How dangerous is the “sleaze” tag for Labour?
November 27th, 2007
Is the Sun right to call it “Labour’s Black Monday”?
There’s a six letter word that figures prominently in a number of the papers this morning that could be very dangerous for Labour and Gordon.
It’s “SLEAZE” - a description that in the 1992-1997 Tory government seemed to get attached to almost everything. It became almost a short-hand and was very difficult for the party to cast off. In fact it’s probably taken it a decade and a half to get rid of it.
One of the drivers behind the massive Brown polling bounce in the summer, surely, was that his arrival at Number 10 allowed the party to put the “cash for honours” scandal behind it. That was about Blair - Gordon was seen as “clean”.
Even though Brown clearly had no knowledge if these latest transactions it gives a bad impression about the party. The resignation of the general secretary, while probably seen as a damage limitation exercise, somehow makes it worse.
An immediate political impact, surely, is that it’s going to be much harder for Brown to push through selective legislation that stops the Tories receiving the so called “Ashcroft money” to support marginal seats while at the same time leaving trade union support for Labour intact.
All this on top of the November ComRes poll showing Labour on 27% - 13 points behind the Tories. The Sun describes yesterday as “Labour’s black Monday” - I’m not sure it is quite that yet but Brown has a mega-challenge on his hands turning this round.
In my betting I am now back as a £100+ a seat buyer of Tory seats on the commons spread markets with two spread betting firms.
I’ll be doing more analysis on the ComRes survey later in the day.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
A test
I think “Black insert-day-here” is a phrase which gets thrown around a bit too much by the media these days. It would make a great story for there to actually be something as big as the UK crashing out of the ERM but we just haven’t had anything THAT big under the Labor government.
All of the Tory leaders have had the same problem - Labor is guilty of many things time and time again but few have actually been so bad as to truly last a decade so trying to frame it in that way comes accross as rather silly if they try it.
At the same time though I think the repeated failings are taking their toll - There’s no other way to sanely explain away a 27% showing by Labor. I think a comparison with the sleaze label is much more accurate - That wasn’t one major event, it was several small ones over a long period of time.
“Even though Brown clearly had no knowledge if these latest transactions it gives a bad impression about the party.”
It may be possible that Brown had was unaware. However, it is not “clear” as you say. Indeed, I have seen no evidence that Brown had “no knowledge”.
Apologies if this has already been covered, but I couldn’t find any explanation for the apparently missing 5% in the ComRes poll - with support for the three main parties totalling 85%, compared with 90% last month.
Massive 10 seat spreads on Spreadfair’s GE seats markets for both the Tories and Labour, indicating just how little money is being wagered, despite the febrile political situation.
To get a measure of just how remarkable the events of the past three weeks have been, it is necessary to go back only three weeks, to 5 October, when Populus was still recording a poll lead for Labour. Has this been the biggest and fastest shift ever recorded in British political opinion? Is the Gordon psyche strong enough to withstand this unscathed? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please.
5. should read it is necessary to go back only three weeks, to 5 November, ….
Well it is early!
5. “Is the Gordon psyche strong enough to withstand this unscathed?”
No. He does not have the unflappability of, say, John Major.
3 “Even though Brown clearly had no knowledge if these latest transactions”
I must agree with our new friend. That is very far from clear. In fact all the evidence points in exactly the opposite way.
1. This donation was after cash for honours when top Lab brass would have been monitoring donations. He was Labour’s third biggest donor!
2. Contrary to Jack Straw’s explicit claim that no cabinet Minister knew this guy gave 5k to both Benn and Harman through his patsies
3. Again contrary to Straw’s explicit claim Watt couldn’t have been “the only one” who knew anything because these illegal donations started before Watt was in place.
3.
The “Chiltern Hundreds” beckon for both the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It will not be possible for either to survive the scandals of the past few days.
If pride does not permit that then “The Bottler” should call a General Election.
A very dangerous tag in answer to the question heading the post.
I’m hearing from my sources, that Labour has gone into extreme panic mode on this, they are more worried than disquiet apparently, so draw your own conclusions as to the seriousness. Harman and Alexander have both been hauled in and are crapping themselves. My friend can’t really tell me too much but there are suggestions this runs much much deeper and Jack Straw was seen earlier looking violently queasy. Its also been suggested there is an orchestrated campaign to derail Brown from within. A subtle hint at a big Cabinet split was thrown into the mix. There are now 2 camps in the Cabinet and i think you can guess which ones they are.
An excellent betting opportunity presents itself.
The Daily Mail reports today that:
“Downing Street said last night that Mr Brown had not had a formal meeting with Mr Abrahams, but did not rule out the possibility that the businessman was present at a Labour event attended by the Premier.”
The Prime Minister needs to set out, and fast, precisely what formal or informal meetings he or any Government Ministers have had with Mr Abrahams.
The Mail also goes on to state that:
“…it emerged that the tycoon, David Abrahams, secured planning permission for a multi-million-pound business park, which had earlier been refused, after handing over £200,000 donations to Labour in only six months.”
Oh dear!
Have to get up early to go to work, so no real time to comment on Labour’s recent woes (and I could spend the morning on them if I had the time) but the Brown Bounce feels ages ago, doesn’t it?
Just a shame that it’s not Labour’s awful authoritarian and centralising policies which are being shown up, but their general conduct and competence. Still, if that’s what will get them out then so be it. But I’ve never accepted this ‘ineviatable third party squeeze’ spin - it is all to play for between the other two parties.
10 An excellent betting opportunity presents itself
Norman, you appear to be very well informed if all you say is well founded. Which particular “betting opportunity” did you have in mind - a sell of Labour seats at the GE perhaps or alternatively a sell of Brown Weeks maybe?
Not so much then a danger just to its poll ratings, Norman (10), but also a threat of legal consequences. This latter would indeed be more worrying for those personally involved.
“How dangerous is the “sleaze” tag for Labour?”
Very!
Sleaze is now associated with Labour, and although the Tory years of sleaze from 1992 are not forgotten, they are fading. It was individuals who were sleazy in the Tories; sleazy things appear more institionalised in Labour. By 2010, over a quarter of 1992 voters will be dead anyway. And very many of those in 2010 (anybody 35 or under) will not have a vote in 1992.
12 - This talk of a close election with a LD squeeze always seemed far-fetched to me - and wishful thinking on the part of the soothsayers. Sure the Tories may regain a few seats… but perhaps not many. As for Labour - talk of 2005 LD voters returning in droves to Labour now looks far-fetched
Well I’ve just waded through yesterdays thread and ‘waded’ is the word! All the interesting Tory posters have taken time out and left the thread to their distant relatives ‘The lobotomized Stretford-Enders’. Even the interesting alex allowed the euphoria to dull his always incisive posts………..
…….Methinks it’s time to get a French view on Gordon’s problems……
Off Topic: The other day someone mentioned a Korean official called Bum Suk Poo (not to be confused with the more famous Lee Bum Suk) but I haven’t found any information about who/what he was/is by googling or Wikipediaing. Was it an urban myth, or who was he exactly?
17 - probably an urban myth. Similarly in Capt Pugwash there was no Seaman Stain or Roger the cabin boy. (It was Jake the cabin boy.)
Clearly you are mistaken. Everyone knows it’s Roger the Cabin Boy. Even if it wasn’t, it still was.
Mike - re your buy of Tory Seats, as referred to in the above thread.
With the LibDems (or “Liberals” as Brown continues to refer to them as)showing some signs of a resurgence, which may be amplified during a Clegg/Huhne honeymoon period after the leadership contest, I am slightly surprised that you don’t favour, instead, a sell of Labour Seats in order to benefit from any such resurgence, which would inevitably impact on the Tories also.
I’m sure there must be other factors at play in your thinking here and would be grateful if you would explain these. All I can think of is that you consider the present LibDem spread is too high and the Tory spread is therefore correspondingly too low?
Question: If 1 is “Property developer” and 2 is “political donation” what is 3?
Answer: “planning permission”.
PMQs - 1) have you ever met Mr Abrahams? 2) Did you know that he had given money to the Labour party?
I cannot believe that someone (Watts?) had not said to Gordon - shake that chap’s hand he is being very helpful to us.
I am afraid I do not accept that Gordon knew nothing about the “loans that weren’t for honours” and was lucky to be able to distance himself from them. This “gifts for planning permission through third parties ‘cos I don’t want any publicity” which is what the Daily Mail is alleging sounds very, very serious. Where is the Gordon gone by end of the year market?
It seems like the David Abrahams story will run for a while as the papers dig deeper and do what they should have been doing for a while, following the money as per Watergate, where did the donation money come from, how was it earned, who else was involved, why having been rejected by Labour did he continue donating to Labour.
PMQs (Vince Cable) - 1) The offer from Virgin Money would leave the tax payer with £15,000,000,000 lent to the new company. Will all of this be secured on specified assets or merely be a charge on the company as a whole?
2) Will the PM assure us that no interest charged on the existing loans to NR will be waived as part of the proposed deal?
16 - Roger, I would be interested to know which of my posts yesterday came across as “euphoric”? Considering at one point i was even dredging up Conservative scandals from the nineties, I’m surprised i wasn’t being accused of being a Labour spinner!
Sorry ignore my post at [21] This from the Guardian.
“Brown aides said he had never heard of Abrahams before the weekend and insisted the prime minister knew nothing of the secret donations. It emerged last night that Abrahams, a Labour member since he was 15, had attended Blair’s farewell visit to his Sedgefield constituency earlier this year.”
Is anyone asking Tony when he met Abrahams? Are any of Tony’s friends upset that Brownites are spinning against him?
16- “a French view on Gordon’s problems”
I could provide it but i’m not sure you were thinking of me!
Anyway I’m much more worried by the current riots in Paris northern suburbs.
26 there were pictures shown of abrahams in the front row at Tonys sedgefield farewell. are we really to believe that a bloke who was donating vast sums to the party, was an ex-ppc, knew the partys general secretary, donated to two cabinet ministers campaigns directly was not known to the entire senior level of the party? lets not forget that people who had ‘loaned’ less were being put forward for peerages.
this is the real tragedy of this government; they assume the public are stupid and will swallow their blatant lies in attempts to cover this up. they deserve everything they get.
24. Good point. I thought last week that the Northern Rock crisis had greater potential to do the government long-term damage than the HMRC discs, if only because of the continuing nature of the problem (if the discs turn up, problem solved; if they don’t, there’s not really anywhere for the story to go). That said, I wouldn’t underestimate the damage that the missing discs have done in the meantime to the government’s reputation.
Donations-gate however could be even worse. If NR ends up costing a lot of money, Labour can at least say they tried their best to save jobs and succeeded in preventing a greater meltdown of the financial system (whether that was a real risk is beside the point); if the missing discs do end up leaking confidential data, Labour could stick to their line about it being the fault of a junior civil servant. The donations question by contrast goes right to the heart of the Labour Party.
This is likely to have two immediate effects: firstly, there should be a police inquiry into a breach of the law by people who really should be expected to know exactly what the law is in this area, even before the prompt that cash-for-honours would have given; secondly, it is likely to make people even less likely to donate large amounts of money to Labour and possibly to the other parties too, although the majority of press interest will be on Labour donors and things they might have got as kickbacks. If the sleaze tag takes off, it could create an atmosphere where donors have to prove they did not want anything in return and did not get any special favours, rather than the media proving they did. That could cause a great deal of trouble to Labour’s finances. Time to welcome back the unions to the top table? Now about these modernisation policies … !
16 lol - are there any non-lobotomised ones?
Agree with SBS - chances of a Lib Dem squeeze look less and less. Nothing that’s going on is exactly a ringing endorsement of Cameron.
