Clegg in trouble - receiving donor funds to his personal a/c
Discussion
Oops. Looks like he has some explaining to do. Not so 'whiter-than-white' after all..!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7616...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7616...
The Telegraph said:
The Liberal Democrat leader was paid regular monthly sums by three senior businessmen during 2006.
The same account was used to pay his mortgage, shopping and other personal expenditure, documents seen by this newspaper show.
The businessmen bankrolling Mr Clegg were Ian Wright, a senior executive at the drinks firm Diageo; Neil Sherlock, the head of public affairs at the accountants KPMG; and Michael Young, a former gold mining executive. All are registered as Liberal Democrat donors.
Records of Mr Clegg’s personal bank account show the three men each paid up to £250 a month into the account.
The Liberal Democrat leader is likely to face questions over the arrangement.
MPs have historically sought to distance party donors from their personal finances to avoid any potential conflict of interest.
Last night Mr Clegg denied the money had been used for his own personal spending and said that it had subsidised his parliamentary work.
Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee of standards in public life, described the arrangement as “irregular”.
“Given that he’s been very holier than thou about these things, it would seem he has some explaining to do to his party and the electorate,” Sir Alistair said. “One would expect donations to be paid to a party account – that would be the most straightforward arrangement. It would now make sense for someone independent to check these accounts.”
Martin Bell, the broadcaster and former independent anti-sleaze MP, said the payments raised issues about Liberal Democrat funding. “There are clearly questions to answer here,” Mr Bell said. “Nick Clegg needs to show us that this arrangement was all above board and legitimate.”
Over the past week, the Liberal Democrats have risen sharply in the polls after Mr Clegg spoke out during the first televised leaders’ debate about sleaze in politics. This week he boasted of being among the lowest-paid MPs.
During last week’s debate, Mr Clegg criticised MPs who had made money by “flipping” their homes and avoided paying capital gains tax. “I have to stress, not a single Liberal Democrat MP did either of those things,” he said.
Ahead of the second televised debate tonight, Mr Clegg’s previous career as a lobbyist, his wealthy background and his parliamentary expenses claims have become the subject of intense scrutiny. The payments from donors are also likely to be seized upon by the Conservatives and Labour. Details of the payments have emerged because, during 2006, Mr Clegg submitted copies of his personal bank statements to the House of Commons when claiming expenses. He highlighted the mortgage payments for his second home, which were funded by the taxpayer.
However, the statements also show the series of other payments being made to Mr Clegg. The payments are recorded as “automated credits” from the businessmen.
During the period covered by the statements, Mr Clegg was the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman.
Last night, the three businessmen all admitted paying the money into Mr Clegg’s bank account. They said that the money they donated was to help fund a member of staff in Mr Clegg’s parliamentary office.
Mr Clegg has also officially declared to the parliamentary authorities that his office received money from the three businessmen.
Official records for 2006 show that Mr Clegg also claimed £90,526 in “staffing allowances” to pay his assistants and other staff. The records also indicate that he only had two people working in his parliamentary office that year. The maximum they could be paid in 2006 was £37,245 plus a pension and perks. During the same year, a part-time organiser was employed in Mr Clegg’s Sheffield constituency office on a salary of £8,966.
It is not clear why Mr Clegg would require the extra funds as the salaries were apparently covered by the taxpayer. He also made separate claims from his office expenses to cover staffing assistance provided by the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Young said the payments had to be made into Mr Clegg’s personal bank account because there was no fund for the “Parliamentary Office of the Liberal Democrats”.
However, Mr Clegg’s own expenses show that in February 2006 he asked the fees office to begin making a monthly payment to the “Parliamentary Office of the Liberal Democrats” for £833 “until further notice”. The paperwork indicates this was to cover salary costs.
Mr Clegg said last night that the money received from the businessmen had been used to pay a member of staff and not to fund his personal expenditure. However, he said that after he became party leader in 2007 the arrangement had been changed and the money was now paid directly to the Liberal Democrats.
