Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

I'm not, but little we can do to compete with places like Cambodia.

That makes no sense whatsoever. So are you really saying we should not have a minimum wage because Cambodia is able to offer a few pence per hour?

I think the Robin Hood Tax is good but only if worldwide, Im suprised you dont actually agree with the Tories stance on this. You may say they are protecting their mates, but they are also protecting a large amount of income for the country. Personally I think all the finance industry needs is more regulation.

Are you aware of what the Robin Hood tax is all about?

Investment into the country is fine and dandy as long as it is not at the expense of others. Trading in Chinese currency etc through London potentially would increase funds into here (I would have thought that other financial markets would also look at this method), but to achieve this we surely do not need to pander to the financial world (again) and remove any blame for the mess the world already finds itself in because a lot of their actions? I wonder when we will here the next instalment of "they will move their business overseas" as some sort of justification?

[andyjsg]

I'm not, but little we can do to compete with places like Cambodia.

That makes no sense whatsoever. So are you really saying we should not have a minimum wage because Cambodia is able to offer a few pence per hour?

Nope, I'm saying we can't compete, end of.

I think the Robin Hood Tax is good but only if worldwide, Im suprised you dont actually agree with the Tories stance on this. You may say they are protecting their mates, but they are also protecting a large amount of income for the country. Personally I think all the finance industry needs is more regulation.

Are you aware of what the Robin Hood tax is all about?

Investment into the country is fine and dandy as long as it is not at the expense of others. Trading in Chinese currency etc through London potentially would increase funds into here (I would have thought that other financial markets would also look at this method), but to achieve this we surely do not need to pander to the financial world (again) and remove any blame for the mess the world already finds itself in because a lot of their actions? I wonder when we will here the next instalment of "they will move their business overseas" as some sort of justification?

Fully aware of what its about but I believe it has to be worldwide and yes I do believe "they will move their business overseas" is a full justification. Whilst you point out the many public sector jobs that are lost it seems perfectly acceptable to you that those in the financial sector loose their jobs. I have a lowly job in an Insurance Company so I should loose my job to fit your ideology?

[NowDoINotLikeThat]

ahhh good to see that "rent-a quote" Michael Gove come out with some more "lacking a real understanding of the man in the street" bollox.

It seems that Give (who I thought had a responsibility for Education?) is now trumpeting that we should as a country invest millions in buying the queen a new yacht!

link

I suppose when you are part of a Tory Gvmt that has no real sense of what is happening to the UK population then schemes like a new Royal Yacht would seem like a good idea. More seriously though it does show how Gove and the rest of the Gvmt have no idea of the hardships that their policies are having on most people outside of their key support areas. To even suggest this as an idea is actually quite appalling and really Gove should look at himself and start to get a grip on what is happening rather than schemes like this

He must either be mentally ill or trolling.

[PauloBarnesi]

Is our economy not already overly reliant on the finance sector?

Probably. Went down Jermyn Street and looked at whats left of the British shoe industry. They export something like 70% of what they make. Its all about luxury goods. Its one of the things we are still respected and good at. We should become a heritage luxury goods manufacturer!

[drat01]

Fully aware of what its about but I believe it has to be worldwide and yes I do believe "they will move their business overseas" is a full justification. Whilst you point out the many public sector jobs that are lost it seems perfectly acceptable to you that those in the financial sector loose their jobs. I have a lowly job in an Insurance Company so I should loose my job to fit your ideology?

I would say you don't know what it's about then. The old "they will move their business" is laughable really. Your (and the Tory party) saying then that we basically have to do anything and everything that the financial sector says or they will move out? Laughable way to run a country. As for people losing their jobs in the financial sector then there has to be a portion of blame and a restructuring of the finance industry. That may well mean that jobs are lost. Your (and again the Tory party) are seemingly happy for the finance sector to remain in its current format and put the blame on to the public sector and then attack this sector (a long held traditional Tory target).

As a "lowly" job holder you must then be even more open to the idea of protection for those in similar jobs elsewhere in the country? Or are you one of those Tories who typically look at themselves and then stop?

[drat01]

Heard some union leader on 5 live last night who wasn't very happy with Balls agreeing with public sector pay freezes

Seems that is Balls chance of replacing Ed M scuppered then

Tony - a bit of digging sort of pisses on your chips with this one

There have been two union leaders who have gone public with this. Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka

The key thing I have hilighted for you

The general secretary of the RMT union, Bob Crow, said: "By lining up with the Tory-led coalition on the assault on public sector pay, Ed Balls will today sign Labour's electoral suicide note as he alienates his core voters in their millions."