Will sleaze damage Labour? There are two schools of thought, and I am not sure which one will predominate.
a) “They are all the same. I remember the Tories were just as bad …etc”
b) “Labour are worse than the Tories, because they promised to be Whiter-than-white”
31
I don’t know about damaging Labour.. but Gordon Brown - transparency etc - is toast.
Promises made: broken in six months. Good going.
Note to Alexander and Harman. Prepare to meet thy (fully justified) doom. Here is a statement you can prepare in advance:
“I take full responsibility. Consistent with my own and the Party’s commitment to the highest standards in public life, it is with great sadness I have decided to resign my position.”
You really don’t need much more than that!
People obsessed with Guido, should check on the distinction between circumstantial evidence and actual evidence before they start predicting that people are going to sacrifice their whole political careers.
MIKE (or anyone else) - any thoughts on my suggestion yesterday that the complications of pollsters weightings (particularly the past vote weighting) can result in a Labour collapse dragging the Conservative share down somehow? I know we haven’t got the detailed poll results but is it theoretically possible?
33. I may have missed something, but what has Harman done to justify falling on her stiletto? In any case, she doesn’t need to - she’s as unsackable as Prescott was.
36 - Apparently she received a donation during her Deputy leadership campaign from “Janet Kidd”.
34 fair point but there is also the common sense interpretation. the fact that everyone assumes the worst and doesnt believe a word the government says are the result of past actions.
38 - That is a reason for thinking that Labour will suffer in the polls. It is not remotely a reason for thinking that Alexander, for example, is preparing a resignation statement, or even should be preparing a resignation statement.
37. Found it. Guido also noting that Benn received money from the same source. Is it really that significant? £5k is the limit on anonymous donations anyway, so had it been a bit less, there would have been no need for disclosure (which is interesting in its own right). Not exactly a resigning matter from what’s alleged.
I’d still come back to my earlier point - if a deputy leader doesn’t want to resign, it’s almost impossible to make him / her. Brown can’t afford a deputy-leadership contest politically (after this fiasco, Cruddas would surely stand a very strong chance), and Labour won’t fancy it financially. Were Harman to lose her cabinet position, it gives her plenty of space to vent any anger that any sacking might generate. All round, it’s a lose-lose unless Brown can protect her from the firing line.
39 no true, but if the public know that the government are lying to protect themselves then speculation will be rife. they cant have it both ways, either come clean and fess up or stumble on under yet another cloud of shame and sleaze.
How Jack W would have enjoyed all this; I can’t help wondering whether he was the Earl of Harrowby, who died very recently.
And where is AHMatlock when you need him
34 Planning permission refused. Labour party gets money. Attempt made to hide donor’s identity. Actual donor gets planning permission.
Yep just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - no reason at all that it is actually a duck!
Who were the MPs of the surrogate donors? Did anyone say to them - “So and so in your constituency has given us some very nice cheques.” ?
A quick unlurk from me in the vain hope of adding something.
The thing that is so extraordinary about this story is Watt maintaining he didn’t know the rules.
I’m just part of a constituency party organisation and I knew you couldn’t hide behind a proxy donor. The rules are very clear, very simple and posted for all to see on the Electoral Commission’s website. We have to make monthly PPERA returns and our agent is all over us all the time to make sure it’s done properly and within the rules.
So two possible conclusions
a. Despite all of Labour’s recent donation headaches he didn’t know and the Labour Party is an unbelievably incompetent shambles
b. He did know (and I cannot believe he didn’t) and the donations were hidden for some reason as yet unknown (though widely speculated on here and elsewhere).
Just in case anyone wants to see the relevant act you can do so here. The useful bit is Section 54, Paras 5 & 6
[42] I rather think Jack W is still with us - I suspect Our Genial Host would reveal his identity in the lamentable event of his démise.
More generally, Labour can only hope that this is the third of the bad things that come in threes… I doubt it, and still reckon Labour is on course to lose more seats next time than it did in 1983.
42 - I take it JackW’s identity hasn’t formally been revealed yet? I missed several days of threads a few weeks back whilst on holiday, shortly after that Guardian diary piece and Mike’s thread where he tantalisingly hinted that all might be revealed.
If Peter Watt has to resign because David Abrahams money was channeled via several “front names” to the Labour party is Harriet Harman safe?
Her Deputy Leadership campaign also received money from a “front name ” for David Abrahams.
Is her alibi that she did not know that it was from David Abrahams? How water tight is it? She did not have a lot of donors so £5k would at least provoke some communication with the donor and should have led to some basic checks on their propriety to minimise the risk of later embarrassment. Or does Harriet just take £5k from anyone?
11
‘“…it emerged that the tycoon, David Abrahams, secured planning permission for a multi-million-pound business park, which had earlier been refused, after handing over £200,000 donations to Labour in only six months.”
This is what Guido mentioned yesterday,so clearly this latest sleaze goes much deeper than breaking the donation rules.
35 The Comres data tables are now on the company’s website . As with Mike I like to peruse the change in voting intentions of those who voted in 2005 . It is interesting to compare the differences from the previous poll
Oct LibDem to Con 15 Con to LibDem 1 net 14 to Con
LibDem to Lab 10 Lab to LibDem 7 net 3 to Lab
Lab to Con …30 Con to Lab …3 net 27 to Con
Nov LibDem to Con 22 Con to LibDem 10 net 12 to Con
LibDem to Lab 10 Lab to LibDem 22 net 12 to LibDem
Lab to Con …21 Con to Lab …1 net 20 to Con
With usual caveats re the small samples Con 3rd in 18-24 year olds Scotland SNP 39 Lab 29 Con 16 LibDem 15
What time is Gordon’s monthly press conference - where can one watch it?
Won’t incompetence rather than sleaze be the leitmotiv for Labour: the tax credit debacle, the Home Office not fit for purpose, a cavalier attitude to sensitive data throughout government departments and now a compliance officer who does not know the rules of compliance. Is it because these people have never run anything or had a job in private industry that they think all you need do is pass a law and forget about the dull business of procedures, controls, compliance monitoring and auditing?
20. Peter. I have been wondering about the same thing. How equivalent are buy Tory and sell Labour seats positions? Obviously it depends on what happens to (LibDem+ Others) seats.
For a while now the sum of the midpoint of Tory and Labour spread seats has been around 565. In the 2005 GE this sum was 554 with LDs on 62 and others on 30, totalling 92.
Next time round there are 4 more seats up for grabs.
So the spreads have been suggesting that the (LDS + Others) will fall by 7 to 85 with (Tory+Labour) consequently rising seats rising by (7+4) 11 seats to 565.
I would be very interested in PBers views on this mathematical relationship between Tory and Labour seats.
I think the key obvious point is that for every seat above the current benchmark of 85 that the (LDs + Others) achieve then the (Labour+Tory) sum drops by one and vice versa. So if say the (LD+Others) fall by 17 next time to 75 then the (Labour+Tory) seats will rise by (17+4) 21 seats to 575, ie 10 seats higher than the current spread midpoint.
If (Tory+Labour) seats are 565 then a buy Tory position of 300 is equivalent to a sell Labour position of 265. If however the (Tory+Labour) seats total 575 then a buy Tory seats position of 300 equates to a sell Labour position of 275. Quite different.
I will stop there before I confuse myself even more than at present. If anyone can take this forward I would be very interested.
Also what do PBers think is the spread on (LibDem+Others) seats? Current midpoint 85 by my calculations.
I was being teased on here last week for suggesting 6/4 was far from generous on a hung parliment.
A more likely event is Gordo being chased from Downing Street by an angry mob.
51. No, it will be incompetence and sleaze.
“Mr Watt, who became Labour’s general secretary in 2005, was well regarded in Labour circles. “He will be a huge loss,” said Lord Gould of Brookwood, Mr Blair’s former pollster. “He was an outstanding general secretary and is a man of impeccable integrity.”"
From the independent - If people of “impeccable integrity” behave like this what help for the rest of us?
42 & 46 Here’s the link to Lord Harrowby’s obituary in yesterday’s Guardian:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicsobituaries/story/0,,2217151,00.html
There are certainly a number of aspects which appear to ring true with what we know about Jack W, but then again …..
41/43 - it all may look very dodgy, but the fact is that Ministerial resignations NEVER happen unless there is actual evidence of wrongdoing. The govt may take a short (or even long) term hit, but without actual evidence there will be no resignations. As it should be. One only has to read Private Eye to find tens of pieces of “circumstantial evidence” of nepotism/wrongdoing etc but it doesn’t mean everyone should lead to a resignation, not least because many of them are simple coincidence.
Resignations do not come about because individuals are “weak” or “fighters” (so equally many people are just as misguided when they predict no resignations - see Blunkett, Mandelson etc). They come down to smoking guns and actual documentary evidence of wrongdoing.
56 No that is not Jack W .
So the Daily Mail is now no longer a Brown supporter?
3 Alta Vista Of course, everyone knows it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. If there is however any concrete evidence that GB DID know about the bogus donations, then that would be very bad indeed for him. And would amount to sleaze of a high order. Incidentally, being in a similar position to George H at 44, I couldn’t agree more. The now former General Secretary displayed unbelievable incompetence as the Head of the Labour Party main “accounting unit” not to know that what was being done broke all the rules. I assume the Electoral Commission will give him an extremely hard time!
re 56. A good guess but not a correct one. The man behind Jack W is still very much alive.
32
‘I don’t know about damaging Labour.. but Gordon Brown - transparency etc - is toast.
Promises made: broken in six months. Good going.’
Yes we had Gordo’s lecture on transparency,listening to the people and ‘change’in every other sentence.
we certainly got the ‘change’ bit but didn’t think it would be worse than Blair.
49 Mark Senior some very interesting movement in the votes.
Labour (Nov) lost a similar % of votes to C and LD.
LDs lost substantial chunk to Conservatives.
May indicate that the Labour vote is the softest, the LD less soft and the Conservative vote the firmest of all. At least one other poll has also shown the C vote to be the firmest.
56 - hm, there are parallels. But until 5 mins ago, I’d never heard of the Earl of Harrowby - was he a “reasonably well known public figure”?
61. The man behind Jack W is still very much alive
The best news of the morning, bar none!
He was not Jack W - Harrowby ran Coutts, what could be more establishment?
61. Thank you Mike. You have cheered me up
Lord Harrowby sounds a very interesting chap, but Mike always said Jack W was well known, a senior figure.
Lord Harrowby sounds a very interesting chap, but Mike always said Jack W was well known, a senior figure.
2nd request: What time is Gordon’s monthly press conference - where can one watch it?
56 - The family seat is Sandon Hall, near Stafford, Staffordshire. The family also resides at Burnt Norton house, a house made famous by the T.S Eliot poem Burnt Norton as is found in the Four Quartets.
Does anyone remember the “Jack Quartet”?
And contrary to Icarus, Jack was very ‘establishment’.
63 Pretty much agree HF - shock horror , but this is also the first poll for some time with a significant contrary movement from Con to LibDem , usually that figure had been only 1 to 3 people . Just one poll and the ICM detailed data will have similar comparable figures .
70 Isn’t it 11.00.? ? BBC Parliament??
Well Jack wasn’t Harrowby. (Jack - go on just one more post - please!)
O/T - an email re local diesel prices:
Station : Lutterworth Ford
Address : Leicester Road, Lutterworth, LE17 4HD
Brand : Total
Distance: 0.62 miles
Price : 108.9p
Updated : 25-11-2007
This may do even more to finish the Labour Party than its legion of problems from the North East.
74 - News 24 is bound to be streamed on the BBC website.
What about the 10 Downing St website-cum-propaganda machine?
75 - Is petrol actually more expensive outside London (less competition keeping prices down)?
