Nandy’s funding disclosure reveals links to anti-Corbyn groups

Right-wing leadership candidate’s donor list gives hint why rival Starmer is so slow to disclose his

Lisa Nandy has become the second Labour leadership candidate to disclose details of her campaign donors -following Rebecca Long-Bailey’s decision to do so earlier this week – and in doing so has given a hint why Keir Starmer has dragged his feet in revealing his own.

Nandy’s donors include individuals and groups with links to long-term anti-Corbyn activism:

  • 89up Ltd – which created the website for Nandy-backing union GMB – donated almost £6,000 in ‘digital services’. Director Mike Harris has described himself as having been an ‘ardent’ fan of Tony Blair – and wrote an article titled “How Labour can stage a coup against Jeremy Corbyn
  • Betterworld Ltd has donated to the LibDems and Greens as well as to the Labour Party – and was a founding donor to Blairite former Home Secretary David Blunkett’s LabourTomorrow anti-Corbyn vehicle set up in 2016

Other donors include former LibDem election agent Mark Glover and John Mills, who chaired ‘Labour Leave’ – which donated £18,500 to UKIP.

Nandy is considered the least likely to win the contest and so the level of financial support for her has been accordingly low. But her list provides a strong hint of why Keir Starmer has repeatedly dodged providing any information about donors to his campaign until a large portion of votes in the contest have been cast.

As the leading hope of the Labour right, his donations are likely to be both larger and far more numerous – and, judging by his reticence to disclose them, also likely to be highly unpalatable to the party’s left from which he hopes to draw enough support to get him over the finish line in April.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. It shouldn’t be all about rich people buying MPs and buying elections. Parliament and political parties should be paid for out of the public purse and no donations allowed.

      1. I think having any mechanism in place to accept donations of any amount will be a temptation to try to find a way to cheat.
        The 1% can afford to bribe with the use of superyachts, mansions, private islands, free holidays to places like, say, Israel masquerading as ‘fact-finding’ trips, sinecure directorships etc.
        Being an MP is an enormous privilege – anyone trustworthy would willingly submit to open accounting for life.
        The courts are able to confiscate the proceeds of crime including money, valuables, anything that can’t be explained as I understand it.
        A crooked MP is as much a criminal as a drug dealer. At least.
        Make them salaried employees.

      2. I agree – except that low individual donations aren’t a problem; the volume of such will negate any unbalanced special interest.

        The problem as I see it is that serious capital with find other means of influence.

      3. RH, people have been persuaded to hand over their proxy votes to corrupt individuals.
        What would stop such corrupt doorsteppers offering 1000 or 10,000 people having £100 or more available on a direct debit card – £150 cash to donate £100 to the cause in their presence?
        The super rich wouldn’t even blink at 2 for 1 plus £5,000 a week for the doorsteppers.
        Beneficiary candidate could claim “no knowledge” with a few simple cut-offs.

        Frankly I see no justification for one candidate having more campaign funds or facilities than any other – it’s supposed to be purely about the votes.
        When everyone has the right to buy whatever piece of democracy they can afford the poorest come off worst.
        If we’re too stupid to say “Not For Sale!” maybe we really are only fit to wipe the arses of the 1%.

    1. David, I wholeheartedly agree. It is also wrong that the NEC has demanded that each contestant pay £5,000 + vat for access to essential campaigning data.

    2. You believe that my taxes should be used to fund political parties that actively work against my interests? It’s bad enough that the BBC license fee is a tax used for the same reason.

      1. Steve Richards, that depends – are you one of the super rich that prefers to hide his money offshore rather than pay tax?
        If so MPs’ salaries are the least of your worries.
        Are you earning over 80k perhaps? Same deal. You’ll pay more.
        If you’re not in the above categories, why the fuck would you care that MPs are paid out of your taxes if the amount stays the same – particularly if honesty is thereby imposed on MPs?
        Even if there were a minuscule increase in your income tax (there wouldn’t be) it would be offset by what you donate to Labour anyway – wouldn’t it?

      2. Steve Richards – This sounds all well and good until one realises that the actual ‘cost’ of state funding for political parties works out at less than £1 per voter per year.

        Removing the influence of large political donors for < 2pence per week looks like a price well worth paying to me.

  2. No real surprises there then, I was rather amused to hear Lisa Nandy dismissed as ‘the other one’ on this weeks episode of The News Quiz (BBC R4).

    Now we can all look forward to Monday’s instalment.

    1. The problem with the News Quiz is that Jeremy Hardy is no longer there to put the contrarian case.

  3. Shock horror….Nandys aceppted legal bribes to destroy socialism And has the support of the old has beens including Lib dems which should be questionabl

    1. Lisa Nandy is my MP and a more ambitious person is unlikely. From the word go she did her best to undermine JC, when she resigned from his cabinet early days I suspected her . I got a letter from her to say she was supporting the other candidate the Welsh one I , believe. I told her not to contact me again or expect a vote from me. She remains a thorn in my side, and another. tick against Starmer.