He added: “All payments were declared as a standing item on the register of members’ interests and used appropriately to fund an additional member of staff in my parliamentary office. When I became leader of the Liberal Democrats, the arrangements were changed so that the money was paid through the Parliamentary Office of the Liberal Democrats.”
A spokesman for Mr Clegg insisted that the money had been paid to fund half of a researcher’s salary. He said he was “not in a position” to provide the necessary paperwork, but added that this could be produced in future.
Mr Sherlock, Mr Young and Mr Wright said they were satisfied the donations had been used to fund a member of staff.
George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, and other senior Tories have in the past been criticised for failing to make public where their office funding has come from.
£750 a month from the three donors toward 'staffing costs' but then claimed £90k from the taxpayer - when the limit per staff member is £38k and he only had two people working for him according to records.. What was the other £14k for then, and where did the £9k from the donors go if he was already over-claiming for staff?The same account was used to pay his mortgage, shopping and other personal expenditure, documents seen by this newspaper show.
The businessmen bankrolling Mr Clegg were Ian Wright, a senior executive at the drinks firm Diageo; Neil Sherlock, the head of public affairs at the accountants KPMG; and Michael Young, a former gold mining executive. All are registered as Liberal Democrat donors.
Records of Mr Clegg’s personal bank account show the three men each paid up to £250 a month into the account.
The Liberal Democrat leader is likely to face questions over the arrangement.
MPs have historically sought to distance party donors from their personal finances to avoid any potential conflict of interest.
Last night Mr Clegg denied the money had been used for his own personal spending and said that it had subsidised his parliamentary work.
Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee of standards in public life, described the arrangement as “irregular”.
“Given that he’s been very holier than thou about these things, it would seem he has some explaining to do to his party and the electorate,” Sir Alistair said. “One would expect donations to be paid to a party account – that would be the most straightforward arrangement. It would now make sense for someone independent to check these accounts.”
Martin Bell, the broadcaster and former independent anti-sleaze MP, said the payments raised issues about Liberal Democrat funding. “There are clearly questions to answer here,” Mr Bell said. “Nick Clegg needs to show us that this arrangement was all above board and legitimate.”
Over the past week, the Liberal Democrats have risen sharply in the polls after Mr Clegg spoke out during the first televised leaders’ debate about sleaze in politics. This week he boasted of being among the lowest-paid MPs.
During last week’s debate, Mr Clegg criticised MPs who had made money by “flipping” their homes and avoided paying capital gains tax. “I have to stress, not a single Liberal Democrat MP did either of those things,” he said.
Ahead of the second televised debate tonight, Mr Clegg’s previous career as a lobbyist, his wealthy background and his parliamentary expenses claims have become the subject of intense scrutiny. The payments from donors are also likely to be seized upon by the Conservatives and Labour. Details of the payments have emerged because, during 2006, Mr Clegg submitted copies of his personal bank statements to the House of Commons when claiming expenses. He highlighted the mortgage payments for his second home, which were funded by the taxpayer.
However, the statements also show the series of other payments being made to Mr Clegg. The payments are recorded as “automated credits” from the businessmen.
During the period covered by the statements, Mr Clegg was the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman.
Last night, the three businessmen all admitted paying the money into Mr Clegg’s bank account. They said that the money they donated was to help fund a member of staff in Mr Clegg’s parliamentary office.
Mr Clegg has also officially declared to the parliamentary authorities that his office received money from the three businessmen.
Official records for 2006 show that Mr Clegg also claimed £90,526 in “staffing allowances” to pay his assistants and other staff. The records also indicate that he only had two people working in his parliamentary office that year. The maximum they could be paid in 2006 was £37,245 plus a pension and perks. During the same year, a part-time organiser was employed in Mr Clegg’s Sheffield constituency office on a salary of £8,966.
It is not clear why Mr Clegg would require the extra funds as the salaries were apparently covered by the taxpayer. He also made separate claims from his office expenses to cover staffing assistance provided by the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Young said the payments had to be made into Mr Clegg’s personal bank account because there was no fund for the “Parliamentary Office of the Liberal Democrats”.