Just had a bit of fun with Mr Baxter’s toy, which says that Con 40, Lab 29 and LD 21, with the Lab to LD tactical voting set as high as possible, produces: Con 356 Lab 201 LD 62 - a Labour loss of 145 seats, 25 more than in 1983. Not my preferred outcome by any means, but I think Labour can fall below 30% next time and that Clegg (if it is he) can probably hold the line for the LDs (for all the good it would do them in those circumstances).
75 - the last thing what remains of GB’s nails needs is a fuel protest/blockade. If it happens, they could finish off the PM.
Come on lads, get them tractors fired up…
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’?
80- Well then Gordon only needs to promote even more the “Young turks” in a reshuffle of the three big offices of state
What about:
- Ed Balls Chancellor
- Douglas Alexander Foreign Secretary
- Ed Miliband Home Secretary
The sure thing to reclaim a lead in the polls! Or perhaps not…
“Even though Brown clearly had no knowledge if these latest transactions”
Is it just me that thinks Brown should have known all about donations, and should have been asking questions, and should have made certain there were no skeletons in Labour’s funding closet. he should have ensured the donor vetting committe met (hasn’t met for about 2 years).
Surely a new leader who has vowed to clean up the whole funding question SHOULD have known who was making large donations and surely the questions about why he didnt bother to find out are as damming as if he was complicit in the fraud.
On the subject of the 3 “donors” isnt there a significant tax liability on their “gifts” perhaps when HMRC stop looking for their discs they will start looking into the tax afairs of Mr Abrahams “friends” £240,000 please!
Good Morning All.
Peter the Punter @ 65 and others.
I can confirm Mike Smithson’s statement @ 61. I spoke to Jack a few weeks back whilst he was abroad. His health remains patchy but during the better times he is extraordinarly industrious having several projects that are very much active.
Jack conceded to me that he had lurked into PB discussions on a few occasions and had found the cold turkey hard to endure. However if he wasn’t able to fully contribute, as he presently isn’t, then that and his continuing health problems would preclude him from returning. I pressed him to come back but he was adament that the prospect wasn’t likely in the near future.
I will pass on all the continuing good wishes.
“Even though Brown clearly had no knowledge of these latest transactions….”
WHO SEZ?!!!!
The interesting question is why Abrahams wanted to hide behind a proxy when he was so well known in the Labour party. So well known that:
- he was a long term member who had a famous row about his ‘family’ while attempting to be a PPC
- he was often seen at conferences and other events (according to the chairwoman of the NEC last night)
- he was prominent in the audience for Blair constituency farewell which many others with clout were excluded (again according to the chairwoman of the NEC)
- he provided cash for two cabinet members for their personal campaigns(according to Guido)
- he was a long term, as well as a massive, donor
- he is a property developer in very strong Labour parts of the country and so will deal very closely (naturally so) with local councillors and planning staff and MPs
- his explanation that he used proxies becausee he is shy seems weak as he is so well known and clearly is happy to push himself forward at very exclusive events
The cover up is novel in that this time it starts with a senior resignation (mind you if Watts had been a minister he would still be there). But it still is not going to close down the issue because:
- Brown as Chancellor received all NEC fianccial documents and surely must still do so
- the Labour Treasurer is married to one recipient of Abrahams money
- the Labour Treasurer started the ball rolling on Cash for Coronets and surely knows the donation rules
- Labour passed the legislation about donations yet their highly regarded General Secretary did not know what it required despite having been the party’s finance officer before becoming Sec Gen
- these donations have been going on before Watts and so there appears to be a purposeful silence on these donations or long term incompetence,
I cannot but wonder if this does not relate to the Delphic evidence of Yates to the Commons Committee which, to me at least, implied he knew more than he could say.
If the possibility of a Levy connection proves true then this is even more sensitive and may prove to be part of a much bigger picture. The interconnectedness of all funding sleaze seems more than likely.
So I can well believe that panic grips parts of the party as it did when Dromey made his famous tour of the TV studios.
80 I agree he would have probably won a small majority had he had a GE in October. But this would have made him look stupid - he would have been seen to throw away a large majority and exchange it for a much smaller one only two years after the previous election. Had recent events come on top of such a blunder people would have begun to say how GB could not possibly lead the Party into the next election, and he would have almost certainly been forced to declare his intention to go - only 6 months after he started.
83 - go on, drop us a little hint…
76 - can’t find anything on the 10 Downing St website confirming the time of the press conference. Nothing on BBC website either, just says “later”.
Perhaps he’s doing it in secret?
83 Never mind the good wishes, just tell him he isn’t pulling his weight.
82 - No, I think it would be much better if the Prime Minister didn’t know about large donations, all being equal. Yes, for his own political sake, he should have taken steps to ensure that proper procedures were in place to ensure transparency and integrity in the donation process, but if we want to have confidence in the motives for taking big political decisions he shouldn’t know details. That was what got Blair into so much trouble.
86. The party would have blamed the small majority on Blair and given Gordon the benefit of the doubt. When can we go back to the expectation that elections need not give landslides? Workable majorities do quite nicely, thankyou (as the late Francis Pym might have said.
Nov election would have put Brown and the Labour Party in a much better position than Gordon’s got now.
But ….as my Irish Aunty said ‘If ifs and buts were pots and pans, there’d be no need for tinkers’.
People have been pushing the line that Watt was another “junior official” made a scapegoat but, while there may well be more to come and others may be dragged in, there is nothing “junior” about the General Secretary of the Labour Party (whether any of us had heard of his name or not). He is effectively in charge of the non-parliamentary Labour Party, and is probably paid as much, if not more, than most ministers.
There are very good reasons why ministers should not get directly involved in fundraising.
86/90 - Nobody knows that Labour would have got a majority, let alone a working majority. That can only ever be speculation.
5 “Is the Gordon psyche strong enough to withstand this unscathed?”
From a profesional perspective and with my extensive knowledge of human psychology I would have to conclude that a narcissistic control freak with paranoid and severely neurotic tendencies like Gordon Brown would by now have withdrawn almost completely into a ghetto of his own delusions following the battering his huge but fragile ego has taken over the past three weeks.
It would not surprise me to hear him gibbering some nonsense about plastic bags or suchlike while his carefully structured fantasy world is collapsing around his ears.
Put it another way - had Blair still been in charge would people be saying that he should have had an election in November? Of course not, but all the arguments for and against still hold.
91 - Indeed. The position of General Secretary, while not as powerful as it was in the days of Morgan Phillips, Jim Mortimer, or Larry Whitty, is as big a non-parliamentary Labour scalp as you can get.
49/63: Interesting point: Mark’s figures suggest the change since the previous month is a very sharp swing from Labour to LibDems, with, oddly, a small movement back from Tory to Labour. Looking at the tables, page 6 is illuminating, if I’m reading it correctly: it shows Labour ahead on general party identification, as usual, but certainty to vote very low, at only 45%.
What we are primnarily seeing, therefore, is a heavy softening of the Labour vote, coupled with a swing on the Lab->Lib axis. I don’t underestimate the seriousness of both factors, but they do not add up to a done deal for the Tories.
Why hasn’t Dromey - Treasurer of the Labour Party NEC - resigned this time?
96 Certainty to vote for Labour supporters, I’m surprised it’s in double figures! If someone called me today I would find it hard to do anything other than register a protest.
96, 98: good stuff. Keep it coming…
[96] I don’t suppose the historical series data exist, but I’d imagine that (1997 and 2001 apart) the Tory vote has always been firmer than Labour’s. This is shown by - among other things - the higher turn-out in safe Tory, by comparison with safe Labour seats.
96 “a heavy softening of the Labour vote”
Beautifully put. Pure “Newspeak”. Very Orwellian
77 - See the AA site for comparative fuel prices around the country. In my experience, it’s the remote rural places that are struck the hardest - something that always seemed idiotic when I was in Shetland where they landed the bl**dy ingredients but seemed to have the highest prices in the world.
96 - I think there’s something funny going on with the past vote weighting.
77
Cheapest places are near refineries not oil production.
Stands to reason: lowest transport costs. (We are within 50 miles of one so petrol 102p per litre or less)
We are governed by a bunch of incompetent crooks. At least Blair knew how to get away with it…quick interview on TV - ‘I’m a pretty decent kind of a guy actually” and bingo his crimes are all forgotten. If a Labour government cannot commit crime and get away with it, they don’t deserve to be in power. Pure and simple. That’s the standard our media sets, it appears.
And questions about planning permissions and a coincidental lifting of DOT/Highways Agency objections
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=9636
o/t. Does anyone know why it is taking so long for full results to come through from the Australian election - there has been nothing since Saturday?
107 I had assumed that it was because of Compulsory Voting and counting of all the preferences.
So Labour drop to their biggest gap behind Conservatives in NINETEEN years.
A Labour MP writes “What we are primnarily seeing, therefore, is a heavy softening of the Labour vote,”
I see, idly clicking though the electoral commission web site, that BET365 have given £150,000 to the Labour party so far this year.
Good stuff? Hardly…
Events always happens. Mistakes are always made. On a political level - it’s tough, but that’s life.
The mark of leadership is the ability to seize back the agenda. Turn problems into advantages. Blair (and his team) was really rather good at that… Waiting with baited breath. There are spurs to be earned. I say no more.
Lol - SNP 40 Lab 29 in Scotland. Gordon Brown holds on with the smallest majority in the country
I’ll bet Gordo wishes he’s had that GE now!
Its doubtful that Brown had any knowledge of the actual donations, but that isn’t the point, the impression it gives will hardly be helpful.
It is now beyond belief that the government will recover from this, its demise is now inevitable. The tragedy is of course that the only impressive politician in the country, Vince Cable, (Vince hardly a PM’s name is it, ‘Vince Cable’ sounds like a 50’s Rock N Roller, ‘Vince Cable and the Volts’ still fondly remembered for their Golden Oldie, ‘You Electrify me Babeeee’) won’t become PM, and a snake oil merchant like Cameron will.
p.s.
Makes you wonder how even the Tories could balls this one up!
110 I have never thought it was a very good idea for companies in the public eye to donate to a political party, opposed by 60% of the electorate. It’s a perception thing - personally I avoid buying goods and services from the Co-0p and would not now consider opening an account with Bet 365.
You might read this article and ask yourself where did some of these people get the money.
How far does this proxy donation business go?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=496634&in_page_id=1770
Tories: don’t get too excited. It’s an outlier, we will see low to mid 30s for Labour in the next set of polls.
113 “Its doubtful that Brown had any knowledge of the actual donations…”
Do you really think so, knowing what we know about Brown and his catch-all, control freak tendencies?
Some large bets on Huhne this morning brought is price right down to 2.04 but drifting back out rapidly
116. Correct. However the days of Gordo’s bounce are a long gone..
114 Avoided Dixons and Weetabix on the same basis. Although not a real loss really.
111. Jonathan .
You have missed the point Peter Watt had been head of compliance for the Labour Party, before becoming general secretary. It is unbelievable that he did not know the rules. There are clear indications of a cover up and this story has a long way to go and may be extrmely damaging to Labour.
116…. and I ask again, where’s the “missing” 5% in this poll?
108. I also note that the Liberal party leadership vote is tomorrow - they don’t mess about in Australia unlike our protracted leadership contests.
110,114. It’s owned by Peter Coates who is a long standing Labour donor and owner of Stoke City. Worth opening an account with initally because they have good offers, but they restrict you pretty quicky. I’ve got a winning cap of about £50 with them now.
It’s very interesting o learn that teh Labour Party Committee set up to vet all donations post 200 has not met for 2 years (Prosser TV last night).
Under the law, the LP is BOUND to vet ALL donors for eligibility (UK electors etc) and acceptability (not crooks).
So who was doing it?
Watts could not .. no time.
Intersting to see who vetted Abrahams and the other front people. I cannot believe this would be a “junior” job.