  4. I notice that the Sir śtarmer has proved desperate enough to plumb the depths of using the mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence to endorse him.Does this knight have no respect.and how can this level of campaigning be used in the Labour party.Hasn’t this family suffered enough .

    1. FFS Joseph – It is you that is plummeting the depths, how do you think Doreen Lawrence will feel if she is unfortunate enough to read your nonsense.

      1. Joseph – You can make all the pathetic excuses you want. I’m simply not interested. I won’t be discussing this any further.

      2. I feel exactly the same way as Joseph over Starmers appalling use and abuse of Stephen Lawrences death as a propaganda tool for his political advancement.

        SICK …. it just epitomises everything I despise with avaricious politicians who will do anything to win no matter what the cost.
        It is not with the utmost respect to Doreen Lawrences about her feelings that are the issue here ( my sympathies are with her for sure ) but those of us, like me who have received this email , unsolicited , and read it with rising anger and incredulity at just what Starmer was doing . It is an OFFENCE to my decency that this wretch seeks to use such a despicable ploy to try and persuade me to vote for him .
        BTW steveH that would go for any and ALL of the candidates who use such a disgusting and low brow ploy.
        Don’t bother to reply as I too will not be discussing this further , my decision has now been consolidated and vindicated regarding Starmer and his utter unsuitably to lead this Party !

      3. I do hope your last reply to Joseph means we can look forward to a period of silence from you,but somehow I doubt it.

      4. I reckon RLB sucking up to the BoD/JLM is rather worse in the Piety stakes.

    2. Politics being politics I expect he must have done but I don’t remember Jeremy Corbyn ever singing his own praises.
      Rose-tinted specs lacking hindsight maybe but I do think modesty is one of the stand-out things about him that sets him above the crowd.

      I don’t know whether Doreen Lawrence offered her support unprompted or Starmer canvassed it – two very different circumstances in my mind.
      I don’t know whether half a million people begged Starmer for a big poster to put in their front windows either.

  5. A person that uses a dead person for a leadership election must be desperate.But then again he well practised in using people for personal gain isn’t he steve H.

    1. Starmer is a lawyer, nothing more imo. His judgement is shocking and I saw zero unity from him when he resigned during the Blairite chicken coup and as for justice and standing up for those with no voice…………..the sick and disabled have no voice, did he stand up for those unheard voices during the welfare vote in 2015 ? NOPE. He turned his back on us and abstained. Using the excuse that he was new in politics is piss poor with him previously being a time served DPP and shows his lack of true socialism and judgement. No true socialist would turn their back on the vulnerable.

      I know his supporters will disagree with me but everything I have stated is true.

      1. Foggy the time Starmer spent in politics can never be an excuse for having no morality or compassion for the victims of Tory ideology.Morality is something that you cannot possibly learn from association with politicians and especially the PLP.If it isn’t there before entering politics it never will be.Starmer has been a plant from day one of his short but meteoric rise to challenge for the leadership of the Labour party.Who is pulling the strings attached,?

      2. Lawyering requires much memory, little intellect beyond a talent for le mot juste, and a broken moral compass.
        Prosecutors will develop a disdain for ‘the lower classes’ by on-the-job training if they didn’t choose to be prosecutors because they already held those views.

      3. “Starmer is a lawyer, nothing more”

        … but actually a rather better one with more genuine achievement than Long-Bailey, the favoured candidate of the Lansman nexus.

        The exaggerations here are fairly usual selective partisan fodder.

  6. So why the coyness in omitting John Mills from your main sidebar of shame instead putting him on a separate (“also, by the way”) perch? Is it because his obscurantist and nationalistic views on Europe match Skwakies ?

  7. Walshy you’re flogging a dead horse with your criticism of Squawkbox,Glover (lib dems agent)and John mills association with UKIP is hardly a badge of honour.But then again you could probably see no problem with donations for the leadership election from a lib den agent which should be questionable at least and in my opinion illegal.

    1. Well, are we are also talking of the John Reid who trough the 1970s was a Scots Stalinist Student leader ? The man who (quote) “as noted during his first meeting in 1974 with George Galloway at a Festival of Marxism. “You’re wasting your time in the sink of reformism,” Reid scathingly told the Labour supporter.”

      And as for Mark Glover, cursory research will show that his Liberal Party years were roughly around the time Pontious Pilate was in the RAF. This century he spent his time outwith his mainstream lobbying work, being a Labour Councillor in Southwark and working on Labour GE campaigns.

