Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
BuyingBear

Developer's Tower Block Approved After £200,000 Donation To Labour

Recommended Posts

Developer's tower block approved after £200,000 donation to Labour

Loans to political parties from tax exiles are to be banned under new rules to be laid out by Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission.

A loophole in anti-sleaze legislation has allowed the parties to take money from offshore funds but that will be stopped from next week. None of the parties was prepared to say whether it took offshore loans but at least one Labourlender, Chai Patel, who loaned the party £1.5m is known to have most of his personal fortune in the tax haven of Jersey.

John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, is facing suggestions that there could have been a link between a £200,000 donation to Labour by Sir David Garrard, former head of the Minerva group, and the company's planning application for an office block called Minerva Tower. English Heritage claimed it would ruin views of the Tower of London, but Mr Prescott refused to call in the application for review after it was approved by the Corporation of London. The charge was dismissed by his officials, who said his refusal to intervene was "based on the merits of the case".

And Prescott said he didn't know about the loans... my ar$e he didn't.

It seems that property in general is Labour's choice kink, it may prove to be their downfall in more ways than one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Prescott said he didn't know about the loans... my ar$e he didn't.

I'm curious as to why the political parties don't hide the source of donations. Person A gives person B some money. Person B then donates it to the Labour party. Person A then receives favours. Wouldn't that be harder to spot?

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to why the political parties don't hide the source of donations. Person A gives person B some money. Person B then donates it to the Labour party. Person A then receives favours. Wouldn't that be harder to spot?

It seems you've just worked out the next dodge around the new law. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muttley

I'm curious as to why the political parties don't hide the source of donations. Person A gives person B some money. Person B then donates it to the Labour party. Person A then receives favours. Wouldn't that be harder to spot?

Billy Shears

Couldn't we go back to the time when Person A donates to a political party because Person A thinks that that party will run the country better than Party B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as the government decide who can and can't build, people will buy them off: 200k is a small price to pay for planning permission for a tower block.

The solution is to get government out of the building business, then no-one will have to bribe them anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else think it's a bit of a coincidence that both of these loan stories are property related after the Conservatives happen to announce their new property related strategy :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to why the political parties don't hide the source of donations. Person A gives person B some money. Person B then donates it to the Labour party. Person A then receives favours. Wouldn't that be harder to spot?

Billy Shears

Doubtless there are numerous schemes like this being used. What we are seeing is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going right back to the 'good old days'; councillors, invariably of the Labour variety, have a long tradition of kick backs for planning applications, or contracts for public works, roads or housing etc. If you've risen through that system and you're now in government then it's basically standard practice as far as you're concerned.

This is "central planning" in every sense of the word!

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to why the political parties don't hide the source of donations. Person A gives person B some money. Person B then donates it to the Labour party. Person A then receives favours. Wouldn't that be harder to spot?

The inland revenue would have something to say about that one. The money from A to B would be considered income and B would have to pay tax on it.

Unless of course it was all offshore or from Silvio Berlusconi into someone's mortgage.

Edited by DoubleBubbleTrouble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inland revenue would have something to say about that one. The money from A to B would be considered income and B would have to pay tax on it.

Yes, it seems Mr Mills had a few problems qualifying his "gift" with the revenue.

This is obviously why Jersey exists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Offshore donations were banned by Labour in the Political Parties and Referendums Act 2000 after The Independent disclosed that the Tories had set up offshore funds. There were also claims they received cash from foreign backers.

And that will be why you can't do it from offshore...

So there you go a full answer to the donations by proxy question. Not bad for 00:39am!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going right back to the 'good old days'; councillors, invariably of the Labour variety, have a long tradition of kick backs for planning applications, or contracts for public works, roads or housing etc. If you've risen through that system and you're now in government then it's basically standard practice as far as you're concerned.

This is "central planning" in every sense of the word!

To add to this, my local district council have just displayed the most horrifying degree of self interest regarding the planning process.

They have just granted themselves planning permission to build on their own land in a Conservation area despite widespread opposition. The site is currently used as a car park. They have granted themselves this because they say they need the funds from the sale of this land to build themselves new offices. The sickening thing about this is that had any ordinary developer applied for this permission it would undoubtedly have been rejected.

An example of the kind of double standards shown by local authorities in the planning process!

Edited by JST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An example of the kind of double standards shown by local authorities in the planning process!

Yup, I've seen it too, the local council wanted to build a hall and carpark next/on a nice lake, the leader of the council that pushed the measure just happens to own the builders yard that was picking up the contracts. The chap in question had a long distinguished career in public service streching back some years, including time at HM pleasure for fraud. This was a Tory btw :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to why the political parties don't hide the source of donations. Person A gives person B some money. Person B then donates it to the Labour party. Person A then receives favours. Wouldn't that be harder to spot?

Billy Shears

That`s already happening, spotlight turned in other direction that`s all ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Person A gives person B money to then donate.

IRS jumps all over person B about where he got the money from and why he hasnt paid any taxes on it!!

To add to this, my local district council have just displayed the most horrifying degree of self interest regarding the planning process.

They have just granted themselves planning permission to build on their own land in a Conservation area despite widespread opposition. The site is currently used as a car park. They have granted themselves this because they say they need the funds from the sale of this land to build themselves new offices. The sickening thing about this is that had any ordinary developer applied for this permission it would undoubtedly have been rejected.

An example of the kind of double standards shown by local authorities in the planning process!

Either you let them build and sell it or else all the residents pay much more council tax for this 'Equal Pay ********'

If people dont like what they are getting paid...why dont they find a job which pays them what they think they are worth.

Everyone knows men are worth more than women!!

But women are worth 20 times more than anyone on 'The Apprentice!!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One wonders what the real reason and to what other uses the housing pricing statistics of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been put to over the last few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More NuLab sleaze. This just show what a lot of crap our democracy is. Despite an illegal war, which has killed thousands and destablised a region, and loans-for peerages and Prezza's dogy property deals there is NO WAY we can get rid of these scumbags.

We need to create more checks and balances in the future so governments like this can be booted out immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard it said that a large Swedish shop have a policy of not paying kickbacks to councillors to approve their stores.

I've also heard speculation that this is why Renfrewshire got a large Swedish shop rather than Glasgow. This is of course purely speculation and would be hard to believe of a council run by the same party for decades.

Back on topic. I saw Prescott on BBC this morning denying these allegations and to be frank I believe him. I'm no fan of his and am not normally duped easily, but I think he was being truthful.

NDL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd assume the money laundering regulations would have it completely covered as to the dodgy sorts of transactions we're hearing about.

Its absolutely disgusting & cons aren't appearing any better in the press - some bizarre ploy to keep labour in by making the tories look as bad?

This government seems to know no shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.