Woody So they are like the ALabour party then if they initially have good offers but they restrict you pretty quickly.
123 - Well parties in this country didn’t hang about when the votes were done by MPs. Remember Thatcher?
123: Only about a year too late.
117
There is also a difference, money, has been going into party funds, not into the pockets of politicians, there has been no, ‘Cash for Questions’ or Fayed type buying of MP’s such as Tim Smith etc.
121 Absolutely on the button, Slam - and to pretend otherwise is an insult to the public’s intelligence, which Dave will doubtless ruthlessly exploit tomorrow.
116. Test. You “may” be right but we “may” also see the Tory Party reach the mid 40’s before long.
129. Two wrongs don’t make a right !
122 “and I ask again, where’s the “missing” 5% in this poll?”
Shy Tories…
132
I’m not suggesting it is right, obviously it is not, but so far there is no suggestion that individual politicians have been personally receiving payments of any kind.
AbrahamsGate Timeline (from http://www.huntsman2007.blogspot.com)
06 May 2003: Janet Kidd, a secretary working for Mr Abrahams, donates £25,000 to Labour.
18 Aug 2003: Ray Ruddick, a jobbing builder, makes £25,000 donation.
01 Apr 2004: Mrs. Kidd donates £10,000.
27 Oct 2004: Mrs. Kidd donates £2,000.
05 Feb 2005: Mr. McCarthy donates 25,000
29 Jul 2005: Durham Green Developments submits plans for Durham Green Business Park
05 Oct 2005: Highways Agency blocks plans for Durham Green Business Park.
22 Dec 2005: Mr. McCarthy donates £52,125
23 Dec 2005: Mr Ruddick donates £17,850, Mrs Kidd £30,000.
31 Mar 2006: Plans for business park withdrawn.
21 Apr 2006: Mr. McCarthy donates £50,000
24 May 2006: Mr Ruddick donates £50,000.
02 Aug 2006: Business park plans resubmitted.
18 Sep 2006: Highways Agency withdraws objections.
19 Oct 2006: Durham County Council grants planning permission.
22 Jun 2007: Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, registers £5,000 donation from Mr Abrahams to his campaign for Labour’s deputy leadership.
27 Jun 2007: Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister.
29 Jun 2007: Mr Ruddick donates £24,000, Mrs Kidd £38,000.
07 Jul 2007: Mr Ruddick and Mrs Kidd make £80,000 donations.
17 Jul 2007: Harriet Harman registers £5,000 donation from Mrs Kidd to her victorious campaign for the Labour’s deputy leadership.
20 Nov 2007: Official figures show that since Mr Brown became Prime Minister, Mr Ruddick and Mrs Kidd were Labour’s third biggest donors.
25 Nov 2007: Mr Abrahams admits it was his money that had gone to Labour via Mrs Kidd and Mr Ruddick.
26 Nov 2007: Peter Watt admits he knew of donations and resigns as Labour general secretary.
SO GORDON BROWN KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE THIRD BIGGEST PARTY DONORS SINCE HE BECAME LEADER. MMMMM………….
133 No0 - the point I’m making is that the 3 major parties’ combined share of the vote in the ComRes poll is 85%, compared with the usual 90% reported by other pollsters. I’m sure there’s a simple explanation, but would someone please tell me what it is?
Press Conference is at Noon.
124 Shame on you Woody!
137- Boulton says on his blog that it will be live on Sky news
So is the news conference in 5 minutes?
137 thanks
135
I’m sure the withdrawal of objections after the rate of donations more than quadrupled is entirely a coincidence.
I also believe Gordon Brown had no knowledge of it.
And Harriet Harman and Hilary Benn are innocent.
…
The men in white coats are at the door now.
129 that argument didn’t help Helmut Kohl did it? Fayed giving money to a backbench MP (so he claims though the Hamiltons deny it) to ask a question says more about Fayed’s understanding of parliamentary procedure than it does about the COnservative Party.
96 AFAIK, Labour has been ahead on party identification since 1945. Conservative victories are based on a better ability to turn out their vote (since older, and wealthier, voters have a greater than average propensity to vote).
Yet, paradoxically, there is in some parts of the country, a far more ferocious loyalty to the Labour Party (votes of 65%+) than you would find towards the Conservative Party in its best areas.
“Softening” is an understandable description. The immediate benefit of Labour’s decline (in this poll) has gone to the minor parties, who are less capable of locking this support in for the long term (apart, of course, from the Celtic nationalists). Labour might be able to recover at least some this support after a couple of weeks - although it might not avail them anything if the Conservatives solidify and make further progress.
Will Brown announce to the Press that he has retrieved his Moral Compass?
146: From where exactly?
146. Judging by the last week he’ll turn up at the wrong venue at the wrong time.
143
The MP I mentioned Tim Smith (Junior Minister) admitted to taking £25,000 from Fayed.
The man who led the charge against Fayed was Charles Wardle, who ended up working for him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wardle
144 - Agree entirely. The key success of Labour (and the underpinning of the pro-Labour bias under FPTP, apart from population movement) has been the fact that their vote is less likely to turn out, but is stickier where it does, because the class and ethnic identifiers of the Labour coalition are much more clearly defined than Conservatism, which traditionally had a much broader social reach - although this has shrunk a bit in recent time.
149. Corrupt individuals in the past versus corrupt organisations at present?
134 Coldstone,
There is however a very direct suggestion that this may have influenced a planning decision.
You seem to regard institutionalized corruption as less serious than a rogue politician lining his pockets. It is not. It is more serious.
o/t anyone read that piece in the Guardian about Ashcroft and how naughty he is giving money to the Tories…..thought not, thats cos there’s all this stuff about Labour’s dodgy dealings….Nick you there?
Re Labour 1983. They “only” lost 59 seats that year, although it took them down to their lowest seat total since 1935. A 59 seat loss now could see them continue as a minority government.
Re Other totals. Lib Dems net losses (say 5-15) could well be balanced by Nationalist gains (say 5-??) If the SNP actually poll what they are showing now, the Others could rise significantly.
Actually, the line “it was not for my pockets but for the party” is Chirac’s only defence line against all charges of sleaze.
I’m sure Brown will be charmed by this comparison!
126. Exactly
138. Look at it this way Peter, if I can take money off him, it leaves less for Labour and it goes to a Tory. I urge all Tories to do the same
I was a bit taken aback by a full page ad in today’s Indy from the Boder & Immigration Agency.
“If you hire illegal workers you’re as illegal as they are… If you don’t know whate the new rules mean for you and your business you could end up as illegal as they are.”
Has anyone told Jacqui Smith? You really couldn’t make it up.
Sky news reporter has just said ” a senior source told me this morning ‘there are smoking guns all over the place in relation to these donations’”.
158- This is getting serious…
64 Journalism largely consists of saying ‘Lord Jones is Dead’ to people who never knew that Lord Jones was alive.
G. K. Chesterton
O/T Australia Competition update
There are still nine seats too close to call according to ABC, but with that caveat, their latest seat projection is 86, 62, 2.
My understanding is that votes could take up to 2 weeks to be counted (postal, absentee, pre-poll, etc).
The full “in-play” leaderboard for the competition is therefore as follows, based on the ABC seat numbers:
Place Player Score
1 JulianH 0
2 Panurge 2
3 Alexander Drake 4
4 David Walker 6
4 David Hague 6
4 PtP 6
7 Daniel Berman 8
7 Woodpecker 8
9 Dave Besag 12
10 Jan from Norway 14
10 Anatole 14
12 Sean Fear 16
13 John Loony 18
14 Ant 28
In Bennelong, Howard’s 2PP share is currently 48.33% with 79% counted (Woodpecker closest on this at present).
Obviously vote counting is still in progress so numbers are subject to change.
I’d like to echo PtP’s comments re Alexander Drake and I’m sure that many people are richer now after following his commentary.
Following Adam Boulton’s celebration of Kevin Rudd “the people’s choice” - thanks to Australia’s compulsory voting. Given his connections, could we be about to see a similar move in the UK?
I came across yesterday’s copy of the Sun at work this morning and Trevor Kavanagh surmises whether Blair left a few month’s too early. He maintains that Blair had wanted to sack Brown but couldn’t find a reason to do it. If Blair was still PM could Brown had remained in office as Chancellor after the failings of the Treasury (which afetr all he is resposnible for) over the last few weeks.
This just demonstrates just how much perception matters in cases like these. In Blair’s first two Parliaments, most Tory-inclined papers (even the Sunday Times, the most reliably right-wing of the main British Murdoch publications) published all sorts of potentially damaging stories. Some, like Hindujagate, really caught fire; others, like the blind trusts, never sunk into the public consciousness. Now, every story of that magnitude risks disaster for the government. As an administration and as a party, they’ll become more passive, and less inclined to take risks on policy or on campaigning, because of the danger that a move could blow up in their faces - while the Conservatives and the LDs will have more leeway in these fields.
“Sky sources have revealed that a Government minister may have known David Abrahams was making anonymous donations to the Labour Party.”
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1294516,00.html
114 - we probably wouldn’t want your business anyway
165: It seems that Baroness Nepotism, sorry Jay knew about it and it’s unlikely others didn’t.
Curses! I was going to post earlier, but never got around to it how come Abrahams donation went to Benn under his own name but to Harman through an intermediary and didn’t it look like Benn had said no to the cheating?
Now I won’t get any credit for my prophetically brilliant thought proving you should always write it down.
Odds on Benn for next Labour leader?
Hilary Benn’s campaign had a gift (£5,000) from Mrs Kidd - they refused on the basis that Lady Jay (campaign manager) suspected that it was really from Abrahams. Was sent back and Abrahams then sent one in his own name!!!!!!!!!!
163 Trevor’s a bit slow off the mark, that point was raised here last week.
Will Harman resign??
168. I think Benn is decent bet for the next Labour leader. The biggest problem he has is that the Benn brand is somewhat contaminated by the 2nd Viscount Stansgate’s loony behavior.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/covers/full/580_big.jpg
171. Lol - no chance - not enough wild horses in London.
149 so what you’re sayting is that last week’s problem was because an individual broke the rules and you can’t blame the organisation for rogue elements but now you are saying an individual breaking the rules is worse than institutionalised law breaking?
make your mind up!!
But she did exactly what Watt did surely?
Who was managing her campaign?
Story is now turning onto Harriet. She looks in danger on this.
27. “Anyway I’m much more worried by the current riots in Paris northern suburbs. ”
I thought you were much worried by Guerre et Paix’s last episode tonight on France2
110 - Peter, isn’t the Conservative Party in favour of co-operatives now, didn’t Cameron recently launch the Conservative Co-operative Movement?
The staggering thing about Labour’s current woes is that they are almost totally self-inflicted.
169 - Wow that actually is dynamite!
176. “Who was managing her campaign? ”
Mike Foster MP and Joan Ruddock MP?
Baroness Jay isn’t a minister.
Of course the fact that Jay was able to identify a random £5000 donation as “actually being from Abrahams” does suggest knowledge about the guy was quite widespread at the top of the Labour Party.
How did Benn know? Maybe he heard from his campaign Manager the former Chair of the Labour Party, Ian McCartney, (also interviewed in cash for honours).
McCartney would know more than most people about key supporters in the party.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2534027.ece
Advice to Mr Brown from Austin Mitchell:
“Welcome home, Gordon. Don`t say anything like “Crisis What Crisis”. But don`t get nattered by it all either. The punditieri have been longing for Labour slip-ups after having to praise us for so long. It`s not a tipping point. Just a retour à normal. Stay serious. Show concern but not panic. Sit it out. There`s worse to come on the economy but face that when it comes.”
So this is normal - we’ll be exhausted by Christmas at this rate!
