´óÏó´«Ã½

It is unbelievable that money can magically appear in the Labour Party coffers without the apparent knowledge of many of the people you would have thought were supposed to be in charge, like the Party Treasurer, General Secretaries, and fund raisers.

The fundental problem is that the Labour Party are desperate for cash it's just like drug addiction - morals go out of the window to feed the need.

Actions speak louder than words.

I wonder whether there is any parallel between the sequence :- Abrahams gives money to various people who give money to the Labour Party and The Labour Government who give money to the Trades Unions who give money - yes - to the Labour Party?

Typical of Nick Robinson and his pro Tory agenda.When is he and much of the media going to approach this type of issue in an even handed manner? How about them acting like decent unbiased journalists and doing some proper party wide investigations.Are you seriously suggesting that the Tory party has nothing to hide?! Oh please!

Is it just me or are other people seeing parallels with the last Conservative government and sleeze?

It appears that there are no senior Labour party officials who have any idea as to what is happening in their own party. Chairman, treasurer, fundraisers etc all seem to have no idea that this had happened. So who actually runs the party?

Some people knew but seemed not to beleive that they needed to amke their concerns known to others. Now we have evidence that the P.M.'s campaign team had put Ms Harman's campaign team onto the donors and that another prospective Deputy P.M. knew what was happening and refused a donation.

I don't believe anything that this lot say anymore.

Nick, would it be possible for you to report things using fair and reasonable language and not the words of the Tory party central office marketing team?

He didn't "bankroll the party", just as much as last month Brown didn't "cancel the election".

Dear 'party in labour',

'Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive'

Can we please now have those much needed prisons ASAP.

The plot thickens!!!!

God I love watching politics! It is such good entertainment, especially when a government is going through its death throes...

This is getting ridiculous. What exactly are you trying to imply? Blog after blog about a relatively insignificant event which was a breach of the law, but which benefitted nobody in either the Government or the Party. Meanwhile you pay no attention to the masterful performance of the Health Secretary before the Select Committee today; presumably you have no interest in good news, or in any of the other important events in the world. Given the silence (or perhaps the absence)of Tory MPs from the Select Committee they have no interest in anything other than scandal either.

THEME: HMRC don't know whose data they lost and are advising people incorrectly.
SITUATION: I receive a widower's pension and have a dependant child, but do not receive a distinct Children's Allowance - it is possible it forms part of my pension, but I really cannot say as the Pensions Department refuses to supply an analysis of how my pension is calculated. When the story first broke, I recognised the application form, so rang the emergency line to check. Without taking personal details, they stated that if I did not receive a distinct Children's Allowance, I was not on the list.
It therefore came as a surprise to receive the personal (unsigned) apology of the acting head of HMRC for disclosing my details today. I therefore rang the helpline.
On calling the helpline, you aree given 2 options, personal data loss queries and anything else.
I therefore chose the former. Having this time supplied my details, I was told that they were unable to access any information from my record, and were only there to give advice: I was told that I had not done what I was supposed to do, to have chosen the other option. I replied that I had done exactly as asked and that if they were incapable of answering the simplest questions, they should get their automatic answering corrected. I don't think my advice to them was much appreciated, as thoughts about chocolate teapots were not far below the surface, and so I rang off to call the other line: needless to say, there was no suggestion of transfering me. I then spent an hour and a half trying to contact the other line, which would answer with a "we're busy, call back later". I eventually got through, and was told that the apology sent to me was probably a mistake. They have been asked to get to the bottom of it and call me back.
It therefore appears that not the problem does not simply concern Child Benefit purely speaking, but any number of other benefits which include a Child provision.
When I called my bank, they were unable to say whether or not they had received any information about whether I was at risk, "it was a massive wave of data and it's all gone into the database somewhere". In other words, when push comes to shove, no, it was too much to handle and some poor soul's got the job of pulling it into some kind of shape (remembering the numbers of people changing banks, branches, names, accounts, you name it...that lost DB was probably out of date before they started anyway. Which doesn't mean that large chunks aren't right, however.
More importantly than that, HMRC seem not to have any idea of what information was actually lost, they're working off broad-brush rules of thumb to advise the public. As they've not naff all to rectify the problem in practice, about the only thing I now believe is the line in the middle of Hartnett's letter, which states "As is usual in these circumstances..."
Might they care to elucidate what they mean by that? Have they done it before, or do they expect to do it again?