Mark Serwotka, leader of the Public and Commercial Services union, described Mr Balls's comments as "hugely disappointing".

"Instead of matching them on the cuts, they should be articulating a clear alternative and speaking up for public sector workers and ordinary people in society," he said.

However, neither the PCS or RMT unions is affiliated to the Labour Party.

link

[snowychap]

I guess we can find some things to manufacture but unfortunately people wont work at the rates of some far eastern countries and will end up going on strike after 5 minutes anyway.

If you're after a sensible discussion about the future of manufacturing in this country or most other 'western' economies then you might do best to leave the 'crush the unions' prejudice to one side.

Or we could provide financial services for the rest of the world....

It depends what this increasing provision would bring with it and how it may imperil (perhaps further) the UK economy.

What I took from the gist of the Morgan Stanley graph in the other thread (showing G10 debt distribution over sectors) is the imbalance within our economy (as opposed to the conclusions drawn about London's position within the global financial environment); the worry would be that allowing (or even encouraging) that sector to play a larger part within the UK economy than the 7/8/10 % that it already does may (and possibly has to) bring with it many more problems than the benefits that could be seen in headline figures of GDP and the like.

[tonyh29]

So no one is allowed to change their views in any way

why Gideon and Dave have gone complete and utter U turn on the finance sector

so it seems Labour are entitled to change strategy but the Tory party are not :-)

[andyjsg]

I would say you don't know what it's about then. The old "they will move their business" is laughable really. Your (and the Tory party) saying then that we basically have to do anything and everything that the financial sector says or they will move out? Laughable way to run a country. As for people losing their jobs in the financial sector then there has to be a portion of blame and a restructuring of the finance industry. That may well mean that jobs are lost. Your (and again the Tory party) are seemingly happy for the finance sector to remain in its current format and put the blame on to the public sector and then attack this sector (a long held traditional Tory target).

No, no and no. I swear I write one thing and you read another. What I said is that we shouldnt be held to ransom by Sarkosy, that we shouldnt be in a position where finance work can be done cheaper in asia, hence the "worldwide" part of the tax. I agree with it if it is worldwide, we need to be competitive, I really dont understand why you dont understand that. Aon for example are moving their HQ here within the next couple of years, this will create more jobs and more tax, surely this is what we want?

As a "lowly" job holder you must then be even more open to the idea of protection for those in similar jobs elsewhere in the country? Or are you one of those Tories who typically look at themselves and then stop?

I have issues with the Public Sector due to the amount of waste and high cost for what are essentially poor quality public services. I agree with effeciencies being brought in to fix the overhead. I think in a lot of cases they are unavoidable....

[andyjsg]

I guess we can find some things to manufacture but unfortunately people wont work at the rates of some far eastern countries and will end up going on strike after 5 minutes anyway.

If you're after a sensible discussion about the future of manufacturing in this country or most other 'western' economies then you might do best to leave the 'crush the unions' prejudice to one side.

Fair enough, what do you think can be done?

Or we could provide financial services for the rest of the world....

It depends what this increasing provision would bring with it and how it may imperil (perhaps further) the UK economy.

What I took from the gist of the Morgan Stanley graph in the other thread (showing G10 debt distribution over sectors) is the imbalance within our economy (as opposed to the conclusions drawn about London's position within the global financial environment); the worry would be that allowing (or even encouraging) that sector to play a larger part within the UK economy than the 7/8/10 % that it already does may (and possibly has to) bring with it many more problems than the benefits that could be seen in headline figures of GDP and the like.

Japan's reliance on manufacturing isnt exactly helping them right now....

[snowychap]

Fair enough, what do you think can be done?

What is to be done? ;-)

I'm not sure what my suggestions would be (they'd likely be directed towards education, proper infrastruture investment, maybe some kinds of tax/subsidy incentives) but I doubt they'd focus on a regression in terms of workers' rights and collective worker representation.

Japan's reliance on manufacturing isnt exactly helping them right now....

I would doubt that reliance on any one particular sector would be a good idea for any economy.