183 - Maybe all this “other material” that Yates was talking about was simply not used because it was beyond the mandate of his investigation (ie. nothing to do with Cash for Honours). Wonder what prompted the Mail to start sniffing about…?
Both Ruddock and Foster junior members of Gov. (If I have the right Michael Foster)
Will they resign?
184 Labour MP confirms “There`s worse to come on the economy….”
166 Aaron - Presumably Conservatives are offered shorter odds?
Gordon’s Amoral compass
188 - lol - we don’t have a database entry for that… yet…
What an opportunity the LD’s are presented with. Labour shaken to its very roots, and polling numbers last seen in the Michael Foot era, and the Tories, well still being the Tories.
We are almost back into 1981 territory, a failing government pitted against a deeply mistrusted and unliked opposition, except there is no Falklands around the corner to salvage this government.
Surely there will be no better time for the LD’s to make a genuine and sustained breakthrough. The winner of the leadersghip contest needs to embrace this moment.
“Mr Benn’s spokesperson revealed that senior Labour Party member Baroness Jay, who was supporting his leadership campaign, advised the minister that the donation made by Ms Kidd actually came from Mr Abrahams.”
How did she know that?
Gordon Brown running late - being frantically rebriefed!!!
seeing todays developments its only a matter of time before the second police investigation inside 2 years into Labour party funding commences. now that i am afraid is indeed a black wenesday event.
Gordon Brown turned down Kidd donation.
He’s bringing in “the Bishop”. Lawd help us!
GB own fund rejected money from mrs kidd! hes got to go
Brown turned down money from Kidd.
i do not recall talking to him about donations. !!! this will bring down the government, they all knew and they are all lying. setting up a review to try and put the police off the scent just isnt going to work
Brown being evasive on meeting Abrahams. “I may have met him, I have no recollections of any discussions on donations”.
So other matters discussed?
This is a car crash.
Brown just can’t lie convincingly can he? Blair was a master, Brown is not.
196 - now, now Rod. Don’t bash the Bishop.
laws have been broken and this lying turd is trying to fob us off with an internal inquiry. that just isnt going to wash, the police must be involved to find out what happened.
202. Knowing Labour, the Bishop will turn out to be Jess Yates….
4th time he has said I have no knowledge!
Mike- can we please do something on this site on posts like 203. It will put me off ever coming on here.
Blimey, this is serious. If he’s exposed himself just now, that’s it.
I reckon Brown could be gone by Christmas. I think he’s lying his arse off!
203 the CPS have been called in by the Electoral Commission.
REVIEW!call a COBRA meeting!
207- if Brown is lying of course he will have to go, and probably face some kind of criminal investigation. I rather suspect therefore that he is not lying.
Gord mentioned the C-word…
lol - bit of confusion there: had to deal with floods, foot & mouth, and a terrorist outbreak
Q:”Have the wheels come off”
A: stutter, stammer, panic, scramble around for past glories - “Floods, foot and mouth, terrorism, floods, er, I’m good at that aren’t I?”
C$ announced ‘The knieves are out for Gordon.’
If only, but is was a trailer for Gordon ramsay.
“I did not have sexu@l relations with David Abrahams”
Who is this Bishop Harris chap anyway?
I’ve heard of a judge conducting an inquiry, or a respected Lord. But a member of the clergy? How odd…!
Brown sems to be saying that Harman will have to comment for herself.
207/210. I agree Tyson. But Bob Sykes, Brown is 80/1 to leave office of Prime Minister this year and 16/1 next year. I’ve just backed both.
216 - Harries, well I suppose judges do criminal enquiries. I suppose it is natural for Bishops to do moral enquiries.
Jon Snow talking of “money laundering”. Ouch.
Brown’s doing all right at this press conference, he is relaxed and calm. IMO given the absolute nightmare he is facing in general. Doing a lot better than most people ever could. No sign of denial, no sign of nerves. Pretty solid.
216. It smacks of desperation, like when Ernest Saunders wheeled a senile vicar into court as a character witness…
221. Maybe he’s taken Tyson’s advice and chucked in a few beta blockers. frankly its a shambles
221
Sounds like “the condemned man ate a hearty breakfast”..
We NOW live in a banana monarchy.
Harriet Harman is clearly THE issue.
Where is Harman’s statement?
222. Rod I am interested in your position. I know that you really intensely dislike David Cameron. Has your position changed or do you have even more contempt for Brown. I am just interested because you have a slightly different take than most posters on here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=496621&in_page_id=1770
Jonathan - “Brown’s doing all right at this press conference, he is relaxed and calm.”
You are Comical Ali and I claim my reward.
Think he stopped short of giving Harriet his full confidence/support?
206 i’m sorry but if you honestly believe what he is saying to be ENTIRELY truthful then i cannot help you. my comments are a rational interpretation of the circumstances and facts as i know them and browns comments.
What a merry old Christmas this is going to be - Brown driven out of office in less than 6 months.
Cheers!
Will there be a Miliband Bounce though, and a Spring poll?
Anyone think that Brown has completely buried Harriet Harman? The contrast between his campaign, which didn’t accept donations from unknown individuals and Harman’s accepting Kidd’s donation is quite stark.
Brown is doing OK, considering the hand he’s got to play.
229 The truth here is more issue than your hyperbole. Brown is obviously confident and calm. But…
The fate of Harriet Harman, her teams actions contrasting strongly with those of Benn and Brown, is clearly the issue. Brown did not pin his colours to her mast IMO.
Baroness Jay looks finished after Hilary Benn dropped her right in it. Harriet Harman is in deep sh+t too.
Labour’s spin that only Watt was involved is already unravelling fast and Brown’s admission that he has met and spoken to Abrahams but knew nothing about these donations/money laundering is simply not believable.
The truth here is more issue = The truth here is more interesting
Jonathan - “Brown is obviously confident and calm.”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!
Labour government:
The answer to every problem is a review or investigation followed by a refusal to talk about the core issue because a review is under way.
At the same time ministers no longer have responsibility for the mess their departments create and the leader of the Labour party is no longer responsible for the actions of that party.
“The beleaguered premier also revealed Mr Abrahams had tried to give money to his own leadership bid under the name of one of three go-betweens.
But Mr Brown’s campaign team had turned it down.”
Does this mean Gordon Brown is admitting he knew about Mr Abrahams and dodgy donations?
Tyson, that’s pure fantasy. You cannot call a party that can call on 40% of the vote “deeply mistrusted and unliked”.
If the Liberals are to ever displace Labour as the main anti-Tory party, they will have to do so when Labour is in opposition.
236 - How is Baroness Jay “finished”? She’s a life peer!
Brown seems more concerned to save his own skin than to defend his ministers. Not a very edifying sight for a Prime Minister.
He’s also dropped one or two subtle hints that his predecessor may have known about these “arrangements”. Any comment Tony?
So Brown’s team and Benn did not think it ok to accept a donation from someone that Watt and Harman thought ok.
Watt has gone, Harman is clearly next.
But how come Jack Dromey holds the title of “Treasurer” but does not have a clue what is going on with major donors? Are the lights on but no one is at home? How come he seems not to know about Abrahams? Or does he and is that where the journalists are going to focus.
Scene in Dromey/Harman household. HH “I just got a donation of £5,000 from a Ms Riddick a person I do not know. JD “Well that’s alright then, we get regular cheques from her at the Labour party”.
Who Brown has met or has spoken to is irrelevant. He’s met George W, doesn’t make him a republican.
242
Any credibility she may have once had as a reputable politician is “finished” though, no doubt, she will continue to benefit from the public gravy train.
Well Jack Straw LIED.
He claimed no one knew who Abrahams was nor had met him.
We now know Brown met him and Jay knew.
FT: Have you already set out your vision, or are we still waiting for it!
Absolute classic!
245 “Who Brown has met or has spoken to is irrelevant.”
Tell that to the voters.
I’m in China, where the BBC websiteis blocked. Pb.com is unparalleled, can’t get coverage like this anywhere else!
Another day another shambles it seems… what a shower. Will there be some resignations? gripping stuff
Baronness Jay knew that Abrahams used proxies and Brown’s campaign refused a donation because they also thought a proxy donation was dodgy.
Watts knew that Abrhams used proxies. So how is this not a clear case that everyone knew but no-one wanted to stop the gravy train.
The only ones that seem to have not known are the Deputy Leader of the Labour party who accepted a donation through a proxy and the Treasurer of the Labour party who surely knows the rules. Is this credible? Or perhaps they didn’t care?
227. Both have flaws. I don’t “intensely dislike” Cameron. I still think he is too young, inexperienced and insincere, and is attempting to float to victory as a Blair-doppelganger, which irritates me.
I have never voted Labour and probably never will, but Brown at the moment is probably the best of a bad lot. Not saying much, but that’s politics…
246 - what rubbish. Due to the fact that she exercised due diligence when accepting donations during benn’s campaign? Really.
247 It certainly looks like Straw lied live on TV last and I suspect that Brown has lied live on TV today.
252. I thought it was something along those lines…cheers…so you still think that LibDems = kingmakers?
247 - no straw didn’t say not.
251 - no brown did not say that.
In our local Tory association when we get any donation above 500 quid we get the name address and electoral roll number and we report it to the Electoral Commission. Everything is triple checked because of cash for honours and we’re just a low key local party. It’s literally incredible that Labour’s NEC didn’t do the same
I wonder who the money will be returned to - the proxies or Abrahams?
249 No doubt it can be spun to imply all sorts of things, but if we’re honest it’s a fairly reasonable statement in reality. Just because you or I have met someone, it says nothing about us. Equally it says nothing about the PM, if he meets individual x or y.
What is that famous quote from US politics about a president meeting a communist not making him a communist?
So Brown’s own campaign leadership elction team refused money from Abrahams because it was offered through intermediaries. And yet the Labour party General Secretary accepted significant sums of money from the same source, through intermediaries, during Brown’s premiership.
At the least the charge of incompetence will stick. Plus unbelievable tardiness by the Labour Party in putting it’s house in order following Cash for Honours. You shouldn’t wait for the results of a review to put a few common sense checks into the system.
Missed the name but a foreign Journalist is asking about his Moral Compass and responsibility. He lost that months ago!
260 - no, Brown said that they turned down Kidd’s donation because they didn’t know who she was. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant, that is what he said. Not that they turned it down because it was from Abrahams.
“So Brown’s own campaign leadership election team refused money from Abrahams because it was offered through intermediaries.”
No they refused it because they didn’t recognise the source. Good move.
253 She clearly knew that that £5,000 from Janet Kidd was dodgy and was being laundered through Kidd from Abrahams. So she may have execised due diligence with regard to Benn’s campaign but she didn’t seem to mind the hundreds of thousands coming through the same intermediary and others to the Labour Party coffers.
If she warned Benn about this donation why didn’t she warn the Labour Party treasurer and general secretary about all the other donations originating from the same source?
Please don’t claim that she didn’t know about the other donations totalling £600,000 because that just beggars belief.
Sky news are gunning for Margaret Jay right now. Doesn’t look good for her.
263. Yes shame the labour party didn’t do the same….but thats probably cos they knew the source
“Do you have full confidence in Harriet Harman?Yes or No”
258. Be a nice windfall for the jobbing builder.
Time to back a 2010 election?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/11/26/brown-i-ll-stay-at-no10-till-2010-89520-20161206/
267 its the ecclestone outcome. get the influence you wanted and then get your money back. perfect.
Still no “YES” to the confidence in HH question. She’s toast, unless she can save herself. Dep leader election?
262/263. Thank you for the correction. I think my second paragraph at 260 still applies.
264 - Voxpop you can go on as much as you like about how they’re all corrupt and will all have to go. But at the moment the only “evidence” we have is the evidence of their own words. So you can draw whatever inferences you want but they won’t all hold up. Just because Sky are “gunning for someone” is irrelevant if they don’t find the evidence to justify it.
You assert that she knew about other donations. That may well be the case. But you don’t KNOW it, as yet, because you have seen no evidence.
Anyway it seem particularly irrelevant to go ‘gunning for’ a non-ministerial life peer. No scalp to be had there. So the media will probably look elsewhere pretty quickly.
259 Jonathan
But you or I are not the Prime Minister so who we nonentities choose to associate with is largely irrelevant. Poliicians, on the other hand, tend to be judged on the company they keep.
268. Until at least 2010. What would at most be then???
Would Brown be that gutted if Harman got the chop ? She’s effing useless.
268. 2010 election. Now that would suit my betting book!
272 You sound rattled Alex. Calm down lad.
It’s not the end of the world
272 (con) - And ask your question the other way round.
Why would Margaret Jay stand by while hundreds of thousands of pounds went illegally into Labour Party coffers, but suddenly get worried due to one £5000 donation to a deputy leadership campaign?
275 - a DL election could open all sorts of rifts in the party, though
Alec you have missed the “big” point Brown and other ministers are clever with words but are attempting to mislead us. There is now clearly a perception that there is a “cover up” which is likely to be extremely damaging to Labour.
276. Same, I got on 2010 at 12/1 with William Hills a few months back! Only could get £40 or so on though
278
Easy answer: She stopped the one SHE knew about.
277 - Why would I be rattled? You should calm down before you collapse in a fit of apoplexy.
All very undignified for Labour. Still, I suppose we should thank them for introducing laws to make Party funding transparent. Just a pity they couldn’t practice what they preached.
O/T. Gonna miss Vince Cable when he’s gone. Loved his comment last night ‘the public’s money in Northern rock disappearing into the air like one of Mr Branson’s balloons.’
282 - Well if that’s an easy answer then you should tell that to Voxpop.
278 Who knows what’s really going on in the minds of these dreadful people?
281. I’s lay that stake off if I were you. Better a free bet than a potential losing one.
286 - well you obviously do because you’ve been telling us for the last half an hour.
285
LOL
How can Brown simultaneously claim that his campaign rejected a donation from Janet Kidd because “they didn’t know her” while also claiming that no-one was aware that Abrahams was donating money through other people?
If that were true then Janet Kidd would have been, on the face of it, one of the biggest Labour donors and they would have certainly known about her.
Brown’s been going for an hour. By any standards that’s a long time to be bombarded by questions. A very long time to deal with such hostile questions. All in all calm, and confident. The tactic of getting the announcement in first, borrowed from PMQs seemed to work.
I reckon he’s had a makeover.
288 I’m glad to hear you’re not rattled but it must be a tad upsetting for you seeing the governments rather amateurish cover-up falling apart so quickly and 13% behind in the polls already.
BBC1 Political reporter says Brown trying to ringfence himself .. but implies not believable.
H Harman looks like toast.
If there’s another DL election, would most of the other candidates from last time bother with it? Surely Benn, Hain and Blears would not stand after losing decisively last time.
Would they think it sensible to have another non-event? I wonder if they may go for another Soviet style single candidate job - ie Straw.
292 - i’m not sure why.
FWIW, I thought Brown’s performance was adequate, though the emphasis on his personal justification and the less than wholehearted support for Harman appeared selfish.
Interestingly, he contradicted Lady Prosser’s claim (and she an ex Treasurer) that Labour’s own financial scrutiny board had not met for two years. That was odd.
294 - think Cruddas would have an excellent chance in the circumstances
255. While the chance of a HP is still high (still favourite in my book, maybe even shorter odds now), the LD kingmakers scenario has always had a smaller probability. If the LDs score below about 19% it becomes vanishingly small. If the opportunity arose, they’d probably flunk it anyhow, either because it would split the party, or because to prop-up Labour would be perceived as un-democratic, depending on the precise outcome of the election.
279. Posted by me at [40] this morning: “I’d still come back to my earlier point - if a deputy leader doesn’t want to resign, it’s almost impossible to make him / her. Brown can’t afford a deputy-leadership contest politically (after this fiasco, Cruddas would surely stand a very strong chance), and Labour won’t fancy it financially. Were Harman to lose her cabinet position, it gives her plenty of space to vent any anger that any sacking might generate. All round, it’s a lose-lose unless Brown can protect her from the firing line”.
So, why hasn’t he protected her from the firing line? Presumably because he believes this could all get very messy and wants to avoid getting too close to it. Even so, that’s far from a no-risk strategy.
Has Jack Dromney ever been questioned on where NuLab’s funds have come from in 2007? If HH goes would he go as well?
296 - yep bit strange.
Journalist: “Today we have learned that Margaret Jay knew, that Hilary Benn knew. Wasn’t this a secret that was ciculating around the highest levels of the Labour Party?”
Brown: “Nowt to do with me guv”
Anyone else think it odd that a Government has to ask for independent advice on how to implement the laws that it itself introduced?!
You couldn’t make it up…
302. You’ve got the Brown soundbite wrong. It should be, “I have no knowledge!” I’m sure it will play well on the News at Ten.
298 - quite. A Hung Parliament is no good to the Lib Dems if they can’t guarantee a working majority in coalition.
303 - They are trying to buy time. If all the gory details come out now then it could be crippling.
Nick Robinson R4: damaging to Brown..
Given how much difficulty GB is having in remembering which hacks have asked him a question or not (”You’ve already asked one”, “No? Oh, ok then”), how can his recall of key events in this latest saga possibly be relied on?
If Cameron cannot nail him down at PMQs after this …
But I expect Cameron to kick the ball into the stands tomorrow.
Brown has been exposed as a ‘pull the ladder up and sod the rest’ type today. Could cause trouble.
Telegraph:
“Pressure on Harman as PM returns money
Harman campaign took £5,000 but PM and Hilary Benn refused similar donations.”
309: “expect Cameron to kick the ball into the stands tomorrow”
So what if he does? Given how many times the other side’s star player is conceding own goals right now, it hardly matters!
309
It’s far more damaging to drag it out imo.
No clean break = make things worse.
Father Ted: “The money was just RESTING in my account, Dougal!!”
314 Bishop Len Brennan is conducting the inquiry after all
309 - Indeed Cameron doesn’t need to kill Brown, this is death by a thousand cuts!
Will Harriet be venturing on to Newsnight tonight to explain all to that kindly Mr Paxman?
309. On balance I think if I was him I would play it low key. Why stick the boot in when your enemy is doing a pretty good job all by himself?
I am pretty certain Camerons team will be planning a very careful strategy on this, any hint of triumphalism could backfire horribly.
“death by a thousand cuts” - is that the title of the next Tory Manifesto?
318 - tell that to some people on here. Sending out accusations in every direction possible is a sure recipe for missing the target.
315 Let’s hope Bishop Len doesn’t pull any of those dreaded rabbits out of the hat
321. Brown should have brought in the Vicar of St Albions to investigate. I’m sure he’d have done a better job with the whitewash than Brown could ever manage.
320 How Cameron plays this is up to him. As a bitter and twisted ex member of the Labour Party I will celebrate Brown’s travails any way I like!
I get the impression that the press feel there is a major resignation just around the corner post Northern Rock, Discgate and this funding stuff, and are out gunning for it. It does annoy me a little because in the last three years of the Tory administration the feeling was much the same, which didn’t allow the party to commence any initiatives which might get positive coverage. All a little unfair, and it does also, from a neutral perspective (not that I am neutral), delay all the workings of government and make what might already be a bad government even worse.
Brown should be allowed to put forth his new “ideas” and agenda - not least because I am confident that he would easily be diminished by any real debate about exactly what this direction and policy is. He doesn’t need to be brought down by “scandal” - indeed it would be rather more satisfying were he to brought down over policy direction a la Callaghan in 1979.
Cameron’s tactic should be to wind GB up enough so that we get another clip of him losing his temper on the 6 o’clock news.
If he can get that hand shaking away, all the better.
322 I hear the Vicar of St Albions is p*ssing himself rotten at the moment. And so is his delightful wife.
Did anyone hear Philip Gould on the World at One? Utterly demented. Said he was sure Labour would win the next election.
There is madness in the air.
The Speaker, on past form, will not allow a question at PMQs about party internal problems. One way might be to ask if Yates has been called in to complete his investigation.
Cameron is spoilt for choice but it is the data loss that will match public concern, so a challenge on the ‘only a junior’ story.
brown was in charge for a decade so why has he not accepted responsibiltiy.
Then attack government incompetence even in its own affairs, let alone part time ministers, poor support for the services and wasted money.
Should leave Brown bursting at the seams.
294. I put some money on Mr Straw for next leader a few weeks ago at 50/1. I can’t remember who it was who agreed with me.
324 - I sort of agree with you. But can you imagine three more years of this? Horrible thought.
Just while we’re thinking about the Major administration, does anyone remember as bad a month, when so many things went wrong at the same time, as November has been for this administration?
305. By Kingmakers, we mean a HP where the LDs (on their own) could put EITHER major party in power with a majority. The scenario that the LDs would be unable to put either party in (a la Feb 1974) is also quite small. The most likely scenario is that they would have the numbers to put one party in power, but not the other. It’s now complicated by the prospect of a real SNP breakthrough. Someone needs to do a guest article on the subject….
327 yes Gould said he expected Labour to take the lead in a couple of months.
So that is February.
ITV News: “People don’t believe Brown’s claim that he knew nothing about these donations until last Saturday”.
Harriet Harman has to go. ‘Accepting £5000 in good faith’ is not a valid excuse when it comes to political donations for her deputy leadership campaign.
306 - Absolutely. The fact that Lady Jay and Hilary Benn both knew that the donation from Ms. Kidd was in fact from Abrahams and took action, must surely mean that there were many others at very senior level who were well aware of this modus operandi.
If Lord Whitty’s inquiry is anything but a total whitewash (who can tell?), these extensive links are bound to be revealed, with the potential to be even more devastating than the initial eruption.
309 DC will get no joy on this subject at PMQ’s IMHO, Brown will kick it into touch particularly if it becomes a police matter, better to go on total incompetence, a charge that will resonate IMHO
333 I am one person who doesn’t believe Brown’s claim. If there is another person out there in the same position as me, then they are right and we can confirm what ITV News says. Anybody?
327/332: From Anthony’s little box of quotes he’s saving up for a rainy day…
“I think what will happen is that our position will gradually improve. By the end of the year we will have a lead and we will certainly win the next election.”
Philip Gould, Today programme , 29th Jan 2007
336. If it becomes a police/CPS matter then Labour can relax - on recent form at least.
337 I don’t believe Brown either.
338: Although my favourite is…
“Labour might well now be jeered [...]. But if the party’s majority is less than, say, 75 - and I’d be astonished if it’s less than 100 - then I’ll spend the next decade in Siberia shovelling horse manure with my bare hands.”
Stephen Pollard, 10th November 2003, 18 months before Labour’s majority was reduced to 66.
O/T: Government forecasts UK population to be 110 million in 75 years. That must be what Brown’s “long-term” vision is all about…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7115155.stm
Very odd character…
From the Inde…
Ray Ruddick, 55, who lives in a former council house in Newcastle, and Janet Kidd, 56, of Gateshead, are also listed as the unlikely directors of a property company called Durham Green Developments, which stands to make a fortune after winning consent for a vast business park near Durham.
It emerged yesterday that David Abrahams, the publicity-shy developer who asked Ms Kidd and Mr Ruddick to donate his £600,000 to Labour, is also behind the planning application.
A spokesman for Durham City Council confirmed that Mr Abrahams was directly involved in the negotiations – but had used the name David Martin.