However, Mr Clegg’s own expenses show that in February 2006 he asked the fees office to begin making a monthly payment to the “Parliamentary Office of the Liberal Democrats” for £833 “until further notice”. The paperwork indicates this was to cover salary costs.
Mr Clegg said last night that the money received from the businessmen had been used to pay a member of staff and not to fund his personal expenditure. However, he said that after he became party leader in 2007 the arrangement had been changed and the money was now paid directly to the Liberal Democrats.
He added: “All payments were declared as a standing item on the register of members’ interests and used appropriately to fund an additional member of staff in my parliamentary office. When I became leader of the Liberal Democrats, the arrangements were changed so that the money was paid through the Parliamentary Office of the Liberal Democrats.”
A spokesman for Mr Clegg insisted that the money had been paid to fund half of a researcher’s salary. He said he was “not in a position” to provide the necessary paperwork, but added that this could be produced in future.
Mr Sherlock, Mr Young and Mr Wright said they were satisfied the donations had been used to fund a member of staff.
George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, and other senior Tories have in the past been criticised for failing to make public where their office funding has come from.
Edited by Funk on Wednesday 21st April 23:23
I think he is in "Teflon Mode" at the moment (a bit like Blair used to be) so mud being flung at him will slide off. He has portrayed himself as "not one of them" at the moment and the public are willing to believe this - for the time being.
In fact, any personal attacks on him could have a detrimental effect on the attackers as in "leave our Nick alone". Labour and the Conservatives are threading very carefully in the way in which they plan to undermine Clegg's current "untouchable" position. Rather than going after him all guns blazing, they are hoping that he will be brought down by a self inflicted gaffe.
In fact, any personal attacks on him could have a detrimental effect on the attackers as in "leave our Nick alone". Labour and the Conservatives are threading very carefully in the way in which they plan to undermine Clegg's current "untouchable" position. Rather than going after him all guns blazing, they are hoping that he will be brought down by a self inflicted gaffe.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 22 April 08:15
MiniMan64 said:
Funny that this has come out just before the second debate and only once the Lib Dems are suddenly popular again!
If you were opposed to the LD and you had this nugget of info in your hands, would you show your hand immediately or wait until it could do the most damage?That said, I think we all need clarification on the matter as it could be a load or bordocks...
The only positive thing about the morons bouncing towards Clegg following his acting role in last week's debate, is that the press on both sides will go for him- including that state sponsored bureau of socialist propaganda.
He can bobble his head as he talks, write down people's names and locations in the audience and keep calling the other parties the 'old parties' as much as he likes- his policies are bonkers and his inclusion in any government would be a disaster.
He can bobble his head as he talks, write down people's names and locations in the audience and keep calling the other parties the 'old parties' as much as he likes- his policies are bonkers and his inclusion in any government would be a disaster.
stevejh said:
And this,"Nick Clegg's sneering rant against Britain is a disgrace"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100...
chris watton said:
stevejh said:
And this,"Nick Clegg's sneering rant against Britain is a disgrace"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100...
I think the Press, Labour and the Tories need to be careful here, Clegg's advertising himself and the 'other' choice, something different from the other two sleazy parties and I think there could be a bit of backlash over this towards them. All Cleggs got to say is it's all rubbish but look, they're at it again with slander, sleaze and spin, vote me in and clean up politics.
Or when you preach to everyone about your moral standards. Well if they are going to set the bar high .. Actually, he lives quite near me (in Putney) - where a house is most likely >£1m, though that shouldn't be a problem now unless it's over the proposed £2m tax threshold (moved up from the original figure of £1m).
john_p said:
Clegg should have saved the good performance for the last debate - there's been plenty of time to dig up the dirt
Quite, although he's got to do his best each time though as not everyone sees all the "debates".He caught the Tories/Labour on the hop last week. They'll be much more prepared this time to discredit him.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff