Boris refuses to release identity of Fund donors
In December last year Barclays Bank pledged to give £1 million to London Mayor Boris Johnson’s ‘Fund for London’, staggered over four years.
The Fund aims to “help London’s disadvantaged children towards better jobs”, according to its website.
Now the Mayor is coming under pressure to reveal the source of a seven-figure donation to the Fund.
While Boris is required to declare all donations to his political campaign, the same does not apply to the Mayor’s Fund.
So when the Libdem Assembly Member asked last year whether he would declare all donations to the Mayor’s Fund over £1,000, Boris declined.
He gave the reason as:
Among other things, naming donors might give rise to the suggestion that certain individuals expect something in return for their donations. For this reason, I have agreed that I should not be informed of the names of the individual donors.
Adam Bienkov at Tory Troll, who’s done the research on this, points out that Boris has also previously refused to release more general details about the fund’s supporters or funding partners.
Why? We were under the impression the Boris administration was all for transparency and accountability? Why not publish the details of the donors?
It now turns out that Boris “is aware” of the identity of who donated the seven-figure-sum, even though he said earlier this knowledge might jeopardise his impartiality.
Adam adds:
Boris has repeatedly described the Mayor’s Fund as an “independent non-political” charity.
However, far from being independent, it is actually based on the third floor of City Hall itself and has the Mayor as the sole patron.
And while he argues that “listing out individual donations might adversely impact on the level of donations” this does not alter the fact that the current set up is open to abuse.
What happened to that transparency Boris?
---------------------------
| Tweet |
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by Sunny Hundal
Filed under
News
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Blind trusts have existed before you know.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/1999/aug/16/politicalnews.politics
http://www.davidosler.com/2006/03/taking_it_on_trust_part_one.html
Tony Blair, Mo Mowlem…..G. Brown even if I recall correctly…
True, but a blind trust where you peek through the blindfold appears to be an innovation.
This is gutter politics.
“Among other things, naming donors might give rise to the suggestion that certain individuals expect something in return for their donations. For this reason, I have agreed that I should not be informed of the names of the individual donors.”
If Boris names one donor, he cannot refuse to name the others without raising the sort of unjustified smear that you are creating here.
Who is going to directly benefit from a fund to “help London’s disadvantaged children towards better jobs” and can afford a seven-figure donation (except possibly an insurance company that insures householders against theft and criminal damage)? It may be beyond your comprehension but sometimes people do things because they think that they are right and worthwhile even when they do not personally benefit as a result.
Having the Mayor as patron does not make a charity political – many charities have major political figures from both major parties (and some have LibDems as well) as patrons. The patron is non-executive – if you had ever worked for a Charity you would know that.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
- Liberal Conspiracy
Boris refuses to release identity of Fund donors http://bit.ly/aQ4I5g
- Paul Sandars
RT @libcon: Boris refuses to release identity of Fund donors http://bit.ly/aQ4I5g
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» High pay – in football and banking – shouldn’t be about morality
» Why Quantitative Easing doesn’t make common sense
» Barclays was also bailed out – Diamond doesn’t deserve a bonus
» Ten myths about private rented housing
» Even on the left, morality has its limits
» The NHS bill could be a Waterloo moment for the govt
» Ken Livingstone and gay rights – it just isn’t an issue
» Abu Qatada deportation: what about our principles?
» New study shows a Robinhood tax would boost growth
» In defence of Sky News’ re-Tweeting ban
» Another reason to continue banker bashing
|
90 Comments 15 Comments 17 Comments 26 Comments 42 Comments 21 Comments 13 Comments 51 Comments 11 Comments 78 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » gastro george posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Sally posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Sally posted on Media finally expose problems over the NHS Bill » Bob B posted on Media finally expose problems over the NHS Bill » NHS London risk register exposes Tory threat to healthcare « Mike Sivier posted on The NHS London Risk Register that exposes Lansley » Cherub posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » John Dyer posted on Media finally expose problems over the NHS Bill » liane gomersall posted on Media finally expose problems over the NHS Bill » liane gomersall posted on The NHS London Risk Register that exposes Lansley » Carrie JS posted on Media finally expose problems over the NHS Bill » Carrie JS posted on Media finally expose problems over the NHS Bill » liane gomersall posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Michael Connor Hawk posted on Media finally expose problems over the NHS Bill » Michael Connor Hawk posted on Media finally expose problems over the NHS Bill » Claire posted on Media finally expose problems over the NHS Bill |