Mr Abrahams’ full name is David Martin Abrahams but he is known to use “David Martin” in business dealings at the request of his late father.
“It has always been David Martin dealing with the planning department,” said the council spokesman. “He goes by two names.”
A former Labour politician who has known Mr Abrahams since he was a teenager yesterday called him “something of a Walter Mitty”. Others who know him say he is eccentric, reclusive and generous in his donations to charity.
Official records appear to show he was born in Newcastle in 1944, although Mr Abrahams says he was born in 1954.
He initially made his living as a private landlord, known to his tenants as David Martin, but, as the son of a former Lord Mayor of Newcastle, he also had an eye on a career in politics.
He followed his parents, Bennie and Marion, onto Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County Council, but lost his seat in 1981.
His father died in 1990, and a year later Mr Abrahams won the nomination as Labour’s candidate to run against William Hague in the North Yorkshire constituency of Richmond.
But he was dumped when it was revealed that a woman and young boy who had accompanied him to the selection meeting were not his wife and son, as he had claimed.
In fact he was not married at all, and the woman, a blonde divorcee called Anthea Bailey, later went to a regional newspaper saying that she and her 11-year-old son had gone along to the meeting withMr Abrahams to “boost his image”.
She had agreed to get engaged to him as “a business arrangement” so he could “create the right impression” at the selection meeting and in discussions with the local party chairman, she said. Mr Abrahams had also told the panel he was 41, when he was 46, and that he was an administrator, when he was really a wealty North-east property developer going under a different name.
Mr Abrahams survived the deselection meeting by one vote, upon which his agent, press officer, chairman, two vice-chairmen, treasurer and secretary resigned in protest. He was finally deselected in a second vote.
341 - Is he there now?
332. Wonder how much he would be willing to bet that on. Think I’d sell my share portfolio for that bet.
Voxpop and Marquee Mark: We, the people… LOL!
346 The people have spoken!!
345
I too.
I’d take evens..
Chances of payout : nil (cos Gould would emigrate
Harperson to make statement at 3.30pm
No resignation I’d wager …
Harman to make statement at 3:30
3:30 pm = LABOUR’S WITCHING HOUR ahahahahaa
State funding for political parties, could be at the top of the agenda, very shortly I think.
When the hysteria dies down, (Xmas will afford some relief) the government must look at ways to strengthen even more the legislation covering political parties.
Starting with: The only people who can belong to, work for, contribute to, British Political parties are British citizens domiciled in the UK. Citizens who live outside the UK, can apply for a postal vote, and they would be granted a vote, provided they fulfill certain criteria: working on contract etc.
All British political parties must register their constitutions, with a body which would have the right, to conduct full and rigerous investigations into a political party at any time. That body, would have the right to examine and audit accounts etc.
344: Alas not, at the end of the article he added “Not to be taken literally; just an expression of the strength of my view…”. In hindsight it was probably lucky he added the get out clause.
Watergate brought down Nixon’s administration.
Durham-gate will bring down Brown and New Labour.
What started in Durham (Sedgefield), ends in Durham.
A nice symmetry.
Breaking News: Labour to change official theme tune from “Things can only get better” to Shaggy’s “It wasn’t me….”
PM Just issued a statement that Harriet Harman enjoys his full confidence, yet he couldn’t bring himself to do it in public (thrice denied?).
With regard to the comments about the former Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harris was interviewed in Jeremy Paxman’s book “The English”. When Paxman asked the straightforward question: “What does the Church of England actually belive?”, Harris waffled and waffled away and Paxman was unable to pin him down on anything.
I look forward to a re-run when Paxman interviews Harris about his inquiry into donorgate.
My Moral Compass. Didn’t realise he said that. What a joke.
As unpaid local party treasurers we have to comply with the rigid PPERA regime. If we fail to report donations properly, submit accounts late etc we will be personally fined and in extremis face up to 12 months in prison. We are also obliged to carry out appropriate checks on any unusual or dubious donations. If in doubt refer the matter upwards.
Harriet Harman has failed to measure up to these standards and should resign.
110m people. 50m in London?
“It wasn’t me….”
I expect ITN News tonight will have this running in the background over Tom Bradby’s savaging of Brown.
I’m quite getting a taste for ITN News. Since ITV went downmarket, they always seemed more interested in showbiz news and salacious tabloid stories - but since Brown snubbed them for Andrew Marr, they’ve really turned on Labour and beefed up the political operation. A pleasing antidote to the Beeb’s still perceptible bias towards Labour*. ITN could become a British equivalent of Fox News.
(*I accept that even the BBC is having to accept reality now though)
Sounds like Cameron’s line of attack at PMQs is going to be Labour’s disregard for the law. Possibly dragging in the sheer number of laws that they have created.
362 - in particular their disregard for the laws which they have created - think, data protection, freedom of information, party funding, postal voting… any others?
355
very funny
360 - As a kid, I remember that it was said the whole population of the earth could fit onto the Isle of Wight.
But they’d still only get one MP….
365 - They only want one MP.
What is absolute rock bottom for Labour, 27% is horrendous butI could see a poll over the weekend (if there is one) with Labour >25% It will be interesting to see if The conservatives can get to 44% or> They ought to after this shambles.
sorry
A new DL election would quickly become a proxy poll on Brown.
A Blairite would jump in and a Leftist. Both will accentuate their differences with the “Dear Leader”…and who, if anyone, would be willing to carry Gordon’s colours right now?
For this reason alone, he will try and save HH - useless though she is - if he possibly can.
367
Labour to be lower than LibDems before Christmas (2007)
Yes - please note that Harperson is giving a statement - unlikely to take a lot of questions in that case..
370. Labour and LDs to both be below “others” by Xmas ?
355 shoouldnt it be the theme to z-cars?
372
Lol
“Shaggy “It wasn’t me….”
Jonathan Aitkin surely?
371 - Is it a statement to the media or Parliament?
376. Probably a note shoved hurriedly from inside locked door to the baying media - ” it wasn’t me - its Frank Fields fault (again) “
Michael White’s take on events…..
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/11/michael_whites_political_blog_37.html
O/T - apologies for intruding upon the imminent collapse of Labour, likely jailing of Harriet Harman and tarring and feathering of Gordon Brown (if I’ve understood the exciteable posts above), but Betfair types may wish to note that yet another football manager’s market has seen more than one candidate hit odds-on, this time Derby County, with the lovely profit potential it brings.
Ahem, sorry. As you were…
The prize for Labour spin today goes to Michael White
378. From White’s piecE: “But the pack presses ahead putting the worst possible construction on what happened, which, as the Italian woman reporter reminded the audience, wasn’t a very big deal unless corruption is revealed. ”
I wonder who the Italian reporter is..
380 I was gobsmacked when I read it…
Sir Michael is deeper in denial than an Egyptian croc !
380 well he has earned his knighthood after that piece of Brown nosing.
380: I’m waiting for Kevin Maguire’s effort which will probably claim that the Tories are to blame. Why do the readers of lefty papers accept being lied to?
380. Can we have a Guido - White rematch?
386. As long as its White’s face covered this time - I have a weak constitution..
367
Labour only polled 27% in 1983, and still ended up with 12 more seats than the Conservatives have now.
388. I’d be happy with that outcome at the GE
285 The one thing that we’re all agreed on here is that this is the Tories fault.
Seriously, would this have happened if Watt had not resigned?
Sorry if I have missed this, but work got in the way…..
Will Bishop Richard Harries be doing this Enquiry thingy for the Government, or for the Labour Party?
388 - 1983, eh?
Time for Brown to dig out that donkey jacket. And let the good times roll (well, for the Tories at least)…
389
What! Labour getting 12 more seats than the Tories? So would they!
216 I imagine its the quondam Bishop of Oxford - and a good chap usually.
Free Money Alert
Ladbrokes and Boylesport are going 11/2 Obama for the Democrat Nomination. It’s 5/1 and falling with Betfair.
All the latest indications from Iowa are that Obama is running her close, so I can’t see his price doing anything but drop in the short term.
Btw, Bet365 were also 11/2 until very recently but it appears somebody there reads PB.com.
294. I’d imagine that they’d jump at that now. However its unlikely.
396 - Come now Peter. You know better than to use the words “free” and “money” next to each other when talking about gambling.
398. Ok its an arb..
I want to be 400.
398 LOL!
Well Alex, when you can back at 11/2 and lay at fives, what do you call it?
400- you are. Congratulations. Will there be a new thread for Harman’s statement? If not we could break some records!
As I undersatnd it, the Internal Labour Party Review is to be carried out by:
a retired High Court Judge who in true Lord Hutton fashion will find no evidence of wrongdoing
and
a Bishop who will absolve the Judge from his sins of lying.
Can someone explain how on Betfair the price for Overall Majority and Most Seats is higher now than it was last week.
Could it be profit taking and people thinking that we have seen the worst for Labour for the time being?
It also looked for a time today that the Clegg/Huhne spread was narrowing.
Some people must have big liabilities on Clegg ahead of the result.
Risk reward still seems skewed toward Huhne.
403 Maybe you got it wrong, Madasafish….
“Nobody expects the Oxford Inquisition!”
Independent headline: “‘Unlawful’ donations will be retuned, says Brown.”
379 Andy D
Thanks for the tip. All green. Modest amounts but welcome.
406 - that proposal may fall a little flat. Ho ho.
Scottish Leader Resigns. McLeish off to Birmingham
404 The somewhat anemic performance of Camerons lot could explain the drop. Despite Labour’s collapse, the Tory vote has been falling too.
Another piece of bad news on UK population:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7115155.stm
Luckily for most people on this site they will be dead before the UK turns into something akin to a battery farm!
By the way - I hate to rub it in to the commies, lefties and Anti- Tory elements of the LD’s but Brwn has been shown not to even meet my lowly expectations. Never mind the Labour slogan: Not flash - just gordon, it should read: not Gordon - just crap!!!!
:lol: 
Just to rub the salt in a little more i bet most Labour posters are as embarrased by Brown’s clever politics as some Tories were with IDS and his quite man!
:lol: 
Finkelstein’s blog not widely read enough so I reproduce here for a wider audience
“We are asked to believe that no one apart from Peter Watt knew of the arrangement to conceal Mr Abrahams’ identity.
For this to be the case there are two requirements.
First, Abrahams must have had the idea of donating hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Labour Party without being approached by a fundraiser.
Second, despite being a donor known to the General Secretary of the Party and to at least one of the Deputy Leadership candidates (Benn), and despite being known well by the party as a wealthy property developer (hence his seat in the front row of Blair’s farewell) he was never approached by a Party fundraiser. We are told, aren’t we that the fundraisers didn’t know of Abraham’s big donations. Yet still they left this potential donor alone.
These two ideas are, frankly, ridiculous.
It is impossible that Watt was the only person who knew.”
any news about HH’s statement?
412. Rumour on GF is that it has been cancelled.
Something else i have noticed about the journo’s at No.10 press conference, they have stopped Ar*e licking Brown.
John Snow was sailing close to the wind with his “money laundering” question, nick robinson clearly asked a tricky question on whether the government was incomptent or duplicitous.
Great stuff i roared with laughter and i can tell all non-Labour folk - “thing’s can only get better!”
:lol: 
I’ve heard it is postponed for some reason
412. Will probably clash with the statement in America by accident on purpose.
http://publicaccess.durhamcity.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?keyval=IKL9I0BNO2000
link is to the original planning app if anyone fancies doing a bit of sleuthing!
415- “Someone” is trying to get her to the right thing?
415-Do you know when it will be?
415- “Someone” is trying to get her to do the honourable thing?
418. More likely there has been enough bad news for one day - hide her until the morning.
411 “It is impossible that Watt was the only person who knew.”