[snowychap]

I found this of interest from John Pugh (Lib Dem) during the NHS (Private sector) debate last night:

9.14 pm

John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Far be it from me to presume to criticise the wise counsel of other Members, but it is absolute nonsense to think that the NHS has always been a monolithic system of public provision. It is absolute nonsense to think that private health providers always think only of profit instead of providing a good service or that services delivered by a public body are necessarily less costly or always better than those delivered by a private provider. It is nonsense to think that choice and competition are never needed, that diversity is bad or that reform or improvement—I prefer that word—is not needed. Sensible, pragmatic, evidence-led arguments can be made for mixed provision, for improvement, for choice and competition, for the involvement of the private sector and for diversity. That is not the problem.

The problem is that pragmatism and evidence count for very little because for the past eight years health policy in this country has been in the grip of an unspoken ideology. Put very simply it goes like this: the Government have no real business in providing health services but should buy them from health providers in a market. Some will be private providers that will make a profit, some will be voluntary bodies or social enterprises and others will be the fragmented, dissected pieces of the old NHS—foundation hospitals, trusts and the like. All can be branded as NHS providers if we want and all can have the NHS logo. The differences between them all will become increasingly blurred and of no consequence. Some people believe it should not matter which of these bodies delivers health services so long as the taxpayer and not the patient pays and the Government keep out of the provider business. That idea is rather like what exists already in other countries, except that generally in those places it is insurance, not tax, that funds the system.

And it is not privatisation. Ministers can truthfully say, “We are not privatising the NHS.” It is marketisation. What is happening is that the Government are buying health in a market, either national or local—an external market. They are gradually giving up on providing health services and in my view clearly mean to do so. It is a beautifully clear, coherent ideology that is rarely explicitly set out, defended, discussed within parties or put to the electorate. Indeed, to do so might be electoral suicide.

Stage by stage over the past eight years that ideology has been progressed. If one assumes it and holds it in mind one can understand why hospitals have to become foundation hospitals independent of the state—that was a Blair idea—and why it was necessary to create a bigger private sector by offering it preferential terms, which was another Blair idea. One understands why services formerly run by primary care trusts, such as community nurses and the like, are being forced to become social enterprises and why it is suggested that NHS hospitals might do up to 49% private work and that private hospitals can do as much NHS work as they like. One also understands why the Health and Social Care Bill abolishes the Government power to start a new hospital, why there is such unseemly haste to extend “any willing provider” and why the Secretary of State, even at the cost of peace in the Lords, does not want the word “provide” back in the list of his powers. If anyone is unpersuaded regarding any of that, let them turn it the other way around and point to one—just one—recent policy initiative that clearly shows that that market solution is not the endgame and the ultimate goal.

I do not believe that ideology is in itself bad, and this ideology has the virtues of being clear, consistent and radical, but in my view it is basically wrong because a health market cannot ensure that health services integrate well—the Future Forum spotted that—or that scarce NHS funds are spent in the most efficient way, as previous Treasury reports have shown in abundance. It cannot ensure that people get the services to which they are entitled and it cannot ensure that health inequalities are properly addressed. It clearly cannot easily make the strategic planning decisions needed to sustain services, encourage training and organise research, which is precisely why these issues have been so problematic in the Bill and why we are going to find slimming down the financially challenged hospital sector so painful and so uncontrollable in its consequences.

I am not here to argue against this market ideology, because, frankly, few have the honesty to argue for it openly. It is not the official Labour policy or the official Liberal policy. I do not believe it is even the official Conservative policy. It was smuggled past all of us, including the general public, shrouded in vague pragmatic talk about choice, diversity, reform and independence, but we should have no doubt: it is ideology. How else can we possibly explain the headlong pursuit at pace of a set of reforms that complicate and make riskier the huge £20 billion efficiency programme? How else do we explain the overloading of bodies such as the Care Quality Commission and Monitor, whose inadequacies, if not apparent now, will soon become painfully apparent after the Mid Staffs inquiry reports?

Andrew George: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be worth revisiting the issue of whether the NHS should be pre-eminent as first provider or in some other role before we finally make what may be a catastrophic error?

John Pugh: My fundamental point is that this is not evidence-led pragmatism. If we join up the policy dots, we see pure, simple, unalloyed faith in the market system to deliver health in this country. Time after time, in issue after issue, ideology trumps pragmatism and prudence.

