Toxic mix
The mix of politics and cash is simply too toxic - not least for this government - for the to draw a line under this latest story about party funding.
Questions still remain about how the party could knowingly accept so much money from someone who wasn't prepared to be revealed as a donor in public. Also still to come is an investigation by the Electoral Commission into whether there's been a breach of the law.
Party insiders hope, however, that by falling on his sword so swiftly, Labour's General Secretary will have limited the damage. Already Sir Alastair Graham the former Head of the Committee on Standards in Public Life has said that Gordon Brown needs a new strategy to restore trust in his government.
Meantime the prime minister is left to wonder - after Northern Rock, those 25 million missing names and addresses and now this - whatever next ?
I'm 
Comments
Nick:
Have a look at Guido Fawkes' blog and then follow up on the possible Planning scam he has connected to this donor.
It is breathtaking how complacent Labour is. After all the trouble with cash for honours, they don't know the law on donations?
Surely the Inland Revenue must investigate these gifts? There are limits on the size of gifts between individuals. The fact that these employees then gave the money away is irrelevant.
'Gordon Brown needs a new strategy to restore trust in his government.'
How about - acting within the law; respecting the electorate; desist from forcing unpopular and unworkable policies/legislation on the nation; accepting that the last ten years of his chancellorship have produced fiscal disasters - PFI's - outsourcing to cronies running IT,Accountancy and so on. He has actively off loaded responsibilities which are properly those of a government and turned them into agencies so that he and his friends in power do not have to answer for any mistakes ..
Perhaps his only strategy is to wait for the Labour Party to remember its roots and be replaced by someone who believes in people first and money second.
So what prompted such a generous gift - and the need to try and hide its origins? Nothing at all I suppose to do with the business interests of its donor and a government decision that enabled him to realise vast profits from his business park - though I am sure that there is no evidence in the public domain that the planning decision concerned was influenced by considerations of party political advantage.
. . . a General Election?
Let the public put them out of their - and our - misery.
It is a ridiculous situation that the party that once claimed to be so white is now accused of not just breaking the rules, but breaking them after such a serious investigation that rocked the government and ultimately caused the demise of the former Prime Minister only six months ago. The allegations of perverting the cause of justice will resound again as people ask how long Labour knew about this, how many others are there out there and how can Gordon Brown not take any responsibility for this - he used to look after the books you know! Dear old Macavity cannot hide from this one, bring on PMQ's. Things can only get better!! Thankfully one person has now gone back to the old fashioned value of resigning when something is their fault, strange concept (!), something Darling, Brown, Prescott, Blair all seemed to avoid.
Labour's General Secretary apparently 'didn't know the rules'. Well he should have known them, but let's be generous and accept that his statement is true. However, it amazes me that anyone in the Labour party would need to know the rules anyway. When someone wants to hide donations then the bell that rings isn't exactly inaudible is it?
So, will we get an explanation of the planning application that was approved for this major labour supporter around the same time as his donation to the party
Oh silly me, just a wierd coincidence
It gets so hilarious that, at some stage, you imagine that Groucho Marx will pop up amongst this bunch of nincompoops. (For those who achieved A* A level in History, I should explain that Groucho wasn't actually Karl's brother - he just had a better take on politics than the other bloke & most of this shower!) It will be interesting to see what HMRC makes of the fact that a self-made rich guy (no problem with that), launders money via other people's bank accounts in order to contribute to the Labour Party. And that the guy at the top knew about it, but wasn't sure whether it was "legal". The problem is that this bunch pass so many laws that it hardly matters. But there must be some people who bother whether it was "appropriate".
The even worse situation if there is one is the almost money laundering going on by the Labour Party/Government involving the Unions. The Unions get fat grants from the Government. The Unions make fat donations to the Labour Party. So Taxpayers money is already funding the Labour Party big time. I am amazed that this situation has not been investigated. No wonder the Tories are wary of entering into any sort of agreement on party funding with this lot.
Dear Nick,
What a naive man David Abrahams is, perhaps this is a result of being so solitary. Doesn't he realise that the money he donated via other names, is only half the amount required to buy a peerage? He should have gone through the official Nu Labour Lord (who shall remain unnamed), but maybe he begrudged the nominal ten percent commission!
The government just has to steady itself, let the problems blow away after Christmas, come back with some actual legislation and let the Tories drift back into second place with their lack of policy weight. By the time of the next election, Cameron and co won't have bothered to put anything more together, or will have done another couple of U-turns to left or right and will not be in a position to challenge Brown. He still has an adequate working majority, the Tories came third in the two parliamentary by-elections in July, so he just has to remain standing for a few months longer to regain some of his weight and then the Tories will be nowhere again.
And I speak as a Conservative member and supporter when I say all this.
I see the guy who paid the money had a front row seat at Tony Blair's leaving announcement event. The very idea that only Peter Watt knew about the third largest donor to the party is ludicrous.
How can senior members of the party, cabinet members not have met this guy, or not been aware of him and as a result, that he had donated large amounts of money on the quiet.
Cover up or laissez faire incompetence? Either way as a floating voter I have seriously had my fill of the government. Labour will never be able to 'renew' under Brown. His chips are done for.
At last! Someone in NuLab with the honour to resign rather than obfuscate, squirm and spin. Now all we have to hope for is that Gordon et al learn from Mr Watts and follow suit.
This gets better by the minute! Even the Tories never had it so bad.
Swift resignations mean nothing when a Government is on the rocks; and that is precisely what has happened.
If it turns out that there has been a breach of electoral law, there is no way surely that Gordon Brown could survive. He could not use the excuse of ignorance with such a high level donor to the party.
You mentioned what could happen next? Watch the council tax issue in Scotland, some Labour Councils are about to get militant and raise the tax regardless of the Scottish Government's plans.
Err? Sorry, did I miss something here?
"I didn't have the law book in front of me, your Honour, when I kicked his head in".
The law states quite clearly that giving this sort of money to a political party has to be done publicly. Ignorance of the law is no defence so any party involved should be prosecuted. If the Labour party knew it was a disguised donation, the fine should be at least double the donation, as a deterrent to others.
Or are "crimes" committed by political parties not quite the same as those committed by others?
If this donor was unknown to cabinet members, how is it that he was an invited VIP at Tony Blair's farewell do.
Surely this matter should be referred to the Police as a prima facie offence under the Money Laundering Regulations?
The most important thing I see with all these events and comments flying around is for the Prime Minister to focus on how they are dealt with. One can spend a lifetime arguing over the details and shaking hands but this is merely distraction. How we deal with things is key to execution, and by focusing on that the Prime Minister will continue to unfold better alternatives and build support as we roll forward. By acknowledging realities and peoples concerns without being distracted from delivery his leadership and national capital will continue to improve.
The Hagakure, by Yamamoto Tsunetomo, comments:
A man is a good retainer to the extent that he earnestly places importance in his master. This is the highest sort of retainer. If one is born into a prominent family that goes back for generations, it is sufficient to deeply consider the matter of obligation to one's ancestors, to lay down one's body and mind, and to earnestly esteem one's master. It is further good fortune if, more than this, one has wisdom and talent and can use them appropriately. But even a person who is good for nothing and exceedingly clumsy will be a reliable retainer if only he has the determination to think earnestly of his master. Having only wisdom and talent is the lowest tier of usefulness.
I find it quite remarkable that people are so willing to resign for the sake of their colleagues and leadership in this day and age. Certainly, people can make misjudgements and take their eye off the ball but to admit error and give way is unusual. Perhaps, this is testament to the Prime Minister's vision for Britain and his commitment to always be there for us. The clever and wise are always in plentiful supply when the going is good but a rarer commodity when things are going badly, and it's when things are going badly we most need people. Labour General Secretary Peter Watt acted when needed. This honour must not be forgotten.
Draw a line under the matter ?
I don't think so !
It was the 'white than white' Labour Party who drafted and passed laws on party donors. So this smacks of arrogance, incompetence and hyprocracy !
The stench from this will not fade away overnight. This was one of the biggest donations to the party and only the General Secretary knew about it ! An individual who would have been well versed in the legal implications should someone fail to declare a direct association with a political donation.
Who else knew about this ? Did anyone check the 'donors' listed to see if they were real ? If not, why not ? Incompetence or worse ?
Drains up, Prime Minister !
Nick,
Please check Mr Peter Watt's cv. The claim that he was unaware of the reporting requirement sits very poorly with his past role heading up Labour's Legal and compliance unit !!!
And now we have the spectre of Durham Green developments.
This story will run and run.
lets face it Nick if the government wasn't in such trouble at the moment would this really be such a huge political story.
I think not and so probably do you.
Whats happened after all.Someones given money to a political party via 2 people because he wants no one else to know about it.The general secretary knows this but thinks by keeping it quiet he's not breaking any rules or laws.
Is this so wrong.It's clearly a gaff by the GS who should have checked and so is right to resign but is it a matter of life and death for the government.Words like SLEAZE being used on SKY TV are used with gay abandon when reporters of your ability need not be dragged that low.Hopefully you will report fact and not be carried away by what is bound to be the John Le Carre mindset of who knew what and when.
"Gordon Brown needs a new strategy to restore trust in his Government"
Frankly I think that comment sums up everything that is wrong with the Government, the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ and quite possibly the country at the moment.
Gordon Brown does not "need a new strategy to restore trust". HE NEEDS TO STOP BREAKING THE PUBLIC TRUST IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Trust is not won by "strategies" - it's won by proving yourself worthy of it by not breaking it every chance you get. And the fact that you appear to think otherwise speaks volumes...
Isn't it fantastic that we have a major New Labour donor and a Senior New Labour official who are not up to speed on all the laws that New Labour have introduced.
Hopefully, New Labour will start to realise that they need to be more than pen pushers, creating laws that only apply to others and that actually changing things takes more than a soundbite.
Note for MPs - this is not an excuse to reopen the debate about helping yourselves to more taxpayers money to fund your own image & egos. Get some credibility for yourselves by capping election spending at £1000 per constituency
I would post something suggesting that Gordon Brown is out of his depth as I did on the last post, but it won't get through the comment moderation on "our" ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳.
David Abrahams gave the Labour party over £600,000 in donations via intermediaries over a period of four years, and the only official who knew anything about this arrangement was the general secretary. Other Labour officials and Labour ministers saw no donations, heard no donations, spoke no donations. My credulity is strained to breaking point.
But it appears, from the tenor of interviews I have heard on Radio 4 this evening, that ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ presenters and journalists are prepared if not to give Labour officials and politicians the full benefit of the doubt, at least a generous proportion of the benefit of the doubt. How different would have been their reactions had the Tory party been in the frame. No attempt would have been made to disguise those same journalists' incredulity.
Last week 25 million names went missing. This week 4 names have turned up - the people behind the dodgy donations. I bet Nu Labour wish this information had got lost in the posts. As for poor Gordon, he's the anti-Midas: everything he touches turns to ashes.
It appears, that not only "Macivity's not there" but also "MacBroon never had his hands on any of the 600,000 pounds".
Which of the two statements is the more unlikely? My suspicion is the second.
nick - you let him off far too easily - if he is a man of integrity why didnt he ask himself - why is this funding coming this way ie via intermediaries?
Total and utter hippocrates!
"after Northern Rock, those 25 million missing names and addresses and now this - whatever next ?"
I would put "a Conservative Government"!
No wondwer, Nick, that Gordon Brown wants us all to look with him into the middle distance, and ignore the political quagmire we are wading through at the moment...
The donor has a very small point when he says that he is being treated like a criminal for making a dontation to Labour. The problem he has is that it looks like he does have something to hide. However, we need to set up a mechanism where people can donate anomonously legitimately.
Surely we can establish a method to donate to the Electoral Commission, let them run checks on the eligibility and suitability of the donor, etc. then pass the money blindly to the party of the donor's choice. This will allow the integrity and the privacy. If the party does not genuinely know who gave the cash then it can't do a favour
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I would condemn it as an improbable fiction"
But it is hard to imagine this is a one-off (at least they aren't trying to say it was a "junior official"). And to be a successful property developer you do need good relationships with Planning Authorities. Who else in the Labour Party knew that David Abrahams was a big donor I wonder? And who else has donated money to Labour in this way?
Once again, it's all down to a junior official.
Well junior-ish.
Well junior relative to the Prime Minister.
Come on, be reasonable. New Labour brought in the new rules. If it wasn't for themselves, they would not have to break the rules they put on the statute books. If they are not entitled to fiddle it a bit, who is ?
Be fair, what's not to trust ?
The Head of the General Executive of the Party on Newsnight tonight claimed that it was not aware of this illegal act. Then why did its General Secretary resign?
she also claimed that this is a Party matter, not a Govenmental one -but Gordon Brown is leader of the Party. Surely the buck, or quid, stops here?
Either way, ignorence = incompetance
Finally, what are the tax implications of the money passed by the 'secret' donor to the third parties?
Whatever next indeed, but I'm surprised that you have not spotted the obvious underlying plot. The Labour spin machine has just been working overtime getting all the bad news out at once, and early in GB's premiership. When things get back to normal everything will look a lot better by contrast, and GB will get the credit for the apparent improvement. Surely all you conspiracy theorists should have seen through that little ploy?
It is admirably honourable (and sadly unusual in the past decade) for Mr Watt to resign when caught making a serous error of judgment.
Nevertheless, without wishing to kick a man when he's down, it does beggar belief that in his position he did not seem to know the basics of party funding law. It also would seem extraordinary that such large donors to the party would not have been brought to the attention of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (election supremo under Blair, don't forget), and for them not to wish to meet/talk with them. What communication did Numbers 10 and 11 have with these decoy donors?
This is all reminiscent of the tories. Not just one thing but a number of major and minor issues but they all whittle away at the core of the credibility of the government. What Brown does not have is the ability to brush these things off, even less than Major had in my opinion. He is wounded now and has hidden himself away over this funding issue so far. There should be a full investigation and I think you should push for answers at the press conference Nick.
When did he know about this? Especially as he was in charge of the finances for the last election!
Is he glad he is setting out his vision rather than having the election around this time?
Can he do some more smiling because I feel more assured when he is smiling, even though it also makes me feel like someone has walked on my grave?!
I know it's a rhetorical question but will they never learn?
They bring in rules to address concerns about funding and patronage and then see how many different ways they can try to bypass the same rules
..and they wonder why the public has so little faith in our politicians
We can argue about the letter of the law, but both Watt and Abrahams broke the spirit of the law.
It seems incomprehensible that Watt thought this wouldn't eventually come out in the media, especially as the man who had to deal with the cash-for-honours fallout.
When it concerns someone who has donated over £200 000 to Labour since Gordon Brown came to power, what did Brown know about Abrahams, and when did he know it?
One has to wonder just how much more excreta has to hit the air conditioning umit before this Government implodes
I assume that somebody will ask the question was the alleged original donor (probably true in this case) the actual donor or was he in turn a conduit. Does this not provide further evidence that if we can't trust the parties then switch to state funding and draconian electoral laws.
"Meantime the prime minister is left to wonder - after Northern Rock, those 25 million missing names and addresses and now this - whatever next ?"
I'm sure he will know soon...
It is hard to keep up, isn't it? With respect, you left out the missing six discs from Preston tax office (sent on 26th October)which I heard about on ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ TV in the early hours of Saturday (good day for the political media not to notice?)morning, and was confirmed on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ newsletter that day. Oh, and there were a couple of hundred State Pension statements missing, too, supposed to have been posted from Scotland. Still, they were only little "mistakes".
I noticed with interest the post on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s "Have Your Say" thread on the topic of the main two missing discs. It was from a man in Cardiff, posted at 09.25 GMT on Sunday 25th November. He says he has some evidence about happenings in his area. I have e mailed The Daily Politics about this but I wonder whether my message will be noted amongst the many probably received.
Perhaps ou could kindly take a look?
I hope you ask the old Bottler about planning applications and deputy leadership election donations as outlined on Guido Fawkes blog this morning. I've also read reference to the planning issue on a Sky blog but the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ remains silent. Why?
If you bottle out on this perhaps you might enquire about the Rock/Labour links ...... How can Darling handle this decision when Labour have such a direct conflict of interest? Surely the Bank of England should be put in charge?
I think Labour did an excellent job of trying to protect this man's identity.
Pity they weren't so circumspect with the rest of us!
It is incredible that this government having enacted legislation in 2000 which specifically covered this scenario.
I just do not accept that Labour party made a mistake in the reporting proceedure of these donations they clearly had no understanding of, and flouted the very Laws they introduced.
It is also strange if we are to belive what has been stated that only one individual knew of the donations being made with caveat of anonimty and that not further audit of donations is under taken by the ruling executive to ensure they are made honestly and are correctly reported.
I expect like the honours for cash probe this issue will be another whitewash.
Did Ruddick and Kidd pay income tax on the gift that they received from Abrahams, and then donated to the labour party? If not, why not?
All the pressure on the prime minister has shown how lightweight his cabinet is. In Blair's time any problems of these sorts John Reid or David Blunkett would be wheeled into the spotlight to answer the critics leaving Teflon Tony free to focus on the bigger picture. Gordon Brown has surrounded himself with a compliant loyal team who cannot take a punch or land one. He is thus having all the governments woes landed at his doorstep. This will in time damage his credibility as well as affect his ability to govern. He much be wishing for the Christmas break a lot more than most.
Haven't the Greybeards now been proved wrong?
Had the Young Turks been listened to, Gordon would have been in with a very slim majority and a full 5 years to get out of the current mess which would have come his way anyway.
The greybeards have had their day and messed up. Take your chances when you can - he should have gone for the November Election like Balls and co were pushing for.
Why are people talking about Brown having to surround himself with those with long political memories? Are we really now turning to Straw and Hoon to save the Party?
All the pressure on the prime minister has shown how lightweight his cabinet is. In Blair's time any problems of these sorts John Reid or David Blunkett would be wheeled into the spotlight to answer the critics leaving Teflon Tony free to focus on the bigger picture. Gordon Brown has surrounded himself with a compliant loyal team who cannot take a punch or land one. He is thus having all the governments woes landed at his doorstep. This will in time damage his credibility as well as affect his ability to govern. He must be wishing for the Christmas break a lot more than most.
Brave Sir Gordon ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Gordon turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
What book did GB 'write'?
There are two things currently that are doing nothing for the governance of the country.
First is what I call "Tony Blair's Revenge." I suspect he has always known that Brown would be a weak leader and that is why he hung on as he did, and that is why Blair became leader back in the 90s - Brown was incapable of pulling off the New Labour project. (Actually, it was obvious at the time even to outsiders)
Secondly, is what is turning out to be an opposition of nasty little School Bullies - Tom Brown style.
I find the interviews with Osborne, Davis and Cameron the most unedifying television that leaves a pretty bad taste in the mouth.
Tell me Nick, why do politicians think we want our country run by vicious little kids?
As for donations, once again it is shown that you can have all the clever systems you like, but if people are too lazy to follow them (and people generally are - yes, even and particularly journalists), then there is precious little you can do.
Saying the General Secretary has "fallen on his sword" makes it sound like there is some great cover up. What nonsense! He resigned before he was sacked for being a complete idiot.
Party funding will always have these sorts of issues. When it comes to larger donations, journalists know (but never say) that there is in reality a very SMALL pool of people who like to donate and get involved with politics in any large degree. That is why in the so-called "cash for honours" enquiry it was not surprising that the same people who donated large sums would also be asked if they would like to serve in the Lords.
"How likely is it that someone who donates would also get to be a Lord," a journalist might ask - actually, statistically very probable.
"How likely is it that not checking that a large donor actually lived in a council house was down to only one person?" You asked (more or less) this morning.
Very likely - that sort of thing happens in life all the time. That is why people lose their jobs, and quite right too.
Notwithstanding the monies paid by Mr Abrahams to intermediaries was intended to be passed on to "others", will these funds be subject to 20% lifetime transfer charge under IHT rules if he has used up his nil rate band in the last 7 years, or will it be a potentially exempt transfer? This government just does not permit estates to be depleated by private gifts of cash or assets?
I understand Mr Watt was formerly the Head of Compliance !!!!!!
And he didnt know this was wrong!!!!
Get after them Nick
Notwithstanding the monies paid by Mr Abrahams to intermediaries was intended to be passed on to "others", will these funds be subject to 20% lifetime transfer charge under IHT rules if he has used up his nil rate band in the last 7 years, or will it be a potentially exempt transfer? This government just does not permit estates to be depleated by private gifts of cash or assets?
Nick, when and how can a vote of no confidence work? This government is messed up, its just a never ending source of disappointment!!
Er, one question.
Where was the Labour party Treasurer in all this?
If he too knew about these intermediary donations then he should resign.
And if he didn't know (because he made no effort to check) then he should resign...
Meanwhile where are the Police? Given them a hint of anti-gay thought-crimes or a mislaid CD and they're on the scent like a shot, but potential major breaches of electoral law are just left to the electoral commission?
There is little credibility in the concept that only the Party General Secretary knew of the real source of the donation.
Clinging on to that concept will damage the tarnished image of the Labour party.
As for the long-term issue of party funding, I suggest the following:
No political party may run with an overdraft.
Introduce a maximum spending limit pa (although rule above achieves this).
All donations over 50,000 are made to the Electoral commission, and then passed to the party after checking the eligibility of the donor.
Job done. No public funding required.
There are occasional comments made on these posts that demonstrate how deluded the supporters of political parties can be. Imagine just how much more deluded the actual politicians are. You get the feeling that they expect us to believe whatever they say. I sometimes think that they may even believe it themselves!
There is little credibility in the concept that only the Party General Secretary knew of the real source of the donation.
Clinging on to that concept will damage the tarnished image of the Labour party.
As for the long-term issue of party funding, I suggest the following:
No political party may run with an overdraft.
Introduce a maximum spending limit pa (although rule above achieves this).
All donations over 50,000 are made to the Electoral commission, and then passed to the party after checking the eligibility of the donor.
Job done. No public funding required.
This sleezy party is committed to the highest standards of openness and transparency.
Spot the non-sequitur?
Loans - discs - bungs - juniors - vision - entertainment!!
Nick Robinson for PM OK!
Whatever his knowledge of the law (and overlooking, for the sake of argument, the fact that a man in the postion of Peter Watts should have made himself familiar with the laws relating to the funding of political parties and that ignorance of the law is no defence) surely Watts should have been able to tell that something just doesn't smell right about an individual making six figure donations to the Labour party through conduits to conceal his identity at or about the same time as he was involved in (sucessfully) appealing a planning application. Perhaps I'm unfair, but the only conclusion I can draw is that these people are either incredibly stupid or incredibly corrupt. Either way they have no right to be preaching to the rest of us and I hope that all those involved (including the conduits and the donor) are prosecuted to the full extent of the law for any and all breaches of party funding laws, tax legislation and money laundering regs.
Whatever his knowledge of the law (and overlooking, for the sake of argument, the fact that a man in the postion of Peter Watts should have made himself familiar with the laws relating to the funding of political parties and that ignorance of the law is no defence) surely Watts should have been able to tell that something just doesn't smell right about an individual making six figure donations to the Labour party through conduits to conceal his identity at or about the same time as he was involved in (sucessfully) appealing a planning application. Perhaps I'm unfair, but the only conclusion I can draw is that these people are either incredibly stupid or incredibly corrupt. Either way they have no right to be preaching to the rest of us and I hope that all those involved (including the conduits and the donor) are prosecuted to the full extent of the law for any and all breaches of party funding laws, tax legislation and money laundering regs.
I think Labour did an excellent job of trying to protect this man's identity.
Pity they weren't so circumspect with the rest of us!
Anyone have the telephone number for Yates of the Yard? Ignorance of the law is no excuse (and if it involves your job then even more so). There is more to come out yet I bet, but only a proper scrutiny will tell.
The nasty whiff of political corruption used to something I only noticed when abroad on holiday, but the stench has been getter stronger here every day for the last 10 years.