Could “Cash for Peerages” bring down Blair?
April 14th, 2006
-
Have honours been abused to boost a controversial education policy?
Until the arrest yesterday of the City Academies fundraiser, Des Smith, I thought that Tony Blair would escape from the “cash for peerages” row relatively unscathed.
After all the Prime Minister has survived an awful lot, from Bernie Ecclestone through to David Kelly and the Hutton hearings, that those legendary Teflon qualities would see him through almost anything.
-
Now I am not so sure. For abusing the honours system to underpin the controversial city academy strategy could be much more damaging to him than raising the money so that Labour can fight the Tories.
For the injection of private money into setting up these schools has been a key weapon in pursuing a policy that seems to many to be about wresting control from local authorities - moves that do not command widespread support within Labour.
Donors who have given to city academies are supporting a key part of the Government’s educational strategy so it’s no wonder that figures like education minister, Andrew Adonis, have been keen on promoting them. This is from the original Sunday Times report in January which sparked off the whole affair.
“..On Friday, Smith told a reporter posing as a donor’s PR assistant that “the prime minister’s office would recommend someone like (the donor) for an OBE, a CBE or a knighthood”.
“Really?” replied the reporter. “Just for getting involved with the academies?”
“Just for, yes, they call them ‘services to education’,” replied Smith. He went on: “I would say to Cyril’s office that we’ve now got to start writing to the prime minister’s office.”
Smith was even more confident about the prospect of securing an honour if the donor was willing to give as much as £10m.
“You could go to the House of Lords and get a lord . . . become a lord,” he said.
“So, if you invested in five city academies over, say, a 10-year period, it would be . . .” said the reporter.
“A certainty,” said Smith.
There is so much there that could provide the spring-board for taking the inquiry right into the heart of Governnment and Downing Street. When a process like this is under way it’s going to be very hard to stop it.
-
Blair could be under threat and I have slightly reduced my positions on him surviving until the end of next year in the “When Will Blair go” markets.
I should declare an interest. My day job is as an educational fundraiser and for a decade, until last year, I was Director of Development at Cambridge and then Oxford Universites. I am now at York and I am only too aware of the seriousness of competition that the city academies fundraising programme has presented us with.
There are only a limited number of people about who can make seven and eight figure gifts and since way before the Sunday Times report I have been concerned about the competitive advantage the honours system has given the Government.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I think it will indirectly bring down the govt, not directly. Will lead to headlines, squabbling, Lab voting apathy on May4th, knock on effects.
If there are any further arrests then it might be a differernt story.
I hope the police are examining this guy’s computers and emails. Where did he get the impression from he could sell Ks and peerages? He can’t have made it up out of thin air. What does the paper trail say?
The most damaging thing was that this was a dead story now alive again. BBC led with it. Guardian too.
1. Very good analysis. There are essentially two strands to this story now: the direct investigation which could claim all sorts of scalps depending on evidence, and the knock-on effects that take place while it’s ongoing as manifested in polls, elections and general ‘chatter’.
For what it’s worth, I got round to doing my first canvassing for my local election yesterday (this is in a ward Labour has held since Bradford Met was created in 1974), and of about 70 households I didn’t find a single person who said they were going to vote Labour. A fair few said they wouldn’t vote for me (Tory) and quite a lot said they would be voting Lib Dem. Admittedly, this is in a part of the ward that transferred in from a safe Lib Dem ward two years ago, but the absence of openly declared Labour voters was marked. But then this is only one day’s canvass.
On the bigger picture, I guess the crucial link will be whether Levy is implicated. The potential chain to No 10 is pretty short (Blair-Levy-Smith) and should Levy as the PM’s fundraiser (as well as his position on academies) become seriously embroiled, it must undermine Blair to the point where his position is nigh-on untenable.
Mike is probably right to suggest that the greatest damage is to University fundraising, given the proportion of genuine philanthropists to egomaniacs amongst potential donors.
The interesting question is - will people care? Many of those who set a high value on “clean government” have probably stopped voting Labour (or, perhaps, voting) already - the best form of damage limitation would be to point to the fact that this sort of thing is inevitable, and will happen under any government.
The problem with all of this for Labour is that even if it comes to absolutely nothing it keeps sleaze in the news. Given the speed at which the police investigate this type of issue it will drag on for months with more people interviewed and the police leaking the ‘arrest’ to a grateful press. The position Blair now finds himself in shows the danger of politicians being in office for too long.Labour ministers increasingly have in Disraeli’s famous words to Gladstone the ‘look of a group of extinct volcanoes’. At the grass roots the party is terminal decline in many areas. In my own area although we do not have any council elections for 2 years we will have real difficulty in finding suitable candidates. Increasingly I’m finding that traditional Labour voters are telling me that they will not vote as long as Blair is still Leader. I know that Labour is worried about the effect that this could have on the Welsh Assembly election next year. They might not vote for anyone else but as the Welsh council elections of 2004 showed alow turn out by tradional Lbaour voters can lead to some wied results.
Judging from their websites, this story was the top piece just on the Guardian and Telegraph. The Times has something about the Pope and the Indy has the RAF doctor as top story.