That’s a statement of the obvious, Test. May I ask you, however, what you personally think is the best way to fund Political Parties?
My cynical take is that as usual, the public wants a service - in this case, Government and all that goes with it - but doesn’t want to pay for it (through taxes and the like.) Nor is it happy with the various forms of patronage to which we are all accustomed.
What’s the solution?
Think Harriet Harmen is kebbabed - dead in the water or knackered.
Problem for Brown is it opens a bigger can of worms if she goes and just makes the government look dodgy if she stays!!!
I see Macbeth has won two Evening Standard awards…Shakespeare apparently wrote the script to suck up to the new Scottish leader in Whitehall…How appropriate it’s back in the headlines today restaged as taking place in a Stalinist regime!
396.
Obama will not be the Democrat nominee (or more accurately he has about a 10% chance). In fact if the ‘Hillary is gay’ rumours have come from his camp he might be forced to withdraw. If Hillary were to fall under a bus people would probably move to Edwards, or start a draft Warner/Gore movement.
Obama is clearly too inexperienced and too immature for the White House.
424 “Out, damned Scot”, eh?
422. Problem is when a political party legislates ro make the system transparant and then does not adhere to the spirit or the law of the legislation they implement.
Labour have been even more hypocritical and dawnwright dihonest in their pursuit pf banning the opposition from campaigning between elections.
424 - Indeedy
422. Problem is when a political party legislates ro make the system transparant and then does not adhere to the spirit or the law of the legislation they implement.
Labour have been even more hypocritical and downwright dihonest in their pursuit pf banning the opposition from campaigning between elections.
425 Jeez, Matthew, you’re not offering me 10/1, are you? I’ll bite your hand off!!
As Ave It 07 would say, “Lib Dems gain Durham!”
Can only mean Harman to go.
423.
HH will stay as she’s done nothing wrong.
My conscience is troubling me. Should I really be enjoying Labour’s discomfort quite as much as I am?
422 - PtP - No. Absolutely not. Funding a political party is emphatically NOT the same as providing the service of Government. MPs and civil servants are already paid for their roles. If political parties cannot manage to enthuse the public into becoming members and/or making legitimate contributions to their upkeep, they should damn well fold.
Just watched Cable on BBC news, the Libdems, should really forget the others and make that man their leader, growing in stature and talking sense.
With Labour on the ropes, lets hope the Libdems start to soar in the polls, time to break the old two party system.
432. No chance - she’s a limpet.
433 If someone accepts an “illegal” donation, who is breaking the law. The donor or the person who accepts it. Technical point I expect.
…she’s sulking because Gordon couldn’t bring himself to offer his ‘full support’. Now he’s trying to placate her, hence the hurried statement.
422 - I cannot take credit for 411 which are Da Fink’s observations (re: Labour fundraisers and Lying Liars and the Lies they Tell). However my answer is the same as Cameron’s; limited state funding, spending limits BUT an end to the Communications (Propaganda) Allowance, and fewer MPs.
I would go for a spending limit IF, and only IF, Labour drops the Propaganda Allowance. Our Labour MP puts out red and yellow Labour branded leaflets (same design, typeface, the whole bit) just before local and what he thought was a general election. So no spending limits unless Labour give up that 11k per MP.
But short of that, let Labour take the cap on individual and vested interest donations at 50k.
Otherwise, quit yer cryin’, obey the laws *you wrote your bloody selves* and prepare to fight an election on the same basis as the other parties
433 apart from break the law.
425 - Wrong… very poor analysis IMHO.
Clinton could be in trouble, if she loses Iowa there will be a lot of momentum behind who ever wins there going into New Hampshire and should they then go onto win there, she’s got to look to the southern primaries to recover her campaign (tricky to say the least).
That said, should she win in Iowa it’s game over on the Democrat side IMHO and she’ll coast to the nomination. On the GOP side Huckabee could surprise folks in Iowa but both Romney and Gulianni could probably survive a hit there, a lot will then depend on what happens in New Hampshire.
Back to the Democrats and Obama trump Edwards every time IMHO, Edwards has a very liberal voting record, a inconsequential term as a senator and a disappointing turn as a vice presidential nominee, in short he’s a dime store version of Clinton without the political savvy or experience. That’s not say Obama can credible say he’s experienced but the sort of campaign he’s plotting doesn’t need him to be able to, he far better positioned than Edwards to take advantage should Hillary stumble (just take a look at the polls in the early states).
To be honest, if he wasn’t so intent on angling for the VP slot on a Hillary led ticket, Richardson would the ideal “experience” candidate on the Democrat side. And don’t fret over the rumors surrounding Hillary, it’s typical ‘Druge Report’ fantasy and will have nothing to do with any of the Democrat campaigns - although only the other week the Clinton campaign was spinning they had dirt on Obama, so you never know but it’s doubtful.
The key to the planning application is the site’s inclusion in the City of Durham Local Plan in 2004. If you read the Planning Officer’s report to the October 2006 meeting you will see that he believes that all the objections to the application were sustainable except for the fact that the site was in the Local plan as a business park. Objectors included the North East assembly and the County Council. Comments from the County Council make really interesting reading. The key question is why did the the then labour controlled city council include this green field site in its Local Plan when there is more than adequate employment land in the dstrict. It is also a little strange to read the press reports which suggest that planning officers knew that Abrahams or Martin as they called him was behind the scheme despite the fact that he was not publicly associated with the company promoting it. This suggests that quite a bit of lobbying went on behind the scenes for this site before it was included in the plan. The use of the FOI Act would be very interesting to look at all the correspondence between the council and the developer and between council officers on both Durham City Council and the County Council on this application.
If you break the law but give the money back is that OK then?
435
There is already state funding of Political Parties, the Short money etc.
If at the next GE there was an additional question on the ballot paper: Do you wish to make a £2.0 donation, (from taxation) to the party of your choice, if you object tick the no.
The money would not go direct to the Party, but would be held in an account by an independent body, which would act as a bank. The party would set up direct debits etc, to cover day-to-day costs, anything else would have to be justified, all ins and outs recorded. full annual accounts made public.
All other contributions, would also have to be sent the the independent body, to be vetted before rejection or acceptance.
444 - Labour wouldn’t have quite so extensive money problems if they didn’t give back so much at any whiff of trouble.
445 - Everyone would tick no.
I am sure state funding of parties would be totally acceptable.
10p per voter is my limit.
Not worth any more.
They waste money on false elections, manifestos with unkept promises..
Need I go on.
The system is awash with money.. if they cared to spend wisely.
444 It’s all a bit odd if I say so. What’s the penalty for breaking this particular law and still who exactly broke it? The donor or the receiver?
Can I get the Tories/LDs to break the law by giving them 50 quid to them via a mate. Or is it my deception that is at fault. Where’s Andrea if you need him.
446 Indeed the Tories have so much honour they will take bereaved relatives to court if it means a fast buck.
447 (con) - if that was the only source of party funding it would also give an institutional advantage to election winners.
447
No the Catch 22 is, that even if you didn’t agree, you’d dtill tick yes, because you wouldn’t want the party that you didn’t support getting more money than the one you do!!
430.
Am I offering you 10.00 when Obama is at 5.4 on Betfair? Er no. I’ll tell you what though, I’ll bet £25 at evens that the Audacity of Hype WONT win Iowa, heck I’ll even throw in a handicap so that if the difference between him and the winner is less than 1% of the totalvote I’ll pay up.
449 - A fine or up to one year in jail. The offence is failing to report the donation accurately. If the actual donor kept their identity from the Party secret then they would be committing the offence. If the Party knew but kept it a secret from the Electoral Commission (as is the case here) then they are committing the offence.
438. As it wasnt an “ilegal” donation the donor has, legally, done nothing wrong.
As the act states that the recipient should declare all donations and the source of any donation through an agent or third party the problem lies with the legal treasurer of the Labour Party, in their case the General Secretary.
The other question yet to be answered is will HMRC look at the “gifts” from Mr Abrahams to his employees. if I were given several hundres thousand pounds by my employer I would expect to pay tax on it!
443 - Interesting thank you.
The ruse of sticking a ‘favoured developers’ site into the local plan as a supermarket/business park/block of flats (delete as appropriate) is not uncommon and is a pretty shady practice.
I thought the central inspectors who have to sign off on the local plan were supposed to get rid of that sort of corrupstion-light. In fact, sometimes I’ve seen cases where the central inspector puts stuff like this INTO the plan - I’ve often wondered what the back-story to decisions like that might be!
450
Of course it would, but if you get more people to vote for you, you should get more.
For a party to be entitled to receive the money it would have to register its constitution. That constitution must contain a pledge to be completely dedicated to the democratic system. It must also state that membership is open to any British Citizen domiciled in the UK, regardless of race, creed or colour.
I would suggest that small donations to political parties should be entitled to get the tax back - just like happens with charities. The Inland revenue could collect and remit the money, the parties would like it because the tax kicker would increase their funds with little extra effort from them, and the process would at least gain some degree of respectability.
The state funding would be limited to the tax rebate and the incidental admin costs of running the system.
449 - didn’t the bereaved relatives in fact take the Tories to court, Jonathan? Still, don’t let the facts get in the way of a desperate bit of Tory bashing.
You’ll be bringing Ashcroft up next…
456 - What would be the point of party membership?
454
They were fellow directors.
I am sure that Company Law would proabbly treat it as hidden dividends with all that entails…
440 Thanks Test.
It’s a tricky one and I’m grateful for your views.
It’s certainly easy to agree with you in respect of compliance with the laws, whoever wrote them.
459 They could get to choose between two identikit candidates as to who would be the Leader. But not the Labour Party, obviously.
<>New thread
Any word on when HH’s statement will be?
452 Never thought for one moment that you were, Matthew, but presumably you are hoovering up all the lay odds on Betfair at about 5/1?
I’ll turn down your kind offer, not because it’s unfair - it is in fact perfectly fair - but because I have already backed Obama at 3/1 and I don’t need any more. Also, the Iowa caucuses are notoriously difficult to predict, so I wouldn’t be taking a short price about anybody.
Thanks anyway.
442 That’s pretty much how I see it, Ben, except to add that I think she needs to win fairly clearly in Iowa. Obama could survive a narrow defeat.
Btw, I don’t think her weakening in the polls has anything to do with Dirge, whose report is a loadofoldtosh, if you ask me. Obama would do well to distance himself from it.
442 - Ben: Spot on.
Richardson is the ideal VP candidate for Hillary, and I can’t believe InTrade is still predicting Bayh, Vilsack or Wes Clarke.
Hillary might lose Iowa - I still think Edwards will benefit from his (rural) network there from 2004, which gives him a distinct advantage (Bill Clinton never really campaigned in Iowa) - but she needs to come at least second, or the wheels may begin to come off. She must win New Hampshire - it would be embarassing if she lost there.
IMHO, Obama and Edwards need to get “two second places and a third place” or better to proceed with any confidence. Otherwise donors will start to get tight with their money, which because of the consolidated SuperDuperTuesday will hurt even more than usual.
I can’t see Edwards withstanding the challenge from Obama in the long-run. Obama will become, against his best wishes, the anti-Hilaary candidate for the Dems.
If Hillary wins Iowa with over 35% of the vote, it is as good as over.
My favourite restaurateur hasn’t heard of ‘Brown’. Perhaps a problem with pronunciation?
I thought the thread was bad yesterday but today it’s worse. I would strongly recommend to Mike that he introduces a minimum age requirement. Obviously I don’t suggest he loses all his Tory posters so perhaps if he sets it at twelve that should leave about half. Incidentally where did this expression ‘ouch!’ come from?
As for “sleaze” the problem for the Tories is that the market leader is always affected disproportionately and whether they like it or not since John Major’s time they’ve just about had the market cornered.