大象传媒

2008 has begun with both parties wracked with uncertainty.

Today the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke has put into print what many in his party feel. Labour, he writes for Prospect * magazine, is suffering from "debilitating" uncertainty about its policy direction under Gordon Brown. The party, he goes on, wasted much of this parliament focusing on the succession struggle and could lose the next election unless it shows greater "clarity, decisiveness and a lucid sense of direction".

Other memorable quotes are:

"Labour has wasted much of the first half of this parliament. With some exceptions, our action to make the necessary changes has been insufficient. And now it seems to me that Labour still remains very unclear about our approach, both in this parliament and the next."

And:

"By now people are entitled to expect Labour to know what works, and not to need short-term reviews and pilots. Now, above all, we need clarity in each policy area. The current uncertainties are widespread, debilitating and give ammunition to our opponents." Ouch.

Lest you think that the Tories have no such worries, think again. David Cameron, I'm told, has been deeply frustrated that he's struggled to make news since the beginning of the year. Hence, his desperation yesterday to seize the credit for the scrapping of the police "stop" form and a .

All this, though, must pale into insignificance compared with his reaction to the with all its reminders of the Tory image Cameron has worked so hard to expunge.

I can't eradicate from my mind a terrible idea. Could Conway - who tried to stop Cameron becoming leader, who dubbed his mates 鈥榯he Notting Hill set鈥� and condemned their out of touch liberal metropolitan ways 鈥� have decided on one final desperate act to destroy the modernisation project albeit whilst destroying himself at the same time? Could he be the modern day political equivalent of a kamikaze pilot?

No, you're right, that's a grotesque idea. How the mind plays tricks...

PS: I hesitated for reasons of taste to dub Derek Conway a political suicide bomber, only to learn that that phrase is already doing the rounds amongst Conservative MPs.

* Apologies for this. Here's .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Are there more family businesses such as "Conway PLC" earning tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers鈥� money from working in the House of Commons?

The answer is we do not and cannot know. The reason for that is the House of Commons, led by the Speaker, has consistently blocked attempts to reveal basic information such as the names of the staff MPs employ, whether they are their relatives of their employers and what they are paid (see ).

Even those who sympathise with the desire of MPs not to see their staff's salary levels published may wonder why the public cannot know who it is we are paying to employ.

The only information that is available is the list of those with Commons passes who include unpaid helpers and family members who simply want easy access to the building. Thus, the information on last night's Newsnight and in many papers this morning about how many spouses maybe employed has come from scanning the pass list for staff with the same names as their MP and ringing to ask if they are in fact relatives and if they're paid.

Even if we did know which family members were on the payroll there are no checks on what these paid staff do. MPs are issued with guidance on contracts, pay rates and levels of bonuses but there is no audit to check that work is being carried out.

Honourable members are treated as, yes, honourable and, therefore, not requiring checks. The Senior Salaries Review Board recently recommended that this should change.

What this demonstrates is that the current rules did not and could not reveal the existence of the Conway family business. There would have been no investigation if it had not been for a leak of a secret document to the Sunday Times.

What's more, if Conway had not paid his son above the recommended rate for the job and an excessive bonus it鈥檚 unlikely any questions would ever have been asked about whether his son really did the work he was being paid for.

PS: My colleague, Martin Rosenbaum's excellent Freedom of Information blog has followed the story of MPs blocking FOI requests closely.

PPS: More interesting detail on this can be found on blog.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Well, well. David Cameron has changed his mind and is withdrawing the whip from Derek Conway. This is not, I am told, in response to suggestions that the Tory MP paid his second son. It is a delayed reaction to yesterday's revelation of excessive payments to his other son, Freddie, and it follows a conversation between the Conservative chief whip and Mr Conway this morning.

I can only conclude that the Tory leader saw the damage that this story might do to him and his party, and decided that outweighed the damages of taking on Mr Conway which I outlined this morning.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

First an MP is found to his "all but invisible" son in what was, at worst, "a serious diversion of public funds."
Then it emerges that . So why is Derek Conway not in more trouble? There are many small procedural answers and one very big political reason.

鈥� It is not against the rules for MPs to employ members of their families. Indeed, many MPs defend the employment of their wives (it is, almost always wives) as secretaries on grounds of practicality and keeping marriages together when an MP鈥檚 job involves odd hours and travelling between constituencies and Westminster.

鈥� The penalty Conway faces - repayment of up to 拢13,000 and possible suspension for 10 days - is severe compared with those normally handed out by the Commons.

鈥� There has been no investigation yet into the employment - or lack of it - of his second son.

Now comes the political reason:

鈥� Conway is a popular Tory MP who looked set to be his party's Chief Whip if David Davis had become Conservative leader. He was even talked of as a possible Speaker. Although David Cameron might be tempted to make an example of him he would be taking on a powerful coalition consisting of those who never wanted him to be leader plus the parliamentary old guard who regard questions about their allowances as challenging the assumption that all MPs are "honourable members" until proven otherwise (listen to Roger Gale MP's interview on Today this morning).

This, of course, is precisely why Labour's John Mann MP - who has turned into a professional complainer has called on Cameron to act.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"Reform" is one of the most devalued words in politics. It should go into lexographical dustbin along with "radical" and "change".

Consider the issue of welfare "reform". Alarmed by the Tories unveiling of "radical" welfare "reforms", Gordon Brown is today highlighting his own "radical reforms". He and his new welfare secretary, James Purnell, will pledge to introduce proposals recommended by the ex City banker David Freud. This is just, you may recall, what the Tories did a few weeks ago. Freud called for the provision of job search, placement and preparation to be privatised and incentivisised so that voluntary organisations and private companies are rewarded for how successful they are both in getting the unemployed back into work and ensuring that they stay there. Both parties now say they'd do what he called for.

That is not to suggest that there are no differences on welfare policy. Brown's emphasis is on the acquisition of skills. Today, fresh from his sightseeing in India and China, he will talk of a "skills race" replacing the "arms race" as the problem facing modern politicians. He is fond of repeating the claim that Britain has 5 million unskilled workers but will soon only need half a million. Hence, his solutions focus on extending the effective school leaving age, extending the number of apprenticeships and compelling the unemployed to develop their skills.

The Conservatives are, naturally enough, sceptical of some of these grand state interventions and have focussed more on simply getting the unemployed back into any form of work. Hence their proposal for New York style workfare for the persistently unemployed. Although, I note, that they shied away from "radical" (in the true sense of the word) welfare "reforms" like those in Wisconsin which time-limited the payment of benefits.

I well recall Margaret Thatcher's ministers talking of "radical" shake-ups of the welfare state and Tony Blair's promise to "think the unthinkable" on "welfare reform". My conclusion. I'll believe it when I see it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A Cabinet career ended... A police investigation launched... A reputation damaged. All this because a busy Cabinet minister took his eye off the ball and submitted some paperwork late? Well, no, it's not quite that simple.

The principle underlying the law which governs donations to politicians is "transparency" - the simple idea that if we know who's giving how much to whom we can judge whether they're getting any favours in return. The Electoral Commission - which polices the rules - regarded Mr Hain's excuse that he'd been too busy to follow the law - as treating it and them with contempt. The Commission faced a stark choice (as I wrote the other day). They could either tick Peter Hain off and face criticism themselves for being toothless or call in the police and risk triggering his resignation. They chose the latter.

It's an irony that on the day a police investigation into party funding claimed its first victim in the Brown Cabinet that Lord Levy announced he was publishing his memoirs.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There are important differences between the cases of Peter Hain and those of Gordon Brown's deputy, , and Labour's Scottish leader, , who are still awaiting the verdicts of the Electoral Commission.

The most obvious difference is scale. over 拢100,000 whereas Harriet Harman's deputy leadership campaign accepted a much smaller sum, 拢5000, from a proxy for David Abrahams and Wendy Alexander accepted just 拢950 from a Jersey-based businessman who was not a "permissible donor".

Hain was regarded within the Electoral Commission as holding the law in contempt when he said he'd not met his obligations because he was too busy being a minister at the time and had left his declarations to his campaign staff.

Harman, in contrast, said she took the money in "good faith" and couldn't have known the original source. If the Commission accept this she will be cleared although she could face criticism for making insufficient checks on donations.

Alexander originally admitted to breaking the law and would, therefore, appear to be in a very similar position to Hain. Indeed the SNP are now saying that, like Hain, she should resign. However, after she studied her campaign paperwork, Labour's Scottish leader changed her story and said she did not knowingly break the law as she had accepted assurances from her campaign that the donation was, in fact, permissible. If the Electoral Commission accepts her version of events then she will not face a police investigation though others might. The Commission's verdict is expected next week.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

He jumped. He wasn't pushed. That is the word coming from Downing Street about Peter Hain. The decision was, we're told, his own in response to the decision of the Electoral Commission to call in the police to investigate the former minister's failure to comply with the electoral law.

Mr Hain always insisted that once he'd discovered the accounts for his Deputy leadership campaign were in disarray he'd admitted it and ensured that everything was revealed - albeit late - to the Electoral Commission. This account has two problems.

Firstly, it reveals that he did not take his legal duty to produce accurate accounts seriously. Secondly, the accounts he did produce revealed the existence of a mystery think tank which had been used to channel donations to Mr Hain's campaign. He never agreed to answer any questions about this or to give an account as to why this arrangement had been set up.

Mr Hain's resignation is a reminder that there is an ongoing police investigation into the Labour Party's use of proxy donations and Electoral Commission enquiries into the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Wendy Alexander (for taking a foreign donation) and Labour's Deputy leader Harriet Harman (for taking a proxy donation).

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The prime minister's chief of staff Tom Scholar is leaving Downing Street to be replaced by the man who was Tony Blair's principal private secretary, Jeremy Heywood.

The move is an effort to strengthen the organisation of No 10 which has been criticised for poor organisation and slow decision making ever since Mr Brown became prime minister. Mr Heywood will now be the senior civil servant inside No 10 working alongside another recent appointment Stephen Carter, the ex-boss of Ofcom, who was recently appointed as the PM's senior political adviser.

Mr Scholar is returning to the Treasury to carry out an important job as managing director, international issues and finance. That means that he will be in charge of domestic and global markets and institutions, taking responsibility for efforts to secure greater co-ordination between international institutions and governments to prevent another crisis like that caused by the credit crunch.

Mr Heywood was head of domestic policy and strategy for Mr Brown and so now moves from the cabinet office to No 10.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

(This is a corrected version of my earlier entry).

Tony Blair regarded ID cards as an election winner. He pledged that legislation to make them compulsory would form a . Under Gordon Brown it now looks clear that will be no such pledge.

Any decision on compulsory ID cards could be delayed until after 2020 even if ministers stay committed to the scheme and there is no change in government and technological problems, concerns about cost and shifting public attitudes don't cause yet more delays.

The home secretary was due to publish a timetable for introducing ID cards any week now. The Tories have now obtained what appears to be a leaked version of that timetable. It shows that although the first ID cards will be issued according to the old timetable (2008 for foreign nationals and 2009 for British citizens) the issuing of significant numbers of ID cards will be delayed from 2010 to 2012. This, in turn, delays any decision on compulsion.

Most people will be issued with ID cards when they apply for what are called "second generation passports" (ie those which carry our fingerprints). It is the introduction of these which looks set to be delayed until 2012. Ministers have promised a fresh vote in Parliament on whether to make ID cards compulsory and stated that that vote would only take place once voluntary take up was complete.

Since 80% of us have passports and since they have to be renewed every 10 years you can calculate that 80% of the British public would have an ID card within 10 years of these fingerprint passports being introduced ie 2022. Now, of course, it's possible that the advantages of having such a document may persuade some to apply earlier than necessary so that figure might be reached. Senior Home Office sources tell me it will be at least seven or eight years before compulsion is an issue - ie 2015 or later. In other words, if ministers can help it, it will not be an issue at the next election but, at the earliest, the one after that.

Ministers may well insist that this is nothing to do with politics and simply a reflection of a new assessment of the readiness of the systems for implementing ID cards. That is only a part of the story. Those EU countries in the are preparing to introduce fingerprint passports in 2009. Britain originally planned to go along with that timetable. It is a political decision not to do so which could save ministers money and Labour votes.

A recent for the Telegraph showed for the first time more voters against ID cards than in favour (48% against versus 43% in favour). When the ID scheme was first proposed by the Government in 2003, YouGov found 78% supported it and just 15% were opposed. There can be little doubt that this has followed the .

Do not assume, however, that this means that ID cards are being abandoned completely. Ministers say that Tony Blair sold ID cards as good in themselves whereas Gordon Brown wants to stress the problems for which they may be a solution eg illegal immigration, terrorism and checking the identity of public servants in sensitive posts. He may be content to introduce the scheme slowly and at a lower cost believing that the public will slowly come to accept the need and the value of documents which confirm their identity.

PS: This is not the first time ID cards have been delayed. In 2004 the then Home Secretary David Blunkett stated that "within three years (ie 2007) I hope that we'll have started implementing it". They still have not. He went on to say that "within seven years (ie 2011) we'd start to move towards a position where people would have generally, across the whole population, have got an ID card. At that point we've agreed that we'll present a report to Parliament on how it's working, the objectives of compulsion and at that point we'll have a vote in both Houses of Parliament."

(Source: Breakfast with Frost - 25 April 2004)

The ID Cards Bill was delayed by the 2005 election which meant the Act setting up ID cards was not passed until 2006. The Strategic Action Plan published that year stated that:

- from 2008 the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) will issue biometric identification to foreign nationals (it still will).

- from 2009 the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) will issue ID cards for British citizens (it still will).

And:

- from 2010 IPS will issue significant volumes of ID cards alongside British passports (that is what looks set to change).

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The tour is over. In Delhi, as in Beijing, Gordon Brown has said things his hosts wanted to hear - today calling for India to get a place on the UN Security Council. He believes that Britain's relationship with India and China will be as important for our prosperity as the relationship with Europe and the United States.

He is not alone in seeking to woo these countries. This weekend President Sarkozy will be in Delhi joining in the celebrations of India's National Day. The Indian press is already more gripped by the arrival of and her possible visit to the Taj Mahal than by anything the Browns have said and done. Monsieur le President was in Beijing before Christmas and he made a trip to see the terracotta warriors.

Reporting on Sarko must be much much easier than reporting on a man who is uncomfortable doing photo opps and sees questions as a risk not an opportunity. Who's doing better for their country will only become clear some time from now.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

DELHI: "A shining example to the world of our shared faith in free institutions, free markets and free societies".

Thus Gordon Brown has praised India in a speech which recognises this country's growing economic and political power and backs India's call for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

What is less clear is how or when this would happen or what precisely it would mean. There are four countries well placed to get seats at an expanded international top table - Brazil, Germany and Japan as well as India.

Each faces opposition eg China fears Japanese membership whilst some European countries want an EU seat not one for a third EU member state.

Team Brown hints that it might back membership for India before the other three but cannot answer questions about whether she would have the same status and veto powers as the other permanent UN members (ie UK, China, France, Russia and USA) or whether she would be the first member of a second tier (which her politicians may well regard as second rate).

Today's speech also spells out in more detail the Brown vision of a new world order in which :
* an expanded UN would have a rapid reaction force to ensure rapid reconstruction once conflicts end and combine traditional peacekeeping with stabilisation, recovery and development.
* a reformed World Bank would fund low carbon economic development.
* a reformed IMF would promote greater transparency and monitoring in order to defend economic stability from shocks like last summer's credit crunch.

(. [Word document])

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

DELHI: The Brown tour has touched down in India after a two day sprint round China which left even Kelly Holmes - accompanying the PM to promote sporting links - exhausted. The message here is that the partnership between Britain - the world's oldest democracy - and India - the world's largest democracy - is one between equals. He will call for greater co-operation between the two countries to combat terrorism and offer more aid to assist India's development.

The Prime Minister will repeat Britain's call for India to be given a seat on the UN Security Council in a speech tomorrow which will echo his call at the Lord Mayor's Banquet for the reform of the post war international institutions - not just the UN but the IMF and World Bank as well - so they can focus on the 21st century problems of failing states, financial instability and climate change.

Unless Shilpa Shetty turns up to greet him this part of the trip feels decidedly low key which may suit Mr Brown on the eve of a tricky week in the Commons with a statement on Northern Rock, the publication of the Counter Terrorism Bill, the start of the debate on the European Treaty and the vote on MPs pay.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

THE PEOPLE'S UNIVERSITY, BEIJING: We are at what has been billed as an event "unprecedented in China's history". Premier Wen and Gordon Brown are taking "questions" from an invited group of Chinese and English students and party stooges. One penetrating enquiry came from the chairwoman of a local village party organisation. She asked "what the Chinese government will do to continue to increase people's well being".

The premier thanked her for raising her question "sharply" and "objectively" and said how healthy it was "for the two of us to listen to our people". The rows of rather old looking students all dressed in near identical dark suits clapped enthusiastically. Good grief.

Earlier at their joint news conference I asked the premier when the Chinese people would be able to choose their own national leaders. He didn't answer specifically but pledged that China "will unswervingly develop democracy."

When I was in Beijing with Tony Blair two years ago a lively bunch of students in casual clothes posed proper questions to him. It gave me some hope that the iron grip of party control was being released. Today's event demonstrates just how far there still is to go.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

BEIJING: Gordon Brown has come to China with one clear message - Britain is open for business with you. In recent years, the story of China's economic growth has been one of cheap labour and cheap manufactured goods. Now, as the country grows richer, it has money to spend at home - more Bentleys are sold in Beijing than in London - and money to invest abroad.

The prime minister believes that the hostility towards Chinese investment which has been expressed both in America and in Europe gives the UK an opportunity to be seen as welcoming to a country which recently created an investment or "sovereign wealth" fund with 拢100 million to spend. Cheap Chinese goods have underpinned low British inflation for years. Now Gordon Brown hopes that Chinese investment and growing consumer power will sustain British prosperity.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

We have just landed in China to hear the news that the "serious incident" we witnessed at Heathrow was much, much more serious than it looked from our vantage point on the prime minister's plane.

Speaking on the tarmac in Beijing the prime minister has paid tribute to the calmness and professionalism of the BA staff and captain.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

HEATHROW, The PM's plane: I said that things happen on these trips....

We are grounded on the runway at Heathrow since all flights into and out of the airport have been stopped. Out of the window we can see why. A BA plane which has fallen short of the runway is surrounded by every fire engine here after what our pilot describes as a "serious incident".

It will take warp factor 4 for us to make it to Beijing on time for morning meetings with the Chinese hierarchy.

Update: Our plane is beginning a slow crawl to the runway. I suspect that others not travelling with the head honcho may face rather longer delays.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Passport in hand, iPod loaded, Bluffers Guide To The Emerging Economies ready to read. I am on standby for the prime minister鈥檚 trip to China and India.

No trip to these fascinating countries can fail to be interesting but recent political trips here have been truly memorable. Who can forget Tony Blair's first prime ministerial trip to China in 2003 on which he learnt - midair - of the death of David Kelly?

Or his second trip to Beijing in 2005 when Cherie sang When I'm 64 with a group of bemused Chinese students? Or Gordon Brown's high level diplomacy in the "in the Big Brother house?" Anglo-Indian row.

PS: I note that the PM did not, after all, use the 鈥楴 word鈥� yesterday and suggested that the search for a private sector solution might yet take a few more weeks

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Stand by to see if Gordon Brown uses PMQs to continue softening up public opinion for the return of the "N word" to the political fray.
For week after week, when the Lib Dems鈥� Vince Cable advocated nationalising , ministers seemed terrified of even uttering the word. Then they began to say that "no option was ruled out". Now they are attacking the Tories for resisting what they say may be the only answer to the stricken bank.

Be in no doubt that Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown are fully aware of the awesome political downsides of the "N word" - with its reminders to those of my generation and above of British Leyland, British Rail and the so-called "British disease".

They may, nevertheless, nationalise the bank if they feel they can present it as the best/cheapest option for the taxpayer. (My colleague Robert Peston explains on his blog why private sector solutions for the Rock may be pricier solutions).

There is also another issue here - when will the losses to the taxpayer be evident and quantifiable? I'm told that that some "solutions" involve writing off billions of taxpayers money upfront whereas others allow the exact scale of losses to be hidden for years to come. Naturally this will not be a factor in ministers鈥� minds.

PS: Yesterday the man at the eye of the storm delivered an interesting speech about how he sees the Treasury. Alistair Darling will come under ferocious fire when the final decision on the future of the Rock is taken. His words yesterday give a guide to how he would like his period at the Treasury to be seen.

(pdf)

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Last week I reported that the worst Peter Hain had to fear was "severe embarrassment" but last night I reported that the might call in the police to investigate. Why the difference? Well, that's down to the Commission.

I called them last week to ask what penalties were available to them for MPs who make late declarations. I reported what I was told - namely that "the Electoral Commission has no powers to penalise individuals or parties for failing to fully declare donations.鈥�

The Act (PPERA 2000) which established the law on political funding sets out an escalating series of fines for the late submission of accounts but it does not make any provision for late declarations of donations themselves. Indeed, the Commission are lobbying to be given new powers and what they call "a more proportionate and flexible sanctions regime" in any new party funding legislation.

That, it turns out, was only half the story. The Commission do have another alternative to the slap on the wrist. They can call in the police to investigate a possible breach of the law which could lead to a case in the magistrate鈥檚 court and a possible 拢5,000 fine (see below for the detail).

I am now told that both options are open and under consideration. They may be discussed at a meeting which takes place later this week of the Electoral Commissioners - the great and the good who take any significant decision that cannot merely be left to the Commission's staff.

The Commissioners face an unappealing choice:

- administer a slap on the wrist and face accusations of letting a senior politician hold their rules in contempt by declaring he was "too busy" to meet his obligations

- or call in the police and, as a result, risk ending a minister's frontline career before he has chance to defend himself in court

I suspect they may be tempted to try to invent a middle way - reminding politicians that they have called for the power to punish late declarers with fines and saying that this is precisely the sort of case in which, if they had them, they'd use them. They may hope that would be seen as a slap in the face, not merely on the wrist. But would it?

This is the text of an Electoral Commission document sent to all MPs called Donations And Loans: Guidance For Members Of Parliament - November 2006.

7.9 Relevant donations must be reported to the Commission within 30 days of the date on which the donation was accepted or returned (Schedule 7, Paragraphs 10(1) and 11(1)). Reporting forms can be found in Appendix D, 'Reporting forms'.

7.10 Important: it is an offence not to submit a donation report within this time limit, or to submit an incomplete or false report of donations. Appendix C, 'Penalties' lists the offences that can be committed in relation to the donation requirements in PPERA.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A simple principle would, we were told, clean up politics. That principle was "transparency". In other words if voters can see who gives a politician or party substantial sums of money we can judge for ourselves whether the donor's got anything for his money. Sounds simple although, in practice, has proved anything but.

The story about the half a million pounds in donations given to George Osborne rests, in part, on the fact that transparency is policed in two different ways. It's the job of the to publish and police the list of donations for elections - both internal party contests and those between parties. It's the job of the to publish the lists of donations - cash or in kind - to individual Members of Parliament.

The Tories registered the half a million with the Commission but not with the Register. Why? They say that this was because the money was given to the party centrally and, even though the donors asked for the money to be channelled to Mr Osborne's office, it was spent by party HQ and not by him directly. Now the Tories have asked the parliamentary authorities to clear up what they claim is confusion about how the Register works. Critics will say that he should have registered the money - if only on the precautionary principle.

Peter Hain's problem is very different. He did not give the Commission or the Register any details of the over 拢100,000 in donations to his deputy leadership campaign until last week and admits that he only looked into his own accounts after the row about Labour's secret donations from . His defence is that his campaign was incompetent and that he's now been open about that and apologised for producing his accounts late. What he won't do, however, is answer questions about why thousands of pounds were channelled to his campaign via a think tank that's never done any thinking. The suspicion must be that, until the Abrahams affair broke, the intention was to use the think tank to channel some funds anonymously. A suspicion, however, is not a fact.

So, all now rests on what the Electoral Commission and parliamentary authorities say or do. Gordon Brown made that clear in an this morning. The prime minister praised his minister - "Peter has done a great job and it would be a great loss if he had to leave the government. He took his eye off the ball and he has apologised" - before preparing the ground to bury him if necessary - "The matter must rest with the authorities, who will look at these matters. It would be my expectation that he will carry on in government."

PS. The principle of transparency may be simple but the operation of the rules is anything but. If politicians want fewer alleged scandals in a system which they insist is better than most they'd be well advised to simplify them fast. I investigated this in the radio documentary that I made about party funding which was broadcast just before Christmas. Unfortunately it's no longer available to listen to but you can read about it .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

鈥淚 will put the nation鈥檚 interests first. I will put principle before party. I will be open and honest. Thus do those seeking power today seek to persuade those that can confer it upon them that they are worthy of it - that they are, in short, different from most politicians.鈥�

How Machiavelli would laugh at this. All this week Radio 4 has been serialising a new translation of Old Nick's most famous work, the Prince, as its Book of the Week (you can hear them here) along with a few introductory words from me about the grandaddy of all spin doctors, special advisers and strategists. If you'd rather read than listen they're re-printed below.

Read the rest of this entry

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

As journalists trawl through the list of Peter Hain's donors - wealthy friends from Wales, Formula One and PR - the most worrying revelation for him has come in . The FT quotes one of those who gave money to Hain via a sympathetic organisation rather than directly, as being unaware of this arrangement. What's more, Willie Nagel, who also lent Hain's campaign 拢25,000 is said to want his money back asap.

Tricky.

PS. In my list of problems facing Hain, I forgot to mention investigation by the parliamentary authorities for failing to declare the money.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Peter Hain has now met with the Electoral Commission (see blogs previous) and provided it with information about donations made to his Labour deputy leadership campaign. We await word from him about the size of the donations and the identities of those who gave.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I suggested earlier that all Peter Hain had to fear was severe embarrassment (unless, of course, there is something illegal or compromising hidden in the accounts we are still waiting for him to publish). Let me explain why.

Extraordinarily the Electoral Commission has no powers to penalise individuals or parties for failing to fully declare donations. The Act (PPERA 2000) which established the law on political funding sets out an escalating series of fines for the late submission of accounts but it does not make any provision for late declarations of donations themselves. Indeed, the Commission is lobbying to be given new powers and what it calls a "a more proportionate and flexible sanctions regime" in any new party funding legislation.

So, what Peter Hain must now fear is :

鈥� being dumped by Gordon Brown - although there is no sign of that at all.

鈥� being criticised by the Electoral Commission

鈥� being criticised by the new Standards Watchdog, Sir Christopher Kelly, who today told MPs that his Committee on Standards in Public Life would "see whether or not there are lessons to be learned from the experience. I would guess... that the committee would be concerned that even now not everyone appears to have understood the importance of being absolutely transparent about political donations".

鈥� having every one of the donors he eventually reveals being scrutinised by the media. That, of course, could change everything...

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It was the scandal over secret donations to the Labour party which made all politicians - and the media - look long and hard for other breaches of the rules.

At that time the cabinet minister Peter Hain publicly that he'd failed to declare a donation to his campaign to become Gordon Brown's deputy from one of those involved in that scandal - the party's chief fundraiser Jon Mendelsohn. He went on to admit that there were other donations he'd failed to declare.

Now, after weeks of going back through the paperwork he has identified a series of donations adding up to around 拢100,000 - the details of which he'll publish and give to the Electoral Commission.

Mr Hain's defence of this clear breach of the rules looks set to be to admit to a serious cock-up but to insist that since he came clean and has taken no donations from foreigners and no "Abrahams" style donations (via third parties) his only punishment should be severe embarrassment.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

My suggestion yesterday that "those who insist that there cannot be any read across from the votes of small American states to British politics will be ignored because they simply don't get it" has outraged enough people to affect the result in Michigan (sorry, there I go again).

Here's my brief riposte

1. The next president may well determine if not decide when Britain next goes to war.

2. The economic policies of the next president will have a crucial influence on our economy.

3. The American elections are a gigantic testing lab for policies, political messages, campaign techniques and polling which will, as they have in the past, feed through into British politics.

Still not convinced? You are not alone as you'll find if you listen to this amusing discussion on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Clegg will not welcome yet another comparison with David Cameron but I thought that his debut at PMQs had many of the qualities of the early Cameron. He looked confident, sounded reasonable, avoided the "Punch and Punch" show and picked a topic, , that is of concern to ordinary people.

The measure of success today was merely walking out of the chamber unscathed. He did more than that. Even though he failed to make much of an impact in the Commons chamber but looked and sounded good on TV.

A sigh of relief then for him and the Lib Dems who must have smiled at the attempts by Messrs Brown and Cameron to be nice to their leader - aware that he could easily hold the key to which of them is in Downing Street after the next election. Brown told the Commons that during private meetings with Clegg he'd said there was "always an open door" to discuss issues. Cameron declared "I wish you well" before adding "although not that well".

Of more consequence than all this, however, was the prime minister's refusal once again to say that he favoured compulsory ID cards. There is normally a reason why politicians as experienced as Gordon Brown won't answer straight questions - particularly when they're posed three times in a row. Is Brown having second thoughts about going to the electorate promising that the government which lost the vital data of 25 million people will now force us all to pay for ID cards?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

1. After Hillary's stunning surprise victory last night, "the Comeback Kid" will inevitably be applied to Gordon Brown -even if all he does is simply get through the first full week of politics in 2008 without a crisis.

2. The prime minister will come under pressure to follow Hillary by showing his emotion, finding his true voice and, perhaps even, welling up with tears.

3. It won't be long before Labour politicians steal the line that appears to have helped turn things round for Hillary by claiming that their guy has "the experience to deliver change"

4. Those who suggested that Brown like Clinton was doomed for being associated with the past and standing for experience rather than change will be mercilessly reminded of their predictions (yes, before you remind me , I know that I alluded to this parallel on the radio the other day).

5. Friends of the PM will point to the success of the age and experience of John McCain against the alleged charisma of Mike Huckabee.

6. Every politician will use the result last night to remind us not to trust the polls, the pundits and the headlines (which, other than in the Guardian, do appear to have got it horribly wrong). Nevertheless polls, pundits and headlines will continue to make predictions that often prove to be horribly wrong.

7. Gordon Brown will surely have to think again about listening to his favourite American political adviser, Bob Shrum. Shrum predicted yesterday that the "Clinton industry" had turned Hillary into a "product whose sell-by date has passed".

8. Those who insist that there cannot be any read across from the votes of small American states to British politics will be ignored because they simply don't get it. The political classes are gripped by this campaign. It will continue to feed into commentary, oratory and prediction all year - sometimes absurdly, occasionally aptly. The battle between Clinton and Obama, McCain, Romney and Huckabee is, like it or not, a part of Britain's electoral struggle.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

A funny thing happened on the doorstep of Number 10 this evening. Finishing my live spot on the Six O'Clock News, I bumped into none other than Goldenballs himself, emerging from his meeting with Gordon Brown.

As David Beckham opened the door of his black Bentley (with personalised number plates of course) he told me that the PM had agreed to visit his academy this Thursday. Beckham, who had not met Brown before, was full of kind words about the PM and said he would be delighted to welcome him to the academy.

The PM is known to have an interest in the promotion of sports in deprived communities. It's also likely that the two discussed Beckham becoming an ambassador for England's World Cup bid, though I'm told any formal announcement will be a matter for the FA.

The only bad news was that in my starstruck state I forgot to ask for an autograph for my two football-mad United-supporting boys.

PS: You can now watch the exchange by clicking here.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The police will be the first public servants to be offered a three-year pay agreement.

The home secretary is writing to the leaders of the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers to invite them to discuss the possibility of a multi-year pay agreement. In her letter Jacqui Smith promises that if agreement is reached between the Home Office and the organisations which represent police officers, she believes that the agreement would be implemented in full.

In addition, I understand that health ministers are currently in informal talks with unions representing nurses and other NHS workers about the possibility of a multi-year agreement - which would substitute for the work currently being carried out by the NHS pay review body.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

First it's Get Carter. Now it's Becks. The Mirror's man at the PM's news conference revealed that Gordon Brown is about to meet Goldenballs. The PM said he he had no specific plans for Beckham. Any suggestions?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Well well.

Downing Street has just announced a major new appointment - the first I sense of more to come. The former chief executive of the regulator OFCOM Stephen Carter (who's currently chief executive of Brunswick Group) has been appointed to the new post of chief of strategy and principal advisor to the prime minister.

Carter will be a special adviser - in other words he's a party appointment not a civil service one - but he will not have the powers to order around civil servants that were granted to Tony Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell or his spin doctor, Alastair Campbell. Carter has, however, got a pretty big sounding title, was appointed by Gordon Brown personally and will report directly to him so civil servants may wish to listen to what he has to say.

Team Brown says that Carter's job will be to hone the political strategy and sharpen the message. There is, I'm told, another vital job that needs doing. Gordon Brown needs someone to take decisions when he's not available and who can say to his face "No prime minister, don't do that".

Will Carter be the man for that job or will others have to follow?

Update 19:00 - Stephen Carter has been hired, I'm told by one well placed adviser, to be Gordon Brown's 'back of the car man' - i.e. someone who can grab a few minutes with the boss on the way to an event and take him through a list of 10 pressing political decisions. In addition, the hope is that Brown and his aides will trust Carter to take those decisions when the PM is simply too busy to take them himself.

Carter has no political background, he was not a member of the Labour Party when he got this job (although he had been in the past) and he only met the prime minister in the last few weeks. He's been hired for his experience of developing a strategy and a message when an ad-man at JWT, and running large organisations in the public and private sectors; the cable firm NTL, the regulator OFCOM and Brunswick.

The talk is that the boss of Brunswick, Alan Parker, brought the two men together. Parker once employed Sarah Brown at Brunswick and she used the company's HQ to house an office for her charitable concerns. It's amusing to note that Carter told The Times that he'd gone to Brunswick, and turned down a move to become chief exec of ITV, because, "he would not be exposed to the same public scrutiny as he has been in previous jobs"! What changed Stephen?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A New Year puzzler for you. Why can't the prime minister say that he's enjoying his new(ish) job?

An ever so courteous Ed Stourton, presenter of the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning suggested to Gordon Brown that he looked "a bit miserable" in the job. "Not at all" came the reply, "there's a new challenge every day". Stourton pressed on. "Are you enjoying it?" The prime ministerial reply that followed was very revealing. "I enjoy all the difficult issues and trying to make the best of it" Mr Brown said before adding that "my father brought me up to say 'just get on with it' ".

So, is he not enjoying the job or does his upbringing tell him that it somehow wouldn't be right to say so?

Update 13:15: A few of you take me to task for dwelling on the prime minister's answer to what Brian called a "fatuous question". Anthony suggests that "he's not there to be happy, he's there to run the country" and, no doubt, Gordon Brown would agree. Never worry. There will be more substantial things to write about.

贬辞飞别惫别谤鈥�

A Brownite has reminded me that another Labour leader and another Scottish Presbyterian, the late John Smith, once horrified his aides by declaring that "we are not put on this earth to enjoy ourselves." It was, apparently, made as a joke and, if my memory serves me right, it was said to a radio phone-in caller who complained that Smith's proposed tax increases would not leave enough money for people to enjoy themselves.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?