Seems nobody knew nothing; not no how; not never....
I smell selective amnesia...

Ofcourse what much of the analysis misses, (unsuprisingly in your case), is that the only rules Labour will have broken are ones they introduced in the first place. Labour toughened alot of laws and this isn't the first time it has hurt them.

Given our votes are cast in secret, and given all the fuss you and others made about the privacy of people's personal details recently, maybe the law is just wrong.

Ofcourse some kind of monitering donors needs to take place. But must it be public?

What will Brown do? Well if he has any sense he'll call in the police. That would keep the evidence from the papers and TV journalists and the police could slap injunctions on the press to stop speculation and 'exclusives'. He will also, if true to form, sacrifice a colleague or two (to keep the others in order and divert attention from himself). Finally, he'll try to throw this back at the Conservatives with a promise of an 'in depth review' of all party funding under an independent commission (consisting, I hope, of a bit more than retired judges and bishops...).

It won't save his reputation, or change much - but given the man and the extent of honour in his government, that's my guess at his next steps. Let's see.

I don't speak for everyone here Nick, but I would like to say that the press and 'political pundits' seem to be making more of this then the bloke down the "pub"...I put that in quotes, because it more like the blokes round the Wii or PS3 these days.

We expect much like the Cash for Honours 'scandal' that never quite was, and the Hutton Report whitewash, this will be another case of people getting worked up and nothing really changing, no one taking responsibility and no one being found guilty of anything.

We laugh and point the finger at Bush 'pardoning' his friend after being convicted, but they had the pretense of a trial and at least pretended that everyone was subject to the same set of rules.

We don't even bother doing that in this country. We just push it into an 'investigation' claim that we can't talk about it anymore because it is being investigated, wait til a bigger and more important issue is at hand and then release a report clearing anyone of any wrong doing.

It is hard to get worked up or bothered about it when you know that is going to happen. It is like watching a football game when you know the score.

Nick,

We are missing something important in this story. On 26th November, Peter Watt produced his statement to the NEC and resigned - following,it is said, reports in the press at the weekend. Where did these reports come from?

Is it too fanciful to suppose that this (a lot of Labour dirty washing being exposed very very publicly) began by leaking from within Labour - and if so, by whom and when precisely?

Blairites on the attack?

Is it beyond the intelligence of political fundraisers to provide donors with the requirements of current legislation and insist that they receive a signed declaration that the gift doesn't breach the rules?
We used to call it protecting your backside.

Nick
The answer to your question ‘ if they didn’t know, who did?’ is very simple. The person who would have known was the then Director of Finance and Compliance at the time of Matt Carter’s time in post. This person would have been responsible for checking donation etc. That person was ... Peter Watt. I think questions around the culture at the Head Office and lack of transparency is key. If they hid this what else? Votes at conference? Selections? Policy contributions? Could it be the Labour Party was pretty rotten on a number of levels?

There is a yawning credibility gap in this story. Abrahams had not donated to Labour since 2002 (in his own name) and yet he was afforded a front row seat when Tony Blair stepped down in Sedgefield. On what basis was he afforded VIP treatment, if not as a top 3 donor? Are we really expected to swallow the line that this was Watt acting alone as a rogue element? The Scotland Yard branch of New Labour will need a very large bucket of whitewash to cover this one up...

The question that I haven't seen answered yet (have I missed it or isn't it being asked?) is WHY? What does Abrahams gain from this? He presumably hasn't been that generous for no reason!

Is either of these scenarios OK?

1. The Labour leadership was fully aware of the detail of what was going on, and they did nothing to stop it.

2. The Labour leadership was NOT aware of the detail of what was going on, because they had deliberately and purposely created a firebreak between themselves and the day-to-day workings of the Party. The entire purpose of creating this situation was to allow shadiness to take place without the risk of it being directly attributable to the leadership.

My view is that, if anything, No 2 is the more sinister, because it creates a situation in which shadiness can go on for ever, as an endless succession of fall-guys is available to carry the can. Moreover, allowing the leadership to profit without responsibility is surely doing everything possible to ensure that our leaders are drawn from precisely the wrong group of people.

