Ben Elliot, the Conservative co-chairman, has come under scrutiny in recent days amid claims of blurred lines between the activities of the party and of businesses in which he has a stake. A Conservative official has insisted that the activities of Quintessentially, the luxury concierge company founded by Mr Elliot, are separate from those of the party. However, as we report today, an email sent from Mr Elliot’s Quintessentially account discusses an event at which a donor would meet members of the government. The email was copied to a co-director of another of Mr Elliot’s private companies, Hod Hill, and to senior figures at Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ).
Even supposing Mr Elliot is acting scrupulously, voters are being kept in the dark about what high-value donors are getting for their money as they are shuttled between his private firms and Conservative campaign headquarters. He needs to come clean about the nature of his companies and the overlap between their activities and those of CCHQ, as well as who has been given access to Boris Johnson and other senior ministers.
Political fundraising is the price taxpayers pay for not having to bankroll parties’ campaigning. Caps on spending and laws that regulate donors and require them to be identified are supposed to limit the potential for corruption. A string of revelations about Mr Elliot’s activities call into question whether these mitigations are sufficient.
Mr Elliot was appointed to his party role two years ago despite having little political experience. As the co-owner of Quintessentially he had the contacts and the skill in using them that Boris Johnson needed, but the dangers of transposing this business model direct to CCHQ ought to have been obvious from the start. Extraordinarily, we are only starting to know the full picture because of a soured relationship with one customer. Thanks to Mohamed Amersi, a telecoms millionaire and longstanding client of Quintessentially, we know CCHQ runs an ultra-high-end donors’ club, the Advisory Board, which guarantees monthly meetings with Mr Johnson and Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, for those who typically give £250,000 or more to the Conservatives.
Quintessentially offered select clients access to Covid diagnostics early in the pandemic even as ministers and official scrambled to source the tests to curb the spread of the disease. And now, thanks to Mr Amersi, we start to see the extent to which Mr Elliot mixes his concierge services to the wealthy and his political activities.
Advertisement
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with business figures meeting politicians. Nor should donating to political parties bar access to politicians. But the lines between commerce and politics need to be open to scrutiny. Mr Elliot has so far declined to explain the nature of Hod Hill’s business or the relationship between its employee Jakob Widecki and CCHQ. Mr Johnson bears ultimate responsibility for the activities of his chairman that, lest it be forgotten, include arranging for a donor to meet the initial costs of his flat redecoration. The prime minister, however, seems incurious about Mr Elliot or how he raises record sums for the Conservative Party. He may take the view that the less he knows the better but this would be a mistake.
At a minimum CCHQ and Mr Elliot should disclose full details about Hod Hill and what arrangements are in place to ensure there can be no conflict of interest between it and Quintessentially, and his work as party chairman. Additionally CCHQ should disclose the membership of the Advisory Board and any other donors’ clubs, along with a list of meetings with senior ministers. For the future, MPs debating the Elections Bill currently going through parliament should consider campaign spending limits. If there was less advantage to parties building up election war chests they might be less tempted to proffer access to leaders.