The Labour motion is a potpourri of varied sentiments, some of which are true and some of which are confused, and some, given the history, that it is surprising the Opposition have the gall to table at all. However, we should be genuinely grateful to them because they have given us an opportunity—a platform—to name the beast, to define real choice and to cut to the quick.

Chris Mullin, in his excellent “Diaries”, describes a discussion with a fellow Member of this place, a Yorkshire MP, “a mild-mannered fellow”—I do not know who that would include—who in 2005, prophetically, said of the Labour party:

“We’re opening the door…Whatever safeguards we put in place, whatever assurances we give will be absolutely worthless once the Tories are in power…I think we will lose the next election. The Tories will come to some sort of understanding with the Lib Dems—”

At which point he ran out of time.

[andyjsg]

Tony - a bit of digging sort of pisses on your chips with this one

There have been two union leaders who have gone public with this. Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka

The key thing I have hilighted for you

However, neither the PCS or RMT unions is affiliated to the Labour Party.

And as if by magic.... Ed's paymasters are not so happy now

[Richard]

What happens to the Labour party if the Unions that fund it decide to stop funding it and go off and createtheir own left party that they believe would hold better to the beliefs of the left wing of policy makers in this country?

[Eames]

The Labour Party would be..... oh whats the word...... wait...... er....... oh yeah. ****. Bankrupt would also be a good word.

Chart below shows the break down of Labourt Party Funding for the past few years. Since Tony left, its been getting worse and worse.

[meregreen]

What happens to the Labour party if the Unions that fund it decide to stop funding it and go off and createtheir own left party that they believe would hold better to the beliefs of the left wing of policy makers in this country?

Same thing that happens to any other party. They have to rely on the donations of individual benefactors and members subs. Both the major parties ie Tory and Labour rely on Corporate or Union funds. The only difference is the Unions have to ask the permission of their members to do so. Will shareholders ever get the same right ?

[markavfc40]

No surprise under these clowns that todays unemployment figures showed an increase of 118000. They are now at their highest since 1996. The Tories and high unemployment just go hand in hand don't they.

Over the latest three month period once again the figures showed that the private sector is not picking up the slack of job losses in the public sector with 67000 jobs lost in the public sector and only 5000 created in the private sector. Just another in a long list of things Osborne has got completely wrong.

And of course due to this Tory led Governments policies things are only going to get worse

[snowychap]

NHS plans for credit rating agencies to vet hospitals

Credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poor's and Moody's will be asked to assess whether hospitals are financially robust enough to treat patients under proposals put forward by the government's NHS regulator.

The agencies – blamed for failing to spot the credit crunch in 2008 and currently engaged in a diplomatic row over their downgrade of eurozone countries – would be required to vet the financial strengths of any provider of NHS services in case they go bust.

In a series of papers, Monitor, the NHS regulator, proposes replacing its current assessment, which looks at clinical quality and how well hospitals "co-operate" in the NHS, with a new regime that will ask "major credit ratings agencies (Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch)" to give "a clear indication of the financial strength of the [healthcare provider] and the perceived capabilities of its board and executive team".

Under the proposals, any provider, either a hospital trust or private company, that failed to achieve an "investment grade" rating – BBB- by Standard & Poor's, Baa3 by Moody's and BBB- by Fitch – would risk losing its licence to operate in the NHS.

A similiar system works in the electricity market, giving the regulator warning of financial difficulties building up in the system.

But critics say the NHS is on a course to repeat the failures of the banking crash by inviting credit rating agencies into such a central role without properly considering other factors such as whether hospitals are delivering good quality healthcare. "Ratings agencies do not have a health, let alone an NHS, perspective and are by definition interested solely in financial bottom lines," the Institute for Public Policy Research warned.

Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, said: "This news will send a chill wind through the NHS."

Monitor emphasised that its paper was a consultative document, and it would apply its current regime of oversight of foundation trusts that faced "significant risks" of failure until 2016.

...more on link

[drat01]

What happens to the Labour party if the Unions that fund it decide to stop funding it and go off and createtheir own left party that they believe would hold better to the beliefs of the left wing of policy makers in this country?

Same thing that happens to any other party. They have to rely on the donations of individual benefactors and members subs. Both the major parties ie Tory and Labour rely on Corporate or Union funds. The only difference is the Unions have to ask the permission of their members to do so. Will shareholders ever get the same right ?

It never ceases to amuse me when I see Tory supporters trying to make out donations, as you rightly say subject to membership votes and subject to some of the strictest rules there are, from unions as being bad, but seemingly happy to receive funds from some very questionable sources into the Tory party.

As we have seen yet again Tory party donations, have often got favour on a massive scale from Cameron etc. The companies that are setup just as fronts to provide anonymity for donations, typically nearly all into the Tory party, how come that is never a problem for the "outraged" Tory supporters.

Also how come they can never accept the rules re Unions and political donations and members having votes on how support is allocated? Again that is just swept under the carpet as it does not fit in with the hysterical ranting about Unions running the Labour party, which again is proven time and time again to be far from the truth.

The tax avoidance millions that people like Ashcroft continue to plough into the Tory party funds both directly and indirectly are seemingly nothing to be concerned about. But they are in direct contradiction (there is the H word again) with the rhetoric of Cameron. How come this is never a problem.

As Mark says above, the jobless figures again showed record numbers, and as he says like VAT rises and many other things, jobless rises seem to go hand in hand with a Tory Gvmt. But for Tory supporters, they do not see this as a problem. Why is that? Does that show more about the morals of your typical Tory or does it show a complete and utter ignorance of what these vindictive policies impact is?

On a separate point, I remember the total BS that Cameron and his supporters (some on here) said about the NHS. We have the ridiculous and somewhat scandalous position now of Pontefract A&E department having to close overnight. There is now talk of military personnel manning the hospital to backfill due to the shortages due to cuts imposed by the Tory Gvmt.

[drat01]

The Labour Party would be..... oh whats the word...... wait...... er....... oh yeah. ****. Bankrupt would also be a good word.

Laughing

Chart below shows the break down of Labourt Party Funding for the past few years. Since Tony left, its been getting worse and worse.

:-) - says more about you as a person the fact that you are seemingly so happy with political donations being down for one party. I am interested how "happy" you are with things such as this?

City's influence over Conservatives laid bare by research into donations

Donations from finance account for half of payments to Tories since 2010 general election

The influence of the City over the Conservatives has been laid bare by new research showing that more than half of the Tory party's donations since the general election have come from individuals and businesses working in finance.

Hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms contributed more than a quarter of all the Tories' private donations – which this year poured in at a rate equal to £1m a month – the study by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found.

The figures show an increase in the proportion of party funds coming from the financial sector, raising fears that the City's financial influence over the Tories is on the rise as key pieces of legislation are discussed by the coalition government.

They come amid growing concerns that some parts of the financial sector, described by Labour leader Ed Miliband this week as "asset strippers" or "predator financiers", are profiting from financial instability.

The senior Labour shadow minister Peter Hain said the figures confirmed that the Tories remain wedded to the few who do well out of the financial and political system. The Liberal Democrats used the research to step up their campaign for changes to party funding.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has mapped, for the first time, donations to the Tories from business to the year ending 30 June.

Using analysis from the Electoral Commission and Companies House databases, the researchers found City donations in the 12 months to July accounted for 51.4% of the £12.2m of funds received by Central Office. Hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms contributed £3.3m – 27% – while 50 City donors paid more than £50,000. All donors contributing this amount or more become members of the Leader's Group and qualify for a face-to-face meeting with the prime minister.

The largest contributor across all the business sectors studied by the bureau was hedge funds which donated £1.38m (11.4%). Three of the City's biggest name hedge fund bosses – Michael Farmer, Lord Stanley Fink and Andrew Law – together contributed £636,300. Fink is the party treasurer. The top financier donor was David Rowland, who contributed £1.1m. Rowland has a colourful City career and was forced to resign as party treasurer before he even took up the job because of links to tax havens. He now controls Banque Havilland – which used to be the crashed Icelandic Kaupthing bank business – in Luxembourg and the hedge fund Blackfish Capital Management.

Outside the City, the sector that donated most was industry, including manufacturing and defence. This sector contributed £913,411 (7.5%). A company controlled by Michael Spencer, another former Conservative party treasurer, donated £163,350. He is campaigning against the EU's attempts to introduce a transaction tax on financial trades and threatened on Fridayto shift some of his company's operations from London "extremely rapidly" if the tax was introduced.

Peter Cruddas, the multimillionaire currency trader who grew up on a Hackney housing estate and left school with no qualifications, handed over £123,600, while his business, CMC Markets UK, donated £100,000. He is co-treasurer of the Conservative party, alongside Fink.

But while Spencer and others are now campaigning against potential tax changes, since the coalition came to power several key measures have been introduced that could benefit the Conservative's City backers. Among them is a commitment to reduce corporation tax to 23% by April 2014 and exempting UK resident companies from corporation tax on all profits for their foreign branches.

The figures show the insurance sector has donated £189,400 as the government discusses radical plans to slash the legal aid budget – a measure which critics claim will benefit insurers. Construction companies have donated more than £220,000 amid a lobbying campaign to relax planning rules covering the green belt.

In a separate survey, the Labour MP John Mann disclosed figures that showed that the top three donors – Rowland, Farmer and Fink – had donated almost £10m since 2005. Stuart Wilks-Heeg, executive director of Democratic Audit, said: "What this study tellingly reveals is the scale of the Conservative party's reliance on a variety of City interests at a time when the Conservative-led government is attempting to kick banking reform into the long grass."

Hain said: "The Conservative party has long since been over reliant on donor income from people at the top of the income scale.

"No wonder David Cameron and George Osborne are straining at the leash to cut tax for people earning at least £150,000 a year while asking everyone else to pay the bill for a financial crisis caused by the banks," he said.

The Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott said: "Big financiers are still the Tories' big backers with hedge fund gamblers and private equity asset strippers leading the way. Labour is being bankrolled by the union bosses. The coalition must act now to clean up party funding."

Considering the total and utter BS that Cameron and Gideon spout re the City and then we see the bending over backwards to accommodate their political funding, is it no wonder that they (and their supporters) are more keen to deflect to talk about things such as how Ed Balls looks?

Who gave what?

From the celebrity hairstylist to the Oscar-winning screenwriter, Haroon Siddique profiles a dozen top Tory donors

David Rowland, property developer: £1,160,936

Notoriously camera-shy, Rowland was by a distance the Conservatives' largest donor last year. The former tax exile was set to become party treasurer last year but resigned shortly before he was due to start.

Michael Bishop, former airline head: £335,000

Was one of the country's first openly gay senior executives when he headed BMI. Sold stake in airline to Lufthansa for £318m in 2008.

May Makhzoumi, fibreglass pipe manufacturing and supply business: £308,000

The biggest individual female donor. Wife of the Lebanese businessman Fouad Makhzoumi.

JCB Research, industrial equipment company: £300,000

Subsidiary of the Bamford family's JCB digger empire. JCB chairman Sir Anthony Bamford was nominated for a peerage by David Cameron last year, but withdrew his nomination.

David Whelan, fitness clubs & football club owner: £100,000

The founder of JJB Sports sold up in 2007, then later bought its fitness clubs. Also owns Wigan Athletic football club.

John Frieda, hairdresser: £50,000

Celebrity hairstylist with salons in London, New York, Los Angeles and Barbados. Sold his hair care products business to a Japanese corporation for £290m in 2002.

Jeremy Isaacs, private equity firm co-owner: £50,000

Left role as head of Lehman Brothers' European and Asian operations days before bank went bankrupt in 2008. Later co-founded private-equity group vehicle JRJ group.

Hans Rausing, ex-packaging tycoon: £49,000

Co-inherited Sweden's Tetra Pak group, the world's largest packaging production company, then sold out to brother Gad in 1995 for an estimated $7bn. Wife Marit also donated £49,000 last year.

Julian Fellowes, writer and actor: £40,000

Won an Oscar for his first Hollywood screenplay, Gosford Park, and created the hit ITV series Downton Abbey. Was made a Conservative peer in January.

Annabel's, private members restaurant & nightclub: £20,000

Legendary central London society haunt, frequented over the years by Frank Sinatra, Aristotle Onassis, assorted royals and David Blunkett.

Mike Batt, composer: £20,000

Composed such classics as Remember You're a Womble and the theme to Watership Down. Took over composing Tory election themes from Andrew Lloyd Webber and often donates in kind through music.

Bell Pottinger, PR group: £11,900

As representative for Trafigura, tried to prevent media revelations about the oil company's involvement in toxic waste dumping in Africa. Also represents the government in Bahrain

Some interesting donations and you have to question the motivation behind some of these?

Also there are many other donations that make interesting reading

link1

How the city bankrolls the Tory party

The internet is littered with stories re the funding of the Tory party. But of course some Tory supporters are more concerned with Union donations :-)