The basic truth is things were done that were not in compliance with the law.
The reason that the public doesn't seem as interested in this as the politicos is very simple. It doesn't matter what flavour the government they all act as if the law doesn't apply to them and yet it still does to the man in the street. Why is the public no longer interested in politics and apathetic about voting? Because no matter who is in charge (frankly at the moment it's hard to tell)the public is never treated with respect. State funding of the parties is essential - the winner isn't decided by who's got the most money to spend on a campaign and it restricts how much can be spent. Currently we seem to be heading towards the US system - anybody can be president as long as he has deep enough pockets or influential friends.

Nick,

Have you asked GB how many donations of £15,000 or more he turned down during his re-election campaign? If the answer is one, then it's got to be a significant possibility (or a highly unlikely coincidence) that he or others very very close to him did know.

Nick,

All this money sloshing around, declared and undeclared, legal? and illegal, whats to be done?

I am reminded of all those years ago when Mandelson "forgot" to include a loan from Robinson,(Paymaster General), in excess of £300k, on his mortgage application for that Notting Hill pad.
Seems to me that money, cash, loot etc., do not go together, or sit well with NuLab. They all get forgetful, want too much of it, and don't appear to be too ethical over matters.
Perhaps i'm wrong or being too cynical, or too demanding?.

You can find a pic of me with a former Deputy Chairman of the Tory Party and his wife if you look hard I think, but some conclusions you may draw might obtain the attentions of a solicitor.

I am sure Nick Robinson might well say the same.

Jim Brant - get real and get your biased head out of the sand! If the Tories had done such a thing, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is how the Labour party could reasonably believe that someone employed as a secretary (Janet Kidd), could afford to give £190,000 over this period of time, and a builder could afford to give around the same amount.

I can't help but think that 'not realising' that these people were proxies is a fairly dubious claim, given their respective occupations. This is compounded by the fact that these two people donated money on the same day on 3 occasions.

"LATEST: Peter Hain admits he failed to register a £5,000 donation to deputy leader campaign."

I suggest an early closing of Parliament and sending the MP's to Night School.

My end of term report on them all-

Lazy, lamentable and languid.

And they are the good points!

F minus - must try harder.

Some 25 years have passed since the bungled break-in at the Watergate hotel, a so-called "third-rate burglary," triggered a first-rate national crisis whose consequences still colour politics. Like many other political scandals, Watergate grew to encompass far more than just the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

Mr Brown's leadership campaign was sent a cheque for £5,000 by Mrs Kidd, one of Mr Abrahams' intermediaries, but say that they destroyed it because nobody in the campaign team knew who she was.

This sounds quite implausible. Why not simply return the cheque? Why destroy it?

Every piece of information has had to be 'extracted' by force from this administration. Every comment uttered breeds more questions.

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Could this become Brown's Watergate?

Are the commenters saying "there is nothing to see here" serious? It is pretty basic logic: People should not be able to buy our lawmakers, therefore the real donors of all the significant amounts of money they receive must be named. This is not administrative trivia, this is defence of our democratic rights.

This is not a demonstration on why political party funding must "urgently" be reformed. As I see it, there is nothing wrong with the current 2003 Act of Parliament.

What this is about is Labour being caught with the proverbial hands in the till and they are desperately flaying around to spin out of this situation.

Hazel Blears says this is causing the public to think badly on politics. - Please Ms Blears, this is not a political issue per se - this is a Labour party problem, one in which YOUR party is bringing the good name of British politics into disrepute.

Out of curiosity, given the financial arms race between Labour and Conservatives, how do the Tories raise their money?

Just as an aside

Did David Abrahams take the lead role in the Stuart Little films

Brown wanted to clean up politics [as Blair did!] Ignoring the obvious comments, just how can he keep Wendy et al in a job in order to protect Harriet - and let everyone else go to ground.

So we want to clean things up in the interest of politics, but only if it doesn't affect me.
We want accountability, but not from me and mine.
We want to clean up party funding, as long as is doesn't mean I get less money.
I want transparency but not when it affects me [still renting the Labour safe house].
I want an all encompassing Government - as long as it only includes those who agree with me.
We want to continue with sleaze allegations [Aitkin 'same old Tories,same old sleaze'] except when they are against me - when they bring politics into unfair disrepute.