Good article. While IA is right to ask “will people care?”, this is perhaps not the point. More significant is that it undermines Blair’s whole line on the “honours selling” affaiir - that raising money for political parties is an unfortunate and messy part of politics that he would rather not have to do, but it is necessary for democracy to survive.
Raising money for government programmes on the other hand is a different kettle of fish - especially in the case of City academies where one of the unanswered questions remains “what if the backers pull out?” - if the perception becomes widespread that they are not in it for the right reasons then this question will need answering with far more urgency.
Off topic, very sorry (I don’t know if one of Sean Fear’s local election pieces is going to appear today - I’ll re-post if it does, as this is more appropriate there):
I’ve been asked to write a piece, in one of the national papers, on prospects for the local elections on 4th May, and I’d very much welcome the (very) vast and (extremely) perceptive knowledge and opinions of the pb.com community to help me.
Which councils are the various parties best chances of gaining?
How many seats overall would be a good figure for (e.g.) the Conservatives to gain, how many disappointing? The same of course for all other parties.
What surprises may we look out for?
I can’t guarantee to get everyone’s special knowledge in, but I’ll do my best!
Your help would be much appreciated!
Sorry again if this interrupts this thread.
3/4. This is hitting on a very serious point. There is a great disillusionment with party politics, and the Des Smith thing has just greased the skids. Party membership is down across the board (some parties might go up year-on-year, but the overall figure is more or less permanently heading south). This is, in turn affecting the ability to fundraise and interact on a local basis, which undermines things further. In addition, the average age of members is increasing and already elderly.
Electorally, it is having an effect by increasing the number of odds-and-sods being elected. Fine if you want a nice local chap to deal with an individual matter, but a real problem if you want a government (national or local) with a strong leadership to affect change and improve the lot of the counrty / area. In my area - Bradford - there were 3 non-Tory/Labour councillors out of 90 as late as the early 90s. There are now over 20 and I expect this figure to rise further. That is simply mirroring a national trend. Are we heading towards the kind of politics that France has - a few tired old parties and a bunch of single-issue groups? I hope not, because if so, there is a real crisis coming as that structure will prevent any of the serious challenges of the 21st century being adequately dealt with.
TB has escaped from tighter spots than this.
It would be different if one of those ennobled through donations ‘fronted up’ with his deal. That would have been impossible with TB’s star high in the sky, but when the consensus is that TB is yesterday’s man?
The power of this site must not underestimated. Not in gambling, but from an opinion forming angle. The host’s job in raising finance for universities is made much harder because potential donors receive a something back for financing city acadamies? MS’s special knowledge is tougher to ignore because of pb.com. A personal weekly up-date on this thread please, Mike.
Interesting to see whether this resonates in any way, at Moray, the first major electoral test. Note that the Herald summary this morning paints the SNP and the Conservativies being the leading candidates with the Conservatives pouring resources in. A reader would see the Lib Dem and Labour candidates as a side show. From other reports the Lib Dems appear to be pouring in resources as well, althopugh they do say the Labour candidate lives in the constituency unlike the “leading” candidsates.
However it is a summary based on the positions in 2003 and virtually nothing else, without any sign that the constituency has been visited, devoid of any reference to the recent Scottish YouGov poll or the Lib Dem claims on their web site.
The learned Professor from Strathclyde University did this at Dunfermaline and if I recall felt that the Lib Dem would struggle to come third!
A surfeit of Davids here this morning! David H at 8 - Perceptive comments on the “balkanisation” of politics. But as a Lib Dem, I can’t help feeling this is yet another (well-dressed up) attempt to put us down as another “odd and sod”! A tactic used constantly by both Tory and Labour. You can’t help feeling that a 40 year feeling of sour grapes (the period of Liberal Revival) underlies these comments.
david(s) at 10 - Unfortunately have not been able to get to Moray. The article you mention from John Curtice I saw while I was at Dunfermline, and it so conflicted with everything I saw on the ground, I unusually felt it couldn’t be true. Again - did people overestimate the effect on the Lib Dems electoral position of the issues surrounding the end of Charles Kennedy’s leadership?
Not sure I can see this issue bringing down TB although I agree that it will have a ‘drip-drip’ effect & increase general disillusionment. This might change if it becomes personalized in the way that the tragic death of Dr Kelly anchored the whole WMD/dody dossier farce. Until a household name is dragged into the frame, the scandal will only remain a cause celebre for wonks.
I am afraid that the main victim will become the (blameless) House of Lords which will become even more discredited. It will be hard to argue for its continuing role as a check on Parliament if it is perceived to be full of rich businessmen with paid-for peerages. (Could this be part of Tony’s plan to further emasculate the House!)
Re fundraising - How much does an honary doctorate cost? All universities reward funders with funny letters after their name. Now that peerages, CBEs etc are discredited, the value of a nice sounding doctorate might rise!
Robert @ 7. There’s plenty of material amongst the archives but if I may be so bold; there is a much more serious issue being discussed in this thread!
