By: rogerglewis

rogerglewis — Fri, 24 Jan 2020 07:17:12 +0000

Roger Lewis
January 20, 2016 ·
Of the 415 M. P.’s on the Conservative side in 1938, 44 percent (or 181) were
corporation directors, and these held 775 directorships. As a result, almost every
important corporation had a director who was a Conservative M. P. These M. P.’s did not
hesitate to reward themselves, their companies, and their associates with political favors.
In eight years (1931-1939) thirteen directors of the “Big Five banks” and two directors of
the Bank of England were raised to the peerage by the Conservative government. Of
ninety peers created in seven years (1931-1938), thirty-five were directors of insurance
companies. In 1935 Walter Runciman, as president of the Board of Trade, introduced a
bill to grant a subsidy of £2 million to tramp merchant vessels. He administered this fund,
and in two years gave £92,567 to his father’s company (Moor Line, Ltd.) in which he held
21,000 shares of stock himself. When his father died in 1937 he left a fortune of
£2,388,453. There is relatively little objection to activities of this kind in England. Once
having accepted the fact that politicians are the direct representatives of economic
interests, there would be little point in objecting when politicians act in accordance with
their economic interests. In 1926 Prime Minister Baldwin had a direct personal interest in
the outcome of the coal strike and of the General Strike, since he held 194,526 ordinary
shares and 37,591 preferred shares of Baldwin’s, Ltd., which owned great collieries.
The situation of 1938 was not much different from the situation of forty years earlier
in 1898 except that, at the earlier date, the Conservative Party was subject to an even
more centralized control, and the influence of industrial wealth was subordinated to the
influence of landed wealth. p.400 Tragedy and hope. History rhyming again ?

Comments on: Cricket, Brexit and The Rules of The Game

By: rogerglewis