Yes Gordon - that's what brings it into disrepute.

What a wally.

Nick

Are you planning to blog and report for a whole week about Lord Ashcroft's refusal to confirm he complied with his undertakings just to balance the issue?

Otherwise the wealth of reporting on a story which boils down to 'something happened which no-one has evidence Brown knew of' might start to adversely and unfairly start to affect public opinion and do the opposition's job for them.

Oh, too late...

Here's an idea for a party funding system:

- Create an independent Political Party Funding Agency. All donations to go through this.
- When you donate, 80% (say) goes to the party of your choice and the remaining 20% goes into a general fund.
- The general fund is distributed among all parties on whatever proportional basis works best (after deducting the running costs of the agency).

Advantages: some degree of fair spread, and it doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny. Plus, the donations could be effectively anonymised. Businessman X can claim to have given David or Gordon a million (nudge-nudge), but can they really prove it sufficiently to get the peerage?)

I do not understand how Hillary Benn can remain in the cabinet.

He admits he knew that Janet Kidd was an impermissible donor, so tore up her cheque.

He did not register this with the electoral commission as a returned donation from an impermissible donor. He is required to do so in law.

Now, no one seems to be talking about him. I am not one for conspiracy theories, but had he acted in accordance with the act, it would have been very easy for anybody either in the Electoral Commission or other researchers to uncover Kidd's larger donations which were accepted by the party, and it would have hit the fan.

On the other hand, if he just tears up the cheque, no one might find out....

Surely he has to be the first MP to fall on his sword, as he has failed to discharge his responsibilities properly. Forget the police etc. this is an issue trustworthiness and competence, and alas he has displayed neither.

The only problem that might arise is that the electorate will become bored with the same old headlines linking Labour and illegality.

Several leading lights have been caught apparently acting illegally over donations.

Peter Mandelson according to some acted in contravention of legislation in respect of his mortgage.

According to many, everyone in the Cabinet (bar Robin Cook) were party to a decision to invade Iraq illegally.

As soon as they are caught, they plead ignorance, innocence, or worse simply say the Conservatives would have done the same. In my view, none of these are sound defences, and I would not expect any judge to regard them as such. Unfortunately, we never seem to get the bandits to a court of law.

Perhaps this time, one or more may well end up facing prosecution. If it were to include Gordon Brown, and his close associates, including a certain Alexander, what wonderful irony that would be.

Ignoring the unspeakable people at the top, I do feel sorry for those that believed in them andinvested so much hope and now find themeselvees covered in doo but still trying to defend it. Next up will be the Tories, lying low as they're much much worse at using the rules to disguise payments through limited whatdyacallits. Get ready to be donated on some more by our "leaders"...

I suspect that all parties have some dirt under the carpet with respect to funding. What amazes me is why they need so much money, even for an internal unopposed election as is the case of Brown and the fair lady north of the border.
Why do the parties need so much money? Teams of pollsters, focus groups and public relation experts are a complete waste. They are go to show that the parties have no principles; they only want what sounds good in the media. If parties returned to basics, that is articulated a set of principles then policies would flow naturally.
Rather than TV adverts why not go out to public and talk to the voters, not hand picked party members but ordinary people. Not sexy enough for them I suspect and no gravy train to retire to when they get kicked out.

Surely what we need is for all these donors to carry on giving their money, and then for the pot to be split between the parties....

Everyone wins!!

Somewhere, in an archive, is a photograph of me with Liam Fox, the Tory defence spokesman, on the terrace of the House of Commons taken when I arranged a visit to parliament for my 6th form students. Spool forward a few years and on a number of Saturdays in recent months, any sharp eyed observer could have seen me in my local Tescos chatting with said Tory defence spokesman - usually about the rising price of wine - dig a little deeper and an opinion pollster could have discovered for the past 25 years I've voted green. What should political pundits make of all this ? I havent the foggiest idea, but I suppose the lame excuse that I live near Liam Fox MP is totally out of the question !

'CASH' for Honours enquiry.

Day 1: police ask for the Labour Party Paying in Book.
Day 2: police 'INVESTIGATE' large and/or regular donations.

£1.4M later...

no problems here then !!!!!

Surely a thorough enguiry would have quickly identified the Abraham fiasco.
So why was it missed?