11. I’m only 32, so must have inherited institutional sour grapes!!
Actually, the Lib Dems are a bit of both. Clearly a main player when it comes to votes and support, but not when it translates into seats (hence the support for PR and at least one reason for the opposition to it from the two government-forming parties). Even counting the Lib Dems as a main player, the we have seven councillors outside the main parties - 4 green, 3 BNP. I would not be surprised if this goes up. It’s the same on a national level: when was the last time there were three ‘independents’ in parliament - the Wyre Forest guy, the independent Labour in Blenau, and Georgeous?
Heading back vaguely on topic, one reason why this story needs a media lead is because both the Tory and Lib Dem parties don’t have sufficiently clean hands on party funding to really savage Blair based on what we already know, as we know exactly what the Labour response will be - purely negative.
10 - On that YouGov poll again. The Scotsman has been given a full list of the questions asked (you’ll not see it on the website as you have to buy the paper to be able to read the comments section). As the SNP has not publicised the results of these other questions (and we can guess why) I assume YouGov doesn’t have to publish the data either.
re 15. The relevant part of the British Polling Council code states
..However, in the event the results of a privately commissioned poll are made public by the organisation that commissioned the survey (including its employees or agents), such results will be deemed to have entered the public domain and procedures outlined above will be followed in respect of those findings. The client and survey organisation may keep other findings (that have not been published) confidential except where such findings are relevant to the topics covered in questions that have been published or where the question order is relevant to the published results.
[14] Well, the LibDems are (or have been) a “government-forming” party in Scotland and Wales - of course, under a PR system. As for minor parties, you may be interested in this list of MPs elected in 1945:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPs_elected_in_the_UK_general_election%2C_1945
15. How many questions were asked?
Considering all the past difficulties Blair has had I wouldn’t be too surprised to see him wriggle out of this one as well, never underestimate our Prime Minister’s ability to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. I can well imagine that should this story blow up and more people are arrested, then barring himself being arrested, I can see Blair playing the ignorance card and “distancing” himself from some of the more dodgy characters in this story.
That said however if he did play that card he could well look like a fool as well. Unless Blair himself is arrested, which won’t happen, unfortunately, I suspect all this will do is add to the “drip, drip” effect that will probably hasten his departure, but won’t cause his immediate resignation.
16. That’s what yougov has published so far:
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TOQ060101001_1.pdf
15 - I don’t know Andrea it doesn’t list them. People were asked questions about what sort of coalition they would prefer, whether or not Scottish Labour were controlled by London and what peoples views were on a Green/SNP coalition amongst others. I would also be surprised if they didn’t ask about the second vote for the Scottish parliament.
16 - Thanks Mike I thought that was probably the case.
17. Oh all right: ‘Prime-Minister-supplying-party-in-a-universal-suffrage-era’.
re 15. The poll details have now been made available
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TOQ060101001_1.pdf
From my perspective this data-set raises a lot of questions which I’ll write about over the weekend.
21. Marcia did the poll and so maybe we should ask her better if she’ll post again in the near future.
23 - Thanks - I think the point I was making is that a number of additional questions were asked on top of those that were made available to the public and hence YouGov hasn’t had to provide data for them. As you can see there is no mention of any questions about coalitions/London Labour etc.
As I said before the one thing I’m a bit sceptical about is the implied turnout in the poll which suggest a 10-15% increase on last time.
I’ll have another look at the article and see if I can findout anything else!
Robert @ 7 - Labour are running very hard to win Lambeth & Southwark from the Lib Dems.
In Southwark I’d say they’ve only got an outside chance.
In Lambeth on my count at least 7 of the 21 wards are competitive this year - so we could see anything from outright Lib Dem control (first time ever) or outright Labour control.
In Lambeth there are three split wards which have 2 Lib Dem, 1 Labour in each - each of these is being hammered by Labour with literature / phone calls etc - all high quality. Plus there’s a Lib Dem ward which is being targeted and looks pretty close to me. So around 9 seats in places where Labour could pick up if they motivate their voters - which they seem to be getting good at. And if you get the Labour campaign emails
Interesting fact: In opinion polls between 2000 and 2004 there was a national swing of 9% to the Lib Dems from Labour, but in the GLA seat election in Lambeth & Southwark in 2004 there was only a 5% swing to the Lib Dems despite far more resources being put in by the Lib Dems by 2000.
My view is that Labour’s voters in inner city areas like Lambeth were already not voting back in 2002 - there was very low turnout in most of Lambeth - even in the battleground wards it didn’t get past 30%. So if Labour do a good job of identifying and motivating their core vote (and they’ve got better at it in four years) then anything could happen.
In the 2004 elections I was astonished how well Labour did in Lambeth despite an almost complete lack of activists on the grounds - on election day they didn’t put up tellers, didn’t deliver literature - basically they didn’t look as if they were contesting it. But a good phone campaign made them do really well.
26. Re Southwark
A Libdem councillor is accusing the local party of being run by closet gays and so he’ll leave the party*
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article357622.ece
*note: the councillor has not been reselected. So there’s a big “sour grapes” alert.
So the complaint here is that Blair was giving honours to people who made large contributions (financial in this case) to a public good?
And this is supposed to be _worse_ than giving honours in return for loans to a political party?
Have I understood this right?
How is this a scandal? Sounds to me exactly what honours should be used for… And great deal for the taxpayer…
We need to be careful not to comment on Mr Smith himself, since it’s presumably sub judice and the consequences for Mike and the site could be serious if we got it wrong. But we can discuss the underlying issues and public impact. In all such cases, the questions when X is accused of peddling influence are:
1. Was X correctly reported?
2. If so, did X have good reason to believe that he could get the donor whatever he promised?
3. Are there any examples of X’s having successfully achieved what he said, and if so who assisted him and what did they know about it?
I think it will be a second-line story unless all three conditions are met. The public wouldn’t be much interested unless someone they’ve heard of was involved in something illegitimate, though I agree that this sort of story always feeds general cynicism about politics. The fact that the allegation relates to funding a school rather than giving money to an individual puts it into a somewhat different category, though: I doubt if people will be terribly upset that you might be rewarded for helping a school, except for the small number of people with strong views on city academies. I see Mike’s concern about competitive advantage, but it’s not a doorstep point.
The objective problem (as opposed to public perception) is that it must be tempting for people seeking to raise funds for something to exaggerate the benefits to the donor. It’s not enough to show a sequence of events: Y is generous to a good cause, Y gets an honour - there are countless completely innocuous examples of this and always have been. If Bill Gates were British and giving his fortune to charity, I’ve no doubt he’d have earned an honour by now, and why not? Moreover, it’s naive to think that all donors are unaware of the possibility. What is out of order is to say “If you do this, then I’m a hugely influential chap and I can fix it for you”, and what is illegal is then actually to make it happen through your influence - that’s why all three points above are needed to make a case.
28 - Edmund.
I don’t think that saying the “Des Smith” Affair is worse than the “Cash For Peerages” Affair implies that it is morally worse.
I think what is means is that it will more damaging for Labour, because it will upset many Labour backbenchers. It’s unlikely that many of them care whether TB funds their re-election by sending a few donors to the Lords. (”He may be an a**hole, but he’s OUR a**hole.”)
It’s a completely different matter if TB uses the Honours System to lubricate the introduction of a policy (Academies) that many of his own backbenchers disagree with. Now, it looks like sleaze being used against his own backbenchers.
St Albans looks like a likely gain for the Lib Dems - missed overall control by 1 seat last time - and had a good 2005 election result
Haringey I would put a bet on going Lib Dem too.
Hello after a years absence. I think this story is just one of the indicators that Labours third term is increasingly IMHO resembling a re run of the tories fourth term.
The massive massive headache for Labour is that, unlike the tories in 1997 where there was no alternative centre right party (even if the Labour Leadership wasd centre right -the party wasnt and isnt), there is an alternative centre left party, the Liberal Democrats who will make damaging inroads into core Labour seats and prove very difficult to eject.
27 Re Southwark - having met him I never really understood why he was a Lib Dem in the first place.
Very odd to complain about a lot of gay councillors in the Lib Dems - it’s not exactly a secret that a high proportion of Lib Dem activists are gay.
I feel a sorry for Mr Smith and his family.
As always someone in the Police, lets the media know any high profile arrests, before they are about to be made.
In some respects the Police need to sharpen up there act, as there is an obvious link between them and the media, and someone is benefiting from high public profile arrests, in regard to any celebrity,or people linked, to public figures.
Surely they could have treated him in a less public way.
Unless the objective was to proof this was not a whitewash.
However respected reputations could be ruined, because of unproven allegations.
Poor Diddums (Nick Palmer). You entered Parliament as a result of a media onslaught organised by those two great figures of honesty and probity, Campbell and Mandelson. When did they ever let truth or accuracy get in the way? When did they ever stop cheap smears and innuendo?
I see a Sky poll today suggests that 90% of the country believes Bliar to be dishonest.
Who on earth are the deluded 10%, Palmer, Roger and Lord Levy go some way to make up numbers, who are the rest?
33. Rob, maybe he didn’t find anything else to attack about. It’s sometimes funny to see attacks from people leaving a party (especially if they have been throw out). sometimes they don’t make any sense (The Fugitive and the Derbyshires above all!)
A grotesque piece of spinning and duplicity from Nick Palmer MP. And I say that with a heavy heart, as it is Easter and I don’t want to be nasty.
But really, Nick, to say this is a second order story, and even if it is true it’s not that bad, cause these people are giving money to ‘a good cause’ - is simply not good enough. Indeed you have entirely missed the point, I suspect deliberately.
It looks like the government may have been selling political power. I repeat, it looks like the government may have been selling political power. Seats in the second chamber of the legislature. On sale. To the highest bidder. It doesn’t matter if they get into the Lords by giving money to the Labour party (though that’s bad enough), or by supporting city academies (though that’s controversial) or by buying David Blunkett a second apartment in Belgravia to go with his state-funded one.
The bleeding point is they are Selling Political Power. Allegedly.
This is not meant to happen in a democracy. You vote people in. Or they get appointed through the proper channels (which itself is bad enough, as Blair promised to reform the Lords and make it better and fairer; he in fact has made it worse - stuffed it with his pals and cronies. But now of course we see why he didn’t want an elected Lords - he would lose all the money and patronage.)
Do you not see how this looks, Nick? Do you really think this a ’second order’ story? That people will just have a laugh at?
Disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself, likewise your party. You are demeaning our democracy, you and your ‘leader’.
Your only possible defence is that the Tories were at it too; indeed all the parties have done this for ages. But that’s not much of a defence, when you promised to be ‘whiter than white, and purer than pure’.
If the Tories had been caught doing this in government, we can imagine the shrieking (and justified) complaints of the Left. But you have been caught doing it - it seems - and suddenly its a ’second order’ story.
So far, on that point, you are wrong anyway. Andrea - virtually all the papers seem to be leading on it. The Times as well.
It looks grim for Blair. Why doesn’t he just quit? He may not be toppled by this, but he is forever besmirched, likewise his party, by this and by Iraq.
37. I do respect Palmer for coming here and at least attempting to interact with the proles. But his relentlessly on-message, humourless effluent is probably slipping into the more harm than good category.
Incidentally were there any by elections on Tuesday? Occasionally Easter ones happen on a Tuesday due to the law / convention that Maundy Thursday can’t be used.
And Robert @ 7 I’d put down Sheffield/Hull/Manchester/Rochdale in that order as possible Lib Dem gains from Labour. All fairly close except Manchester. Manchester though is an outside chance I’d say. Rochdale quite close but not the most dynamic local Lib Dem party - plus a few Tories around.
17 - Fascinating in many respects:
1) The number of high-ranking servicemen standing for both parties. I would tend to think that any name starting Squadron Leader or Lt. Col. would tend to be Conservative, but not so.
2) Wavell Wakefield stood for St, Marylebone. A former England rugby captain - I didn’t know he subsequently went into politics.
3) Look at the number of seats Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool had! I knew population had shifted since the war, but I’m still surprised at how much.
4) Many towns are mentioned as 2 seats - were these members elected using STV? I know the university seats were.
5) Look at how solidly the universities didn’t vote Labour. Wouldn’t happen nowadays…
39. no, no byelections yesterday.
40 - no just 2 votes like in local elections.
40(4) - no, the 2-member towns used two votes per elector (as a 2-member council ward would today).
On (3) - yes it is striking. By 1945 bomb damage had already effected some of the shrinking which was picked up at the next boundary review. I notice there were 3 seats for Southwark and one for Bermondsey - I read recently that by 1945 the numbers of electors here were very small due to the devastation of the war.
34 - I’m not sure of your point. The media were informed in this case after he was arrested. Presumably he had to be arrested so that he could be questioned under caution. How do you go about doing that in a ‘less public way’?
42, 43 - v. interesting - thanks.
Did I hear it correctly that Maggie Jones has been nominated to the Lords? This is the same Maggie Jones that somehow managed to lose Blaenau Gwent? To me, this is a greater argument for an elected Lords than the Des Smith imbroglio. It smacks rather of the executive saying ‘you’re getting these people whether you like them or not’. I don’t know much about Maggie Jones - she probably has plenty to recommend her, but if she can’t even get people in Blaenau Gwent to vote Labour and still gets in we may as well just give up on using votes to select our leaders
29 Sorry Nick , this is not one of your better posts , sometimes it is better to say nothing rather than try and put a gloss on something that is tarnished beyond redemption .
45. yes, cookie, she has been nominated (I suppose the “official” motivation is her work as an Unison trade unionist).
Some other “losers” are going to the Lords: Keith Bradley (who lost Withington in a big swing) and Brian Cotter (who lost Weston Super Mare to the tories)
Mark 46. I think that Lib Dems should not be too complacent on this. Alns Watkins in the IoS a few weeks back was alluding to the activities of the late Roy Jenkins in this area.
48 - it was Lloyd George who invented it of course
48 I am not complacent Mike but no amount of spin can put something that is wrong right .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4908562.stm
This piece about Denham asking for a counter-terrorism minister made me think that a reshuffle was expected many months ago…what happened to it?
And didn’t Blair promise a new minster for something some months ago?
44,
As far as I am aware, on many occasions before the arrest the media have been tipped off.
I remember the media and film crews outside the Maxwell family house with the Police.
One of the Maxwell wifes shouted to the the rabble outside their house at six in the morning “piss off or I will call the police”
The answer given back is we are the Police, alongside the media.
All I am saying, when a person is arrested and is in custody, at that stage no one should be informed unless that person would like some one informing.
The media reports were already stating who he was, whilst in police custody.
So obviously someone had told the media,I cant guess who.
7 Hi Robert , cannot help you a great deal as although there are elections here in Worthing there is little going on . It does appear to me that Labour are making an all out effort in Lambeth and Southwark . If they win here then they can be considered to have done at least reasonably well but if they lose seats here even though fighting a hard campaign then they are in some trouble .
44,
Once someone has been charged or Bailed then they can confirm the details.
52 - Well the police have ALWAYS made announcements when people have been arrested. Of course they always say things like “a sixty year old man was arrested and taken to X police station”, but the fact that the name comes out has little to do with whether the police leak it or not. The media do still retain some investigative skills!
44,
Not so you can be under caution without been arrested, and details taken for a statement for further enquiries.
seant Please look after Nick Palmer. We need his posts.
The well-constructed points of an educated on-message backbench MP are of great value to all of us.
57 I agree with your sentiment and comment which is why I was disappointed with Nick’s post today
Alex,
Believe me the media need to know where and when, and this is not all invstigative journalism.
59 - Are we talking about the generality here, or the specific case of Des Smith? I don’t doubt that the media would need help in many situations, but it is unlikely that it would have taken them too long to find a sixty year old connected with the Labour Party who just happened to have been named in a newspaper investigation as having apparently suggested that honours would be received for cash.
Let’s remember that Smith is not a bystander. He was a govt adviser whose expense account was govt funded. More than that, he was a frequent visitor to #10.
Meanwhile Blair states that only 3 people knew about the secret donations of his peerage nominees.
Let’s connect the dots. It’s not hard to do. Only a very few people knowing about loans/honours - this knowledge kept from Labour’s NEC. Blair one of those who knew. Levy another.
Des Smith, center of a different yet paralell donations/honours scandal, reporting directly to Levy. Des Smith frequent visitor at # 10. Des Smith saying he can pretty much sell you a knighthood.
The police need to look extremely carefully at where exactly Smith picked up his ideas on sales of honours.
It’s a pretty short list of people who were involved.
Kelly Holmes; If I get two gold medals at this years olympics will I be made a Dame?
Chief of IOC; You certainly will….
Holmes; What if I only get one?
Chief of IOC; Well you’ll most definately get at least an OBE….
Holmes; What if I only get a bronze?
Chief of IOC; Difficult to be certain but probably an MBE that’s what happened last time….
Holmes; Just a minute….have you got the authority to offer these awards?
Chief of IOC; Of course. A recommendation from the IOC and it’s a cert.
Surely the surrey police can find something more productive to do with their time.
The Times has the goods:
“The arrest triggered a near-meltdown in Downing Street yesterday. Mr Smith boasted to the undercover reporter that he was a regular visitor to Downing Street in his work for the academies. There was shock at No 10 that an arrest had been made, and that the police inquiry had been widened to cover city academies.”
62 - quite right. This kind of thing really helps the government get illiberal legislation through the House of Athletes.
The usual ‘righteous indignations’ led by SeanT and Pot and Kettle are as laughable as usual but I was surprised to see them joined by the normally interesting Mark Senior. Perhaps he has some inside knowledge? Because try as I will I just can’t see a story here.
Someone predicts an honour for putting £10,000,000 into a school. What insight! I reckon he could have got it for £5,000,000. And surely more worthy than a stint in Parliament by a Lib Dem or a few million to the Tories?
61. Dots connected at post 2, but glad you agree.
62. More productive than what? Investigating a potential breach of the law? Isn’t that what they’re there for?
65 - lol. “Try as I will I just can’t see a story here. Someone predicts an honour for putting £10,000,000 into a school…” Well, no. But that’s not the story, is it?
David H. More productive than this prosecution which will be thrown out as soon as the regular staff arrive back from their extended Easter break. How can you possibly arrest someone for giving titles who has no authority to do so? All he’ll say is it was a prediction and a pretty good one if you ask me. What did Lords White, Hanson, Kalms Laidlaw etc contribute to to get their awards exactly?
68 - What prosecution? There is no prosecution.
69 - indeed. I would have thought the questioning focused more on what Smith’s channels were that made him so sure of his promises. He did say in his own words that the honours would come “…almost certainly. Basically if a Labour government [is] there.” Which hints heavily at specific channels of patronage in return for money, rather than the apolitical notion of rewarding someone for donating to public institutions.
All philanthropist should be treated from now on as criminals, for putting money into schools, hospitals or charities.
The country, Great Britain will then be much better off.
Anyone giving money to the Labour party or New Conservative party should be arrested on suspicion of corruption.
Anyone giving money to any charity linked to the royal family, will be checked to see if any honour was recieved, at a later stage.
Of course there is no prosecution. Normally a prosecution follows an arrest if it wasn’t a provincial police force trying to make a name for itself. It would have been perfectly adaquate to have interviewed Mr Smith without making an arrest.
71 - I don’t think there’s any suggestions that the people giving money have broken any laws, is there? Is it an offence to buy a peerage?
68. The 1925 act contains a lot more offences than simply selling honours, including touting, soliciting, offering and seeking to buy/sell and acting as an agent to do so.
The problem is not his “prediction”, but the apparent automaticity implied in his quote - if you give that then this is a certainty. If such a link exists, then that is near enough to selling honours to merit further investigation.
Did he have no authority to say what he did? That question is presumably at the nub of this investigation.
65.”Someone predicts an honour for putting £10,000,000 into a school. What insight! I reckon he could have got it for £5,000,000. And surely more worthy than a stint in Parliament by a Lib Dem or a few million to the Tories? ”
considering they’re going there to legislate and not to donate, the fact they’ve put money in a school shouldn’t be worthy at all.
The whole concept of an appointed House is based on having good appointments and people being able to do what they’ve called to do. In this sense, I’ve more confidence in Maggie “I lost the safest seat in Wales” Jones than any donors
LibDems are reasonably likely to become win a majority in Bristol, where they are already in minority control.
Re: Nick P - the bunker mentality took over long ago in New Labour circles. Now it’s all “everyone is trying to make a big story out of not much because they are out to get us”. Just like at the end of any adminstration, in fact. The bunker mentality just gives the public the impression that New Labour is out of touch, and as the Tories saw in the mid 90’s that is very, very damaging in itself. Better to come clean and lance the boil. Unfortunately, in this case the boil is the messiah-Blair, and his disciples will never lance him.
Something ot bear in mind: just because everyone is out to get you, doesnt mean you arent guilty…
71 - anyone giving money should be required to declare it, and not subvert the law by pretending that something that looks like a donation and walks like a donation is in fact a “non-repayable loan”.
“Philanthropists” who check whether a gong is on the way before writing the cheque are not worthy of the name.
72 - as David says in 74, acting as an agent is an offence. But I tend to agree that the small-timers in the operation should not be harshly treated. Quite right to interview them to follow the trail to the real crooks though.
68,
Roger, no prosecution as yet, or charge.
Bailed for further enquiries.
73. Yes, it is.
The relevant text (from the BBC website):
Section One of the Act says this: “If any person accepts, obtains or agrees to accept or obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, or for any purpose, any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.”
72 - Maybe he declined to be interviewed?
80 - I don’t think that is the relevant text. That reads as relevant to the person selling the honour.
The arrest yesterday may well be just the tip of the iceberg,hopefully the police investigation will fully investigate all the various allegations surrounding cash for peerages which are certainly not just limited to city academies.
Was the grant of the planning application in Croydon to a company alledegly headed by a major New Labour donor and the rejection ( soon afterwards) of a competitor shopping centre (who was not a New Labour donor)just a coincidence,could be?
Why not have two new new shopping centres competing with each other?
Was the award of numerous government contracts to a company headed up by another major New Labour donor just another coincidence,could be ?
Why was there initially such hostility within the HoC to the police investigation?
yesterday we talked about mistakes in newspapers. Here’s a part of Sir Anthony Beaumont-Dark’s obituary in the Indy:
In Italy the period between 1979 and 1992 is 13 years, not 11. I suppose it’s the same thing in UK.
Roger,
I agree they could have interviewed under caution if required.
For this man I believe his arrest will have been a trauma, alongside the media onslaught.
However the police have their publicity regarding they are taking it seriously and it is not a whitewash.
One poor individual does not come into it, but the advancement of a career, from a high profile case might.
75. Andrea. Remember you are talking about a system that had a majority of hereditary peers up till a short time ago and we still have about 90. The idea that the HoL is anywhere near a meritocricy is a joke.
It would be interesting to have a poll to see whether people think buying your way in is worse than inheriting your way in. Probably leave most Tories with a dilema.
86. Roger, I’m with Dennis Skinner on this: get rid of all them.
I don’t like an unelected House, but if you’ve to have it, it would be nice to send able people there.
I’m not saying all donors aren’t able people.
As has been said, this keeps the sleaze story going. Like under Major, once the sleaze season starts, there may be no stopping it. There will be journalists feeding a frenzy of sleaze, searching for every unpaid parking fine or extra-marital affair they can find on the Labour benches. It is this and the 4th May that could be a turning point into a downward spiral for Blair.
7 Robert.
I can advise on Gloucestershire. New key issue hitting Labour is major NHS cuts. Although most are in Cheltenham, they have little to lose there!
Gloucester. Labour seem to be in disarray and could lose all four seats, they are defending out of eight. If they do lose four it is likley that two each will go the Tories and Lib Dems. Lib Dems and Tories seem to be fairly equal in their marginals so unilkey that seats will change. My prediction is that Labour will lose two, one to each of the others.
Cheltenham. Election by halfs. Labour could lose one of their last two seats to the Lib Dems, although the Conseravtives will alomost certainly gain one from the Lib Dems. Other changes less likely
Stroud. Less information but few changes likely.
Overall in Gloucestershire. Probably a poor year for Labour but with few seats cahnging hands.
86 - I think most people would option for inheritance being preferable.
90 (con) - inheritance is at worse anti-democratic, purchasing is anti-democratic and corrupt.
.” Roger, I’m with Dennis Skinner on this: get rid of all them”
Me too but I don’t really believe in the ‘great and the good’. Perhaps they could give access to the HoL to all ex-MP’s? At least they would know what they were there for and have some experience.
alex. Depends. Lord Mark Thatcher would be both corrupt and anti-democratic as far as I’m concerned. I would probably rather Lord Saatchi.
