It seems everyone but Alliance said no to back dating publication of donors’ names…

Okay, this is just an anonymous source, so treat accordingly, but it does appear to make some sense on why donations were not backdated to the earliest possible time…

…a senior Government source last night told the Belfast Telegraph that three other main parties also opposed making donors’ names from 2014 up until now public.

“The Secretary of State wrote to all the parties in January asking them for their views on backdating the publication of donors’ names. Everyone but Alliance said no.”

I take it that comprises only those parties eligible to take seats in the Executive since the Greens have been campaigning for transparency around donorship…

  • Boyne

    Not overly concerned about who donates to who, this should be be private if the donors choose such. What I would say is this, if publication of such donors was backdated it would be a betrayal of their privacy as at the time they were making them they assumed there would be public anonymity.

  • aquifer

    Why ask the parties, this is a matter of state security. Unless the Tories think that it is fine for our political system to become a plaything of foreigners with spare cash and intent. BR-exit was bought, and the DUP sold out our prosperity, safety, and the environment.

  • Barneyt

    At least there is some level of consensus, albeit for perhaps dubious intent. Does anyone have the will and energy to pursue this when we can’t determine who said what, where and why regarding the ILA and other matters. The lack of willingness to backdate perhaps provides the answers anyhow and maybe we should be thankful that that from here on in there will be some level of accountability. I believe there is still a debate regarding the level of donation that will be declared? 750 seems about right if we are really trying to clean this up.

  • Granni Trixie

    Surely it’s time to advance beyond ‘transitional’ accountability? The SOS is demonstrating he sees us as still a place apart from the rest of the UK and has lost an opportunity to show he is not influenced By the May-DUP deal.

  • Reader

    Hmm, so SF opposed backdating of the list. That would make the following outburst by SF utterly hypocritical:
    I’m shocked.

  • I’m sure the Auditor General will be delighted