Who's backing Daveboy?

While the Tories wriggle and try to sort out his status (is he really a peer?) I'm not including their multi-millionaire "non-dom" paymaster for their target seats, "Lord" Ashcroft, here.

So who stands to gain most from a General Election victory for the Tories? The sick, the young, the old, the workless and the underpaid and those who fear - usually without real reason - crime on the streets or in their homes? Or the fat cats of the City of London, whose greed and gambling lust, along with those of other international financial finaglers, almost brought a disaster bigger than any earthquake to the world's finances?

I think we know already, but it's worth looking at these extracts from an article by Johann Hari in a recent issue of The Independent

"The financial services industry – you remember: the people who just crashed the global economy – have almost always been part of the Tory tent. They regularly poured funds into the party throughout the 20th century, and hyperventilated with pleasure at the Thatcher revolution, wobbling only when Tony Blair created New Labour. But the hot dish of City cash was always one food group among many for the Tories. They have never been their biggest provider of funds – until now.

"According to the Financial Times, donations from the financial sector have quadrupled on David Cameron's watch to an unprecedented proportion of the party's income. The City has given Cameron £16m since 2006, compared to just £3.7m under the previous three leaders combined.

"It was decades of lobbying and donations from the City that pushed politicians to deregulate almost everything the financial services industry indulged in. Previously impossible scams – from sub-prime mortgages to credit default swaps – became scattered through the system. The resulting economic implosion can be seen in every shuttered window on your high street." (I know; I was there, helping to flog off the Trustee Savings Banks, when Margaret Thatcher set off her "Big Bang" in the City.MB)

"The sector is now fighting a rearguard action against reregulation – using the same tactics and the same arguments. Boris Johnson, the most senior elected Conservative in Britain, has shown the Tory modus operandi: he took large wodges of City cash and told the British people to stop "whingeing" and succumbing to "neo-socialist claptrap". Given a choice between City spin and the facts, he chose the corporate propaganda every time. For example, he claimed the puny 50 per cent top rate of tax would drive 9,000 City workers to Switzerland: in fact, the rate of workers leaving has fallen by 9 per cent. He even still says sub-prime mortgages were a good thing.

"So it's highly significant that Cameron is choosing to fund his run for the premiership with City money, even inhaling funds from hedge funds that engaged in short-selling the collapsing share price of Bradford and Bingley. While he assures the public that he will slap "tough regulations" on this sector, privately he is eager to woo them.

"Speaking recently to the heads of Goldman Sachs, Barclays and an array of hedge funds, he assured them that protecting the City was in his blood, saying: "My father was a stockbroker, my grandfather was a stockbroker, my great-grandfather was a stockbroker." They cheered.

"Cameron claims that he is not affected in any way by the money, but his donors put it differently. Andrew Perloff, of the property speculators Panther Securities, says: 'It's a foot in the door. There is definitely an advantage ... because they know you're a supporter.' "

There is much that I could criticise about today's Labour Party, but in what remains, I believe, a two-horse race, with the Libs Dems, Greens and assorted Little Englanders and Brutish Nationalists trailing well behind the main contenders and dumping their deposits like Grand National jockeys, my money (so far some £200 in subs, donations and raffle tickets; I'm a state pensioner, after all) will be on Gordon Brown to remain our Prime Minister.