      There is a very interesting, and possibly contentious Nandy donor in the list, but no one seems to have spotted that person yet,,,,,,,

  8. Just remember – it isn’t only the money. It’s who you suck up to for support – like the JLM et al.

  9. .. and a propos of nothing in particular, but relevant to any election where candidates feign ‘listening’, I came across the following insight :

    “…whatever the topic, you will find a noisy minority of the public who are furious, partly because of the state of the country, but largely because they aren’t being listened to.

    Here’s the thing, though. We shouldn’t be listening to them. They’re wrong. And, by pretending they’re not, we’re screwing up the country.”

  10. In this outrage about donations – have union memberships been consulted about donations to various campaigns? Or is the thrown-away money in the hands purely of interested (often minority) executive decisions?

    1. The difference is RH , as you well know , Union Exc are accountable to the membership and face democratic elections .
      Big Corp businesses and rich individuals are accountable to but themselves.Their interests are generally not in line with the working class .
      This is about selecting the least crap choice and the least damaging to the Left wing membership and Starmer is a Blair Mk2 wannabe.
      RBL and all of them will be beholden to the Israeli Govt via the BOD , its shite , but Starmer will purge the life out of the party , end result .. indefinite opposition and irrelevance to most people who need a Labour Govt.
      The silver lining tho is should Starmer win , he gets shat to bits by the MSM and Establishment and a new hope begins with a new Socialist Party to take Nu Labours place .

      1. rob 29/02/2020 at 4:01 pm
        The difference is RH , as you well know , Union Exc are accountable to the membership and face democratic elections .

        In theory maybe, but the reality tells a different story.
        eg Len McCluskey secured his job at the head of Unite with the votes of less than 6% of Unites membership. Or to put it another way more than 94% of Unite’s members didn’t vote for Len.

      2. @ RH In theory maybe, but the reality tells a different story.
        eg Len McCluskey secured his job at the head of Unite with the votes of less than 6% of Unites membership.

        Theory or not it is a fact that Union Reps face election , like it or lump it mate . Rich and wealthy individuals buying our MPs face precisely how many votes ? Ahhh that’s right just one , their OWN .
        and in the very specific case of Unite ( I wonder why you picked that single union ?) McLusky got 59,000 votes , now tell me how many votes do individual donors get ,,, ahh yes that’s right just one , just their own , and their electorate is who ,,, ahh yes again just themselves .. see the stupidity of your argument here steveH
        Trying to equate/conflate the democratic process faced by Union Reps as somehow invalid compared to the non existent accountability of wealthy individuals or for that matter large Corps , is foolish

      3. Rob – Thanks for the rant. Firstly I quoted the Unite results because as an ex member I was aware of the results. You are more than welcome to quote the results of other Union Leadership Elections if you feel they present a clearer picture of union democracy.

        If you read my posts at the beginning of these comments you will see that I am advocating the state funding of elections so the majority of your post is inapplicable to me.

      4. Yeh pity you see robust debate as a rant , and no I don’t need to make the case for our Unions being subject to democracy and membership accountability being an ex CWU member now retired I know its already a fact , in agreement on the point of state funding but that will never happen , that died on 13th Dec 2019 and under Starmer there will be zero chance whatsoever of it .He would loose to many of his ” best mates “that fund him.

      5. rob – Surely that’s the whole point, politicians wouldn’t need the donors.

      6. @SteveH I am not debating or arguing with you over the issue of MPs and donors , but with your comment alluding to Union Exc not being subject to accountability or democratic election.They are and indiviual rich donors are accountable to no one .
        Stick to the point .

      7. rob – Which brings us back round to my point about Len’s 6% mandate.

      8. @ SteveH 29/02/2020 at 10:24 pm · ·

        rob – Which brings us back round to my point about Len’s 6% mandate.

        No it does not , it brings us to the conclusion that you are ducking and diving over your original statement alluding to your belief that the Union Exc’s do not face ,in reality , democratic accountability , which in fact is not true and a mistaken one at best ( I avoid using the term lie in this case)

        Unlike wealthy individual donors who buy our MPs and face no accountability whatsoever Unions do and just because the turn out is low does not diminish that vital and immense difference .

        Your referring ot the 6% figure which in reality = 59,000 people who voted for McLusky and that is somewhat larger than many MPs constituency votes in the UK.

        Even if the turn out may be low , disingenuously trying to use that as a reason to negate the principle is preposterous .
        The fact is that the Union membership have the access to and opportunity , as a right , to hold their union Reps to account , is sound and democratic.
        If they choose not to do so that is their problem.

        Now I have wasted enough time going round in circles with you over your diversionary statement re Unions .

        The focus of the article is Nandy and her donors and for that matter much more significant is Starmers non disclosure and less than transparent , all most tantamount dishonest behaviour over his non disclosure of donors in a timely fashion.

  11. Bloomberg shows Starmer how it’s done. Problem is, you cannot make accusations of links to Israel for fear of counter accusations of anti-Semitism.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: