As Open Democracy has revealed:
The Labour Party's largest-ever donation came from a Cayman Islands-registered hedge fund with shares worth hundreds of millions of pounds in fossil fuels, private health firms, arms manufacturers and asset managers.
While the £4m donation by Quadrature Capital is the sixth-largest in British political history, it is noteworthy not just for its size, but also its timing.
I was questioned about this last week by the BBC, but nothing seemed to come out of the story. I am pleased Open Democracy have picked this up.
As I made clear to the BBC, even if UK tax is paid on the UK operations of this fund, no one sets up a Cayman Islands cooperation without wanting to take advantage of the lighter regulation, lower taxes, and greater opacity there. And no doubt they have done so. In that case, the messaging from Labour in accepting this is that they do not mind people undermining the rule of law in the UK by choosing to make use of other jurisdictions instead.
But there is something much more significant than even that. That is the obvious conflict of interest here. As Open Democracy has noted:
Last year, the Guardian reported that despite donating to environmental charities through its climate foundation, Quadrature had holdings in fossil fuel companies worth more than $170m. The paper highlighted three holdings in particular with major polluters: ConocoPhillips, Cheniere Energy and Cenovus Energy.
They added:
Quadrature also maintains significant holdings in the arms manufacturers Northrop Grumman ($31m) and Lockheed Martin ($6m); US private healthcare companies such as UnitedHealth ($31m) and HCA Healthcare ($16m); some of the largest asset management companies like Blackstone ($22m) and KKR ($7m), who potentially stand to benefit significantly from Labour's plans to utilise private investment for infrastructure; and tech firms, including Palantir ($71m) and Oracle ($8m).
Quadrature has claimed that this £4 million was not a political donation. They say it was to support a social agenda. I do not believe them. I think this was all about supporting the interests of their hedge fund.
So, keep international stress high so that the arms industry has to do well.
And keep the opportunities for healthcare privatisation open.
And a Green New Deal? Maybe one day, but not yet; thank you.
Excuse my cynicism but this feels as tacky and blatant as anything the Tories have ever done to me, with the benefits to the donor being all too readily surmised, even if they are denied. Both would have been better off avoiding this, but yet again sound judgement did not prevail. That will be the recurring theme of this government.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Why is it that I cannot think of Britain any more, save as the living apotheosis of Dorian Gray. Nobody has ever seen inside the secret room; we only know it is not in our jurisdiction. But we have seen enough to know that it is there.
Sound judgement. Well. That depends on cui bono. One of the eminence gris of Starmer’s Labour – Mandy – appears to be very partial to SEZ’s. So Cayman Islands donations are all of piece and oh so normal. Anyone who thought that Liebour would have a different attitude to Freeports and SEZs from the Tories hasn’t remembered their Animal Farm.
(HT Peter Geoghegan)
https://democracyforsale.substack.com/p/peter-mandelsons-firm-secret-lobbying-freeports
Best to think of Labour as a branch of the Mafia the corruption is now so bad!
Two words:
1. Unacceptable.
2. Corruption.
Next?
Peter Mandelson is the grandson of Herbert Morrison, deputy prime minister during the Attlee government of 1945–51 that created the NHS and the welfare state.
It was already a shock when Mandy said that *New* Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” but he, sort of, justified it by adding, “as long as they pay their taxes.”
That he is now involved with tax avoidance? Surely not.
I absolutely detest Peter Mandelson and what he stands for.
Concealing his donors till after an election?
Starmer has form on that.
It’s how he and his supporters handled things in the 2020 Labour leadership election, repeatedly refusing to reveal his donors until he had won the election.
This is who we are dealing with.
You couldnt make this up – we need more of a sense of humour on here.
In the light of Starmer’s promise to clean up Tory cronysim and corruption you couldn really make this up.
It’s a surprise that the BBC even allowed you to air this – which programme was that ?
BBC never shows much interest in getting to the root of political issues, whether it’s ‘couldn’t the US just stop arms to Israel if they say they want a Gaza ceasefire?’ – so they never ask whether the fact that both main parties – and especailly Labour are financially dependent on donations from vested interests doesnt pose a threat to our democracy.
There seems to be no widespread campaign to get money out of politics, – although there is widespread cynicism – that ‘they are all in it for themselves’. Maybe that is how the understanding of this threat to democracy is expressed at present.
–
It did not get to air as far as I know
UK politicians treat the electorate with contempt, gaming the system for their own benefit. When caught out, the usual response is ” the rules are not clear” or they just bluff it out hoping that the electorate will not take too much notice. Certainly the main stream media will not do any digging.
There’s something wrong here? According to the Electroal Commission, permissible donors are:
In Great Britain, permissible sources are:
individuals registered on a UK electoral register, including overseas electors and those leaving bequests
most UK-registered companies
Great Britain registered political parties
UK-registered trade unions
UK-registered building societies
UK-registered limited liability partnerships (LLP) that carry on business in the UK
UK-registered friendly societies
UK-based unincorporated associations that carry on business or other activities in the UK
some types of trust and certain public funds
The hedge fund routed this via a UK subsidiary, I believe.
It appears to have come from the FCA regulated UK fund manager.
On the topic of corruption a couple of interesting articles:-
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jewish-chronicle-bbc-robbie-gibb-israel-b2614403.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/07/uk/jewish-chronicle-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-gbr-intl-scli/index.html
Not bothering with a second term then?
Cayman is a dependent colony of the United Kingdom and looks generally speaking the other way in such matters. It is more or less the same with the USA if US senators are in the board let‘s a Carlyle private equity funds and earn ten thousands of US dollars as a director’s fee! In Mauritius where I worked it is the very same.At the end of the day those structures are accepted, protected and undermine democracy day in day out, unfortunately! The question is why accept democracy such kind of business model? Answer: an easy way to make money particularly for offshore lawyers and offshor bankers.
Before the election I only half jokingly said that “Yes, Labour are the ‘Party of Change’…they are changing to Tory”!
Well I’m not laughing now.