THE SELF-RESTRAINT OF THE SAUDIS
Alistair McAlpine reveals that the
Conservative Party's funds come not from exotic potentates, but home-made jam
TEMPTING though it is at a time of spec- ulation about the sources of Tory Party funds, it will serve no purpose to call up the shade of the Labour Party's erstwhile supporter, the late Sir Eric Miller. He, you will recall, financed the Labour Party's all- singing, all-dancing computer and, by the way, enhanced the life styles of some of that party's officials with goods and ser- vices provided by the Peachey Property Company. There is no point, either, in rehearsing the embarrassment to all con- cerned when that company fell on hard times, an affair that culminated in Sir Eric's suicide.
It would do the Tories little good, either, to protest that the late Robert Maxwell must surely have provided the Labour Party with more than the £33,000 he is alleged to have supplied. Little will be gained by a search through the entrails of the disaster that he left behind after his suicide; there will always be the suspicion that he organised goods and services for the Labour Party and its MPs. A heli- copter flight here, a holiday there, is no more than a suspicion; but then so (and infinitely less well-grounded) is the sugges- tion made in the Guardian newspaper that the King of Saudi Arabia arranged to have £7 million in cash delivered to Smith Square by private jet, a contention that surely must be pure fantasy.
In the 15 years that I was Treasurer, the King of Saudi Arabia never sent me a cent. I take this opportunity to thank him and his family for their self-restraint. It saved me the obvious embarrassment of sending it back. The Guardian has talked £7 million in cash being flown over before the last election; £7 million in cash! The poor dear things at Conservative Central Office would not have known what to do with sev- eral fork-lift truck-loads of used fivers left in the front hall. Equally ludicrous is the suggestion that the Sultan of Brunei sent an enormous donation. He too was consid- erate enough to avoid embarrassing me; no money came from governments or kings while I was there, and I do not believe it has since.
It is high time that the Conservative Party explained that two thirds of the
money that is given comes from individu- als who donate to constituency parties. Almost all that money is spent in the con- stituencies. The party perhaps should also explain that, since the change in our laws to allow British citizens who live overseas to vote in our elections, Conservative asso- ciations have been formed in other parts of the world in cities as disparate as Tokyo and Brussels.
There are hundreds of these overseas associations and they all have bank accounts. So, when the Labour member for wherever is told that the Conservative party has an account in Nice or Hong Kong, this is not a matter for national out- rage. It is just an account belonging to a group of Tories who have banded together enterprisingly with the aim of persuading their co-nationals to vote Conservative at the next election.
For the media this is sad because it is boring, but the fact is that the Conserva- tives get most of their money from their supporters in the cities, towns, villages and hamlets of this country, money given by ordinary people because they have little enthusiasm for socialism.
But, the Labour Party will say, we have seen revellers at Conservative balls pay vast sums of money for bottles of whisky auctioned by Jeffrey Archer at fund-raising events, with people — many of them bud- ding industrialists — paying sums far in excess of their value. This owes more to the celebrity of Jeffrey Archer, and a desire by those individuals to be associated with the razzmatazz that surrounds such events, than to any considerations of political advantage. It seems to me that men who pay too much for their whisky can be accused of folly, but little else.
I am afraid most Tory money is raised by the selling of jam, more often than not sold for less than it will cost the donor to make the stuff. But, nag the Labour Party, what about these tycoons, that is where the real money comes from? They mention a type of person in a very different league from the makers of jam, but no different in their views on socialism or its destructive poten- tial. They must want something, say the Labour Party. Peerages, knighthoods? It is true these men and women whose compa- nies contribute to the Conservative Party desperately want something: they wish never to see a socialist government in charge of the affairs of our nation ever again.
What of Asil Nadir? Are there others like him? Well, the Conservative Party would be a poor creature indeed if it did not admit to making mistakes; and our accepting money from Mr Nadir was a mis- take. But it was understandable, if you take into account the fact that his company won the Queen's Award for Export, and that Mr Nadir himself addressed the CBI con- ference. His shares were the fastest grow- ing stock on the market. He appeared to have taken a company that was failing, and rejuvenated it. Any who would point a fin- ger at him for his activities during those years would do so with the benefit of hind- sight.
Mr Nadir appeared to the world charm- ing, able and competent. However, the world did not know the truth about him then. I once had to have lunch with him in my capacity as Treasurer. He made no last- ing impression on me at all — I cannot recall our conversation or, for that matter, even where we lunched.
It is argued that the Treasurers of the Tory party, of which I was one, should have spotted that Mr Nadir failed to declare his donations in his company's accounts. In retrospect, if I were still the Treasurer, I would institute a procedure to make cer- tain that this was done, I would pay the money in dispute into a trust account until its ownership became clear. Anyone can make a mistake; only a fool does not bene- fit by the experience gained as a result. Should the law be changed on declaration of funds by an individual? I believe not. How a man spends money — his money --- is his affair. Whether he gives it to Help the Aged or the Conservatives is up to him. If he wishes to give to either in private, then good luck to him.
Previous page
