Tory conflict of interest over BT break-up

*Left Foot Forward* "Tory conflict of interest o…": Questions have been raised over a possible conflict of… http://bit.ly/9zsakw #labour

And the conflict of interest between the hundreds of thousands the CWU have given Labour and Royal Mail’s protected status? Though why the CWU give so much to the party when under Labour the Post Office Network has been decimated. Probably because people operating post offices were in a different Union. So much for brotherly love!

Good detective work Shamik. Nice to see you use some evidence this time!

But remember co-founder of Carphone Charles Dunstone was a target of Lord Levy. A quick root on Google reveals Dunstone saying:
“I saw Lord Levy walk past me,” said Mr Dunstone. “Then he spun round, came back and said: ‘You are Charles Dunstone, aren’t you?’ I said yes. He said: ‘Good. Can we put you down for a million?’ ”

A million! Dunstone said no.

In other words, both parties are highly dodgy here. At least we can keep an eye on these things. Keep digging Shamik.

CWU conflict of interest is worth millions not thousands.

Trade Union donations are made up of individual members’contributions and they do vote on this, quite different to the influence of a single rich individual.

Mark: there is nothing inherently dodgy about making a political donation (although that’s increasingly conventional wisdom). It only becomes disreputable when you expect something in return, such as a contract or a peerage.

And you have to be suspicious when, for example, healthcare companies make contributions to Andrew Lansley’s office.

I’m not sure what you mean about Royal Mail’s protected status. Do you mean protected in the way that other companies are allowed to cherry pick and take on all of the profitable bits of mail delivery while Royal Mail have a protected obligation for single price universal delivery?

Good piece, Shamik. It is interesting how inconsistent the Tories’ committment to competition is when it comes to the telecommunications sector.

Contrast their attitude to BT with Cameron’s response when Ofcom decided to challenge the monopolistic power wielded over the satellite broadcasting market by his new best friend Rupert Murdoch. Far from supporting Ofcom’s attempts to promote competition, Cameron instead announced that a Tory government would scrap the pesky regulator and leave Murdoch to rule the roost.

Clearly when it comes to BT, the interests of Cameron’s chums just happen to swing the other way, so competition is good this time.

What I don’t understand is why are the Tories so desparate to break up BT now? I mean, they created BT (and Lord Tebbit got a well paid job with them after he left government). What has happened – why didn’t they want to create “competition” when they first privatised it? Hmmm, I guess there wasn’t any political donations then to npersuade them otherwise.

Remember that a sitting Labour MP, Patricia Hewitt, sits on the board of BT. The article omits to mention this. She collects £60,000 a year, effectively earning money at three times the rate Ross is donating it.

Richard Blogger: presumably because broadband didn’t exist in the 1980s? BT today still has a monopoly on the “last mile” section of cables from the exchange to your home or workplace.

David Ross has now been given World Cup role…:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23801595-sacked-boris-johnson-adviser-david-ross-given-world-cup-role.do

[...] BT becuase it “holds back” comapanies like Carphone Warehouse (CW), Left Foot Forward revealed that CW’s founder David Ross – a close friend of David Cameron – had donated more [...]

[...] target of universal next generation broadband services (100mbps) by 2017, they have proposed breaking up BT’s local monopoly on telecommunications cabling, arguing the lack of competition is the main [...]