When is a loan not a loan?
Discussion
When it’s a sleazy Tory backhander....
The Times said:
Secret loans bolster £16m Tory election campaign
By Andrew Pierce
THE Electoral Commission announced an investigation last night into the principle of parties using secret multimillion-pound loans from rich benefactors to bankroll election campaigns.
The commission acted after learning from The Times that a number of £1 million-plus loans have been secured by Tory treasurers to bolster the party’s £16 million fighting fund.
The Times
Its not a backhander either.
Its simply accounting within the rules, a loan is still a loan - so long as it's repaid.
For example,
A donor providing a 10k loan at 0% interest for 12 months.
The value of the donation isnt the loan, but the value of the commercial interest that would have been charged on the sum.
Its not a "backhander" and the true benefit is as stated,the value of the commercial interest on that loan, not the amount itself.
Its simply accounting within the rules, a loan is still a loan - so long as it's repaid.
For example,
A donor providing a 10k loan at 0% interest for 12 months.
The value of the donation isnt the loan, but the value of the commercial interest that would have been charged on the sum.
Its not a "backhander" and the true benefit is as stated,the value of the commercial interest on that loan, not the amount itself.
TheLemming said:
Its not a backhander either.
Its simply accounting within the rules, a loan is still a loan - so long as it's repaid.
Exactly when it’s repaid??
Times said:
Jonathan Marland, the Tory treasurer, said: “There is no transparency issue here. All the loans will be converted into donations and then the names of the lenders will be disclosed. We receive more favourable interest rates from our supporters than we would from the banks. It is good commercial practice.”
Times said:
The major lenders include Lord Laidlaw, one of Scotland’s richest men. The peer, who was ennobled by Mr Howard last year, has already given more than £2 million to the party since the last general election, in addition to a seven-figure loan.
Lord Laidlaw, who has homes in London, Florida and Monaco, contradicted Mr Marland’s assertion that all the loans would be made public. He told The Times: “Mine is a long-term arrangement. I have not made any decision yet as to whether they will have to repay it or make it a donation.
“Sometimes loans get repaid, sometimes they do not. Some are converted into donations. We have some big loans at present.”
c c said:
Its not a backhander either.
Its simply accounting within the rules, a loan is still a loan - so long as it's repaid.
Exactly when it’s repaid??
Times said:
Jonathan Marland, the Tory treasurer, said: “There is no transparency issue here. All the loans will be converted into donations and then the names of the lenders will be disclosed. We receive more favourable interest rates from our supporters than we would from the banks. It is good commercial practice.”
Times said:
The major lenders include Lord Laidlaw, one of Scotland’s richest men. The peer, who was ennobled by Mr Howard last year, has already given more than £2 million to the party since the last general election, in addition to a seven-figure loan.
Lord Laidlaw, who has homes in London, Florida and Monaco, contradicted Mr Marland’s assertion that all the loans would be made public. He told The Times: “Mine is a long-term arrangement. I have not made any decision yet as to whether they will have to repay it or make it a donation.
“Sometimes loans get repaid, sometimes they do not. Some are converted into donations. We have some big loans at present.”
Indeed, I read the same article at lunchtime.
Its a loan until its either not going to be repaid - at which point its a donation.
Donations should be and are acocunted for above a certain level.
While its still a loan, the value of the "donation" aspect is simply the commercial interest on the amount, which will be far less than the threshold where donors will be publically identified.
I dont understand the problem?
The problem is that the new rules regarding party funding was so that the public could see who was donating large amounts of money to political parties.
I agree that Tories are not doing anything illegal. The sleaziness comes into it, by hiding rich party benefactors behind the facade of loans until after the election. Then the money can be quietly changed into donations. Or if Mr Howard doesn’t do as he told the loan recalled.
The fact that some of these people have been recently been ennobled by Mr Howard only add to the whole sleaziness about it.
I agree that Tories are not doing anything illegal. The sleaziness comes into it, by hiding rich party benefactors behind the facade of loans until after the election. Then the money can be quietly changed into donations. Or if Mr Howard doesn’t do as he told the loan recalled.
The fact that some of these people have been recently been ennobled by Mr Howard only add to the whole sleaziness about it.
c c said:
I agree that Tories are not doing anything illegal. The sleaziness comes into it, by hiding rich party benefactors behind the facade of loans until after the election. Then the money can be quietly changed into donations. Or if Mr Howard doesn’t do as he told the loan recalled.
It cannot be quietly changed into donations if it becomes a donation it needs to be declared.
c c said:
The problem is that the new rules regarding party funding was so that the public could see who was donating large amounts of money to political parties.
c c said:
I agree that Tories are not doing anything illegal. The sleaziness comes into it, by hiding rich party benefactors behind the facade of loans until after the election. Then the money can be quietly changed into donations. Or if Mr Howard doesn’t do as he told the loan recalled.
c c said:
The fact that some of these people have been recently been ennobled by Mr Howard only add to the whole sleaziness about it.
The only way we know who they are is soley BECAUSE they have told everyone about it. Otherwise you would have no way of knowing and would be referring to anonymous donors.
There is no question of cash for honours, lets be honest, the way 90% of those who get them is by service to one or another of the political parties.
Again, its a bit of a non-issue really. There is no question that anyone has done anything wrong, merely that something can be made to sound bad.
c c said:
When it’s a sleazy Tory backhander....
The Times said:
Secret loans bolster £16m Tory election campaign
By Andrew Pierce
THE Electoral Commission announced an investigation last night into the principle of parties using secret multimillion-pound loans from rich benefactors to bankroll election campaigns.
The commission acted after learning from The Times that a number of £1 million-plus loans have been secured by Tory treasurers to bolster the party’s £16 million fighting fund.
The Times
The Times eh? Rupert's other rag.
So the Sun is supporting Bliar and the Times is trying to muddy the waters for Howard.
I rather think it's time someone found a way to control Uncle Rupert's influence.
c c said:
The problem is that the new rules regarding party funding was so that the public could see who was donating large amounts of money to political parties.
I agree that Tories are not doing anything illegal. The sleaziness comes into it, by hiding rich party benefactors behind the facade of loans until after the election. Then the money can be quietly changed into donations. Or if Mr Howard doesn’t do as he told the loan recalled.
The fact that some of these people have been recently been ennobled by Mr Howard only add to the whole sleaziness about it.
Like this doesn't happen with any other party? Pah!
They're all partly funded by wealthy individuals.
The fact that Labour gets Trade Union money is more distasteful to me. That's legal too.
No wrongdoing. Nothing to see here. Move along...
Frankly, so what? Loans have to be paid back. (Unless they're to third world countries of course, in which case we end up footing the bill in a haze of myopic philanthropy)
'Big Tone' has ripped billions of pounds out of us and it's not even a loan. It's called 66 Stealth Taxes. We don't get paid back. Ever. When we get to pensionable age, there won't be any pension. When we want decent health treatment, we have to pay again (from our post-taxed income).
£16M? Peanuts mate. Labour waste that much every 10- minutes.
Edited to add: You can tell I'm Conservative 'cos I can spell
>> Edited by simpo two on Thursday 21st April 21:24
'Big Tone' has ripped billions of pounds out of us and it's not even a loan. It's called 66 Stealth Taxes. We don't get paid back. Ever. When we get to pensionable age, there won't be any pension. When we want decent health treatment, we have to pay again (from our post-taxed income).
£16M? Peanuts mate. Labour waste that much every 10- minutes.
Edited to add: You can tell I'm Conservative 'cos I can spell
>> Edited by simpo two on Thursday 21st April 21:24
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff