成人论坛

Yet the collapse of the American oil company Enron continues to make waves here, in part because it illuminates a wider concern for some in Labour circles - the alleged "cosiness" of the party's relationship with business.

As Ministers have spent the last week pointing out, it's hardly surprising that they would have contacts with business people - indeed it would be more surprising if they did not. The difficulty arises if there's any hint that policy has been altered to favour a particular business interest. The government here has produced an exhaustive schedule to try and rebut the allegation that energy policy was altered to suit Enron.

Ministerial contacts with business are closely monitored, not least by the civil service. The potential for undue influence is arguably much greater when politicians are in opposition. Without the resources of government, financial contributions are essential. Businesses can offer help in kind, too. Andersen did unpaid work which helped sharpen up Labour's policies, especially in the field of taxation.

Such a process is mutually beneficial. The threat to the public interest comes if the relationship creates a sense of obligation which follows the politician into government. The Conservative Party claimed this was the reason behind Labour's decision to lift the ban on Andersen's services when it came to power in 1997. The government has flatly denied the claim.

The former Labour trade minister Eric Deakins told Today the risk in the business-politician relationship is a more subtle one. It's unlikely a policy would be abandoned to suit the business involved. But where a decision is one on which the politicians have no strong feeling either way, might there be pressure to make the choice which pleases an old ally?

The Labour Party is peculiarly sensitive to allegations of financial sleaze for two reasons. First, since the days of the so-called "prawn cocktail offensive" when John Smith and his then City spokesperson Mo Mowlam toured the boardrooms, Labour has been desperate to burnish its reputation as the party of business. At the same time, opposition spokesmen continually questioned the motives of Conservative ministers and their dealings with business. When "Tory sleaze" wasn't about sex, it was about money, or at least that was the story Labour was telling in the run up to the 1997 election.

Now the boot is very much on the other foot, with the Conservatives enjoying seeing Labour politicians squirm. The real loser, though, may be public life itself. Cries of sleaze at every turn discourage politicians from engaging with those who could usefully inform their policy-making, and they also make businesses much more reluctant to contribute to political parties.

If the impoverishment of political debate doesn't worry the parties, then the effect on their own coffers certainly should. Declining membership is affecting all of them, increasing their dependence on other forms of funding. At the same time, Labour is anxious to reduce its reliance on money from the trades unions. Wealthy individuals are now forming an increasing element of Labour's funding; and even the Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has admitted he'd quite like to find a few eccentric millionaires to keep his party afloat.

The logical end game is that at some point, Britain introduces state funding for political parties. Then, of course, the voters would become the paymasters - although it's questionable whether that would give us any more influence on the making of policy.

LINKS
More on Enron from Today
In depth report on Enron from
Details of Labour's links with Andersen from