month investigation the Sunday Times claims to have hired Sarah Southern, a former Cameron aide now working as a lobbyist, who advised that making a “huge donation” was the best way to gain access to senior government figures. Her connections are said to have led to a two-hour meeting with Cruddas this month in which he laid bare the extent to which the party has been prepared to sell access to Cameron.

Last night Cruddas said he had acted without the knowledge of the leadership of the party. A Tory spokesman added: “No donation was ever accepted or even formally considered by the Conservative party. All donations to the party have to comply with requirements of electoral law, and these are strictly enforced by our compliance department.”

The disclosures appear to contradict previous claims by the Conservatives that their high-value donor groups, such as the “leader’s group”, are for genuine supporters who do not seek to influence policy in return for their cash.

They also raise questions about the role of the prime minister. Months before taking office, Cameron warned that this type of “secret corporate lobbying” was the “next big scandal waiting to happen”.

Yet the Sunday Times claims the meetings, at which Cruddas claimed “premier league” donors could lobby the prime minister directly, have not been declared to the public.

Cruddas, who built a £750m fortune through financial spread-betting, is also a member of the party’s controlling board.


guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by admin -  at 09:45

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,