Remaining questions
So now we have and the letter he sent to David Abrahams (below). We now have confirmed that a second senior Labour official knew about secret donations to Labour.
However, questions still remain:
• How long did he know for?
• Why did he apparently tell no-one else - either the authorities or anyone in his party?
• And why did it take him so long to get around to contacting the man behind those secret donations with - we're told - the intention of halting the payments?
Labour's chief fundraiser's answer, it would seem, is that his eye was on the future and he believed that his then boss - the general secretary of the party who had to resign - had taken care of the past. It is now clear that that was not the case.
Unlike the alleged sale of cash for honours there appears to be little doubt in this case that the law has been broken. The prime minister has himself said as much. All that remains to be seen is whether the Electoral Commission will actually propose a prosecution, whether the police will set up their own inquiry and how many other people will be revealed as knowing about this scandal.
Words of condemnation, a swift resignation, and an internal inquiry have not halted the damage which only has the potential to grow.
I'm 
Comments
Why is Hillary Ben not being challenged? Ok, he declined the donation because he suspected something was not right, on this basis surely he knew too and had an obligation to report it?
Boring!
The phrase "any time that your diary allows" in Mandelsohn's above letter to Abrahams certainly doesn't indicate any sense of urgency.
Nick
I have heard you putting forward a possible explanation as to how Baroness Jay knew the money was from Abraham... along the lines of a conversation with Abrahams where he may have suggested contributing through a 3rd party, which was rejected in favour of a direct donation.
I know you were just surmising but the ´óÏó´«Ã½ website claims...
"What his spokesman said: "We did not accept it because we felt that if Mr Abrahams wanted to make a donation he should do so in his own name. We returned the cheque."
It is clear that a cheque was received - and returned. It was not just a discussion as to how the monies might be paid to them. The monies were paid by cheque, but returned.
How did Baroness Jay know from the cheque that it was Abrahams money?
If they want us to think they are straight why do they reveal info just before PMQs? Media management the first priority.
The enquiry by Gordon's cronies? Just kicking it in to the long grass more like!
We are all just sick of them.
This is going to get very messy for the government. How can the police not investigate? The one person who knows who knew about this has been forced to resign and will be threatened with prosecution. Will he take a bullet for Brown? If not, there will be cabinet level resignations when he tells all. It will be the cover-up that gets them.
This is not Watergate. It is a minor procedural error like parking on a double yellow line. Why do the Tories and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ treat it like Watergate? Big deal someone gave secret money to the labour party. But it was just secret. Not fishy.
Where were the hollier than though Tories in the nineties?
This not corruption or sleaze. Think about it.
By any stretch, Nick, £650000 is a fair old sum to be donated by a single individual to a political party, for no apparent return...
You're being played like a fish now, Nick: Abrahams said the original letter was in Mendelsohn's own hand - listen to the Newsnight recording once again. This is printed, it's either a transctipt or the entire thing's a forgery.
If he wanted to donate money through a third party that no one recognizes, he should have donated it via the Lib Dems.
Nick, you talk about 'secret donations to Labour'. you make it sound like the Labour Party has been receiving money that nobody knew about. I think you should apologise and clarify your position because this is not the case at all. Someone reasing this bog could get completely the wrong idea what this is all about. The issue is where the money came from, not that the money exists. As far as I'm aware, every single penny has been registered with the Electoral Commission and has been filed in all relevant Labour Party accounts.
Nick, you're in danger of falling into the tabloid trap: getting things out of all proportion. And what's worse than that, you say in a previous blog that you made a mistake because you were tired and high on adreniline. Imagine how much worse it is if you're Harriet Harman in her campaign for deputy leader. You can easily think something's been checked when it hasn't, or trust someone when you shouldn't. Put yourself in their position for a change and you'll see that actually it really isn't that serious. The UK is now in a mindset of attacking and blaming the government. Fine, but as an impartial ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalist, you must not be party to that. I'm not saying for a second you shouldn't be reporting this, but stick to the facts, don't mislead, and don't create hysteria. You're not Sky News.
Nick, there are so many members of the Government, and the Labour party, whose first statement (about anything faintly embarrassing) appears be "I know nothing" that you could do this county a favour if you could recommend a specialist in Alzheimer's disease to treat them.
Englsih Grammar prevents a preposition completing a sentence.
Therefore...
"How long did he know for"
Should be
"For how long did he did he know"
Pedantic I know but as WS Churchill said "That is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put"
Otherwise keep the pressure up.
Talking of timing, I wonder what prompted this to become public now ?
Given that most people are saying 'I know nothing', why isn't it still secret ? There was once talk of a November election ...
