Why did Universal Music donate £10k to the Tory party?

Multinational media giant Vivendi has steered clear of taking political sides, until now.

The Sun had an interesting scoop yesterday. The Tory party sold a backstage pass to a Justin Bieber concert at a charity auction for £10,000. Tom Newton Dunn writes:

The meeting with Canadian Justin was sold to the highest bidder at an auction at the Tories’ annual Black and White Party to raise cash for future election campaigns…

Access to the star at his concert at London’s O2 on March 7 was donated by Universal Music UK, his record label in Britain.

But while the involvement of Bieber does make the story funnier, the real question is why Universal Music UK was making what is essentially a £10,000 in-kind-donation to the Tory Party.

Neither Mercury Records, the subsidiary of Universal Music UK which publishes Justin Bieber, nor Vivendi, the French media giant which owns Universal, were able to explain in time for publication why — or whether — the donation was made.

Corporate donations to political parties are legal and uncapped in the UK, but this would be the first time Mercury, Universal or Vivendi — whichever level of the organisation made the donation — had donated to the Conservatives since 2005 at least (when Search the Money's records begin). The company has a number of socially aware artists on its roster, including Kate Nash, K'naan and the Jam, none of whom are likely to be happy about learning that their concerts could become fundraisers for the Tories without their permission.

Bieber. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.