While we all ponder the ramifications of party political funding problems, it's interesting to note the tone of the exchanges today. I wonder if the Honourable Leader of HM Opposition would care to repeat his comments on Mr Brown's character outside the House of Commons? I suspect I'm not the only one to think that his highly personal and very aggressive attack on the PM does nothing to encourage public interest in politics, or non-voters to take a serious interest. [I'm not a Labour supporter, by the way.] Is this what Mr Cameron means by 'leaving Punch and Judy politics behind'? I noted the discomfiture on the faces around him today. Such OTT performances do little to convince people that he is a potential PM. Clearly no party leader can know ALL that is undertaken in his party's name; what he can do is work at eradicating unsatisfactory behaviour, and that he has undertaken to do. Perhaps Mr. Cameron might take a leaf out of HIS book.
There are many more questions surely - if Mr Abrahams gifted the money to these people as we are led to believe, then the Labour Party must be giving the money back to the donors not Mr Abrahams. Labour have no right to give it back to him as he has gifted the money.
There's a problem for the PM and Mr Abrahams. What will the Tax man be doing?
And what about the discrepancies over the letter itself? Handwritten or printed? Does your picture show the original or is this some sort of artwork produced in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ or elsewhere?
If it's the latter than that is misrepresentation in itself!
What no one seems to have reported is exactly what the "unlawful" activity is? Is it receiving the donation and not declaring it correctly which is the crime? Is this an individual crime or one for the Party (and its leader!) Does it matter if you didn't know where it came from? Is a donation to Harriet Harman different from a donation to Labour? In short is making the donation in this way a crime? What's the penalty for all this. We seem to know more about the law on naming teddy bears in the Sudan than about this. Come on ´óÏó´«Ã½ - some facts!!
Am I missing something? It's all very well everyone saying "Oh, sorry. I didn't realise it was illegal" as if that made everything ok. But what happened to the age old premise that ignorance of the law was no defence?
Nick
Why should Members of the Public even bother to report suspected illegal activity to the Police when our own Prime Minister, who has acknowledged that the donations to the Labour Party were illegal, fails to do HIS duty as a law abiding Citizen.
Well Nick what do you make of the latest claim that yet another Labour party computer has details on software called "Raisers Edge" of all contacts with donors?
It initially made me think this sounds like a real cock up but then my mind turned to Occams Razor. Often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony" it might not initially seem appropriate here.
However in its usual context "the simplest answer is often the best" suggests that "Oh yes they knew" and all the complexity is about obfuscation.
Now can the police move faster than the delete button and disk scrubbers or will there be "Watergate like" gaps in the transcripts.
Methinks I spy a prime minister about to join the select ranks of those that never won an election. Only two in the last 100years!
What no one seems to have reported is exactly what the "unlawful" activity is? Is it receiving the donation and not declaring it correctly which is the crime? Is this an individual crime or one for the Party (and its leader!) Does it matter if you didn't know where it came from? Is a donation to Harriet Harman different from a donation to Labour? In short is making the donation in this way a crime? What's the penalty for all this. We seem to know more about the law on naming teddy bears in the Sudan than about this. Come on ´óÏó´«Ã½ - some facts!!
If Labour keep digging themselves deeper into this hole, it is surely only a matter of time before they reach the core of planet earth.
Seriously, how can so many people be so incompetent?
Dear Nick,
Too many questions, and not enough forthcoming answers.
Obviously time for at least one, or several, official enquiries.
Possibly even a fully tax-payer funded police investigation.
Then we can get the CPS to give due consideration to all the evidence, and find that nothing can be proven.
Further to this the official enquiries can then release their findings, failing to condemn anyone in particular, but advising several changes to future legislation.
Each of those involved in the process can then give their individual views, including the outrageous accusations that nobody would answer a straight question!
By best estimate this process should run it's course in May 2009.
DEJA VU, anybody??
Who gives a damn?
Is this the 'hand-written' letter that Abrahams spoke about or is there another?
It certainly does not tally with Mendelsohn's excuse that he wanted to cut donor relations with Abrahams.
Nick. I honestly don't get it, why is this issue so important? I am not saying it is unimportant but I thought David Cameron looked a bit ridiculous in the commons yesterday and Goerge Osbornes sanctimonious tone on Radio 4 seemed out of proportion to me and really quite noticably jarring. I realised later that he reminded me of Flashman in Tom Browns Schooldays, I can't recall a politician in recent times sounding so obviously 'superior' in that way.
There are so many questions to be asked, is this money "after-tax" money,how was it earned,is it legitimate or could it come from crime or money-laundering. Ordinary people are subjected to such a barrage of questions about payments starting as low as £5000 that the way these contributions were handled has to be suspicious
Jon Mendelsohn, we are told, did not like Mr Abrahams. Well, hey that letter is full of warmth and respect to 'one of the party's strongest supporters'. If you were not happy with the way donations were being sent (ie via proxy donors) would you not hint that a discussion on this issue maybe appropriate in the very near future ?
You are right to ask what about the communications with the proxy donors. Did anyone phone Janet and invite her to a meeting ' as one of the Party's strongest supporters' ?
Why isn't the funding of leadership contests controlled centrally so that rules could not be breached ? What role did the General Secretary take in the Dep Leadership campaigns ? What advice did he provide to the candidates and other fundraisers ? This now boils down to the culture in the Labour Party since 2003 on issues relating to fundraising and accepting donations.
Is Abrahams the only example ?
Puzzling !
I think there is another question, Nick. Hilary Benn also found out the donation to his campaign was 'second-hand.' Supposedly he was advised by Baroness Jay. How did she know?
That is not to say that Mr Benn acted with anything other than the utmost propriety but it does beg the question how they were able to correctly identify the true source of the money - something whicch appears to have escaped so many others.
Political donations should be banned, with finance sought from taxpayers, monitored by an independent parliamentary body. Government conduct and policy will thus be directed without any strings attached. We are all human and tend to respond more positively to entities or individuals who we stand to benefit from. The current system does democracy no favours.
Er.... wasn't the note Abrahams spoke of receiving described as 'in his own hand'?
Either Mendelsohn's got remarkably good handwriting or we are being led to believe....what?
The original was hand-written, according to Abrahams
Nick,
This whole sorry series of intertwined sagas demonstrates only that there are enough people out there whose attention span is extremely short, or who are willing to be fooled all of the time. Why do we still have these horrendous characters in office?
If there is anyone who still thinks this government is doing a good job, please ask yourself these two questions. What would it take for you to agree that GB & Co are incompetent? When do you think they will get around to satifying the criteria in your first answer?
I can, however, hope that this time a full police investigation will result in prosecutions and that the media will not fall for the oft repeated tactic of attempting to shoot the messenger. Perhaps even the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will report the process without giving credence to malicious stories about the key players such as happened to Yates of the Yard last time around.
the letter shown in the article is a typed letter.
abrahams indicated in his interview with paxman that he had received a hand written letter.
so is the letter shown in the article simply a mock up of the letter?
was it provided to the bbc by abrahams or by the labour party.
are there in fact two letters?
I've not heard any indication how long these enquiries are going to last? How long is it going to take before the reports are due?
I've not heard any indication on how long these enquiries are going to take. Are there any deadlines?
Jon Mendelsohn, we are told, did not like Mr Abrahams. Well, hey that letter is full of warmth and respect to 'one of the party's strongest supporters'. If you were not happy with the way donations were being sent (ie via proxy donors) would you not hint that a discussion on this issue maybe appropriate in the very near future ?
You are right to ask what about the communications with the proxy donors. Did anyone phone Janet and invite her to a meeting ' as one of the Party's strongest supporters' ?
Why isn't the funding of leadership contests controlled centrally so that rules could not be breached ? What role did the General Secretary take in the Dep Leadership campaigns ? What advice did he provide to the candidates and other fundraisers ? This now boils down to the culture in the Labour Party since 2003 on issues relating to fundraising and accepting donations.
Is Abrahams the only example ?
Puzzling !
Nice, it even has a punctuation error!
(Labour party correspondence, of course - none noted on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ written parts of this particular page).
I don't see where in the letter Jon says "oh and by the way I'd like you to start writing cheques using your own name"
so 'unhappy' Jon doesn't appear to have been that unhappy about the donations. His statement is just post dated spin.
The Daily Telegraph reported this letter using the phrase "past" instead of "passed". Has this letter bean doctored?
Political donations should be banned, with finance sought from taxpayers, monitored by an independent parliamentary body. Government conduct and policy will thus be directed without any strings attached. We are all human and tend to respond more positively to entities or individuals who we stand to benefit from. The current system does democracy no favours.
Too many questions, and not enough forthcoming answers.
Obviously time for one, or several, official enquiries.
Almost certainly a, fully tax-payer funded, police investigation.
Then we can get the CPS to give due consideration to all the evidence, and find that nothing can be proven.
Further to this the official enquiries can then release their findings, failing to condemn anyone in particular, but advising several changes to future legislation.
Each of those involved in the process can then give their individual views, including the outrageous accusations that nobody would answer a straight question!
By best estimate this process should run its course in May 2009.
No way should the public purse fund political parties. That would reinforce the trend towards a political class - people who know nothing except politics, are of untested ability and responsible to no one.
We need individuals responsible (or seeking to be responsible) to an electorate and sufficiently admired and supported that some of the electorate are prepared to fund their campaigns. Such people are likely to be of proven ability, to have demonstrated responsibility and to be thought to be honest enough for their supporters to back them. And they should record and report all such donations as they occur; and there should be a caps on them, both annual and for any election.
If you can't raise the money for your campaign, then you are insufficiently able and persuasive to be suitable to represent an electorate.
John Pienaar states that Hilary Benn had declined a donation from Mrs Kidd towards his deputy leadership bid because he was told by Baroness Jay that the real source was Mr Abrahams. Have you been able to find out how she knew?
How many big donations did GB turn down? One? If so then it beggars belief that he did not know.