An interesting new twist on democracy. An upper house made exclusively of people who have been rejected by the voters!
93 - Lord Mark Thatcher?
92. I think there’re good people outside the former MPs ranks too. People who are specialised in a couple of issues and they could give valuable contribution on legislation about it.
Btw, I see that Labour has nominated a defeated MP…the fact Oona and Twiggy didn’t get a peerage would lead me to think they will try to get back in the Commons.
OT. Italian update: disputed ballots are just 2.131 for the House of Deputies. The Ministry of Interior said they got wrong the fist figures
Isn’t Maggie’s self given title hereditary?
93. He’s only got a baronetcy, although the convention always used to be that PM’s were entitled (ho ho) to an earldom on leaving the Commons. From memory, Macmillan was the last to get one, although rather ironically Alec Douglas-Home had to give one up to become PM.
76-Mark
The bunker mentality is no doubt connected to the fact that this is centrally orchestrated sleaze with a trail right to the heart of government,somewhat differnt from the Tory sleaze during the Major government which was the act of individuals, cash for questions,Archer et al.
This combined with the illusion that they think that their S..t doesn’t stink.
97. Roger, I think he was created baronet by Major
“Ecconomic with the truth, ecconomic with the actualite?” Are you being ironic John?
97 - no new hereditary peerages have been created since life peerages were introduced. Mark Thatcher does have the hereditary baronetcy that was originally granted to his father, but baronetcies have nothing to do with the House of Lords.
87,
Andrea, I am with you and Dennis Skinner on this one.
Blair would have been in less trouble if he had pushed through House of Lords reform.
An upto date elected second house, and a complete end to the heridatary princible, and honours system, must be the way to go.
Some good has, and will come out, of this debacle for the political process.
In that party political funding by the state, is closer that ever before, and reform of the house of lords, which should have been done last century, after Loyd George will now be undertaken.
By the next century, we might get an elected head of state.
No Maggie’s title is not hereditary (and if a former PM in power for 11 years isn’t considered a worthy member of the Lords then i don’t know who is - a bizarre take on “corruption”). Denis Thatcher’s baronetcy (granted by John Major I think) was hereditary, but is not worth a seat in the Lords.
The last hereditary peerage, I believe, was granted by Maggie to one of the speakers in the eighties (Weatherill?) who didn’t have any children.
100. I meant Denis Tatcher was created baronet.
103. Dez, they could even elect the second house with PR.
but the problem with an elected house is why should it have less power than the Commons if it’s elected?
103 - Ah, a Republican! The crisis has passed, unfortunately for you
104/102. Life peers were first created in the 1950s (the act was passed in 1958). Hereditary peers continued to be created as a matter of course until 1964.
Since then, there have only been three granted to commoners - viscountcies to George Thomas (1984) and Willie Whitelaw and an earldom to Harold Macmillan (1986). In addition, there have been two created for members of the royal family, which would become normal peerages after two generations - the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex. Of these five, only Macmillan’s had/has an heir - the current earl.
104 - Weatherill is a life peer. Actually George Thomas may have had a hereditary viscountcy though.
107 - yes you are right and I was wrong at 102.
I think, as ealier posters have said, is that there is no real scandal here. Even if the allegations are true, and I doubt that very much, the solicitation was on behalf of schools which benefit the public - not a political party. I think the wider electorate will see this for what it is - a news story carried on far long after its natural life has ended.
Incidentally has anyone seen any sign of the financial difficulties the Labour & Conservative parties are supposedly suffering?
105,
Yes I agree PR as in Scotland, and Wales, is the way to go for the revising chamber, which surely be tasked with less power in that role than parliament.
For historians the Blair Government has already got a legacy with contituitional reform by granting devolution to Scotland with its own parliament, and an assembly for wales.
These were both opposed by the conservatives at the time, however they are now one would think established, and beyond going back to how it once was.
Blair should now make sure his government is seen as a democtatic change for good by finishing lords reform, this will be in historians terms the one big legacy for the period between 1997 and 2010, if Labour then loses power.
110
I think you will find that the allegations go much further than academy schools.
Roger , I have not I think gone over the top in over-hyping the selling of honours scam as some other posters on here . I do not approve of it but realise that other parties have indulged to a greater or lesser extent in the past . What I did criticise was Nick P’s actually rather poor attempt to spin Nulab out of a bad position in which his government have put themselves . I usually ( whether I agree with what he says or not ) read his posts with appreciation that he takes the trouble to come here and give them and my earlier post was more in disappointment than anything else .
8. Yes he did. A gesture only, since he had no issue.
106,
Yes Alex a republican.
With this Queen, don`t think there has been a crisis.
She has been examplary in every sence.
However I feel in the fullness of time, change will eventually come.
As the British constitution, will democratically update, once the house of lords has gone, the next progression , not in my life time though, will be the monarchy.
I suspect what is happening at the moment is just the tip of an iceberg.
26,31,53,89 etc: Thanks very much to Rob, Mark, Madmacs and others for helping on the May local election targets. Does anyone know if there is a site with the current standings of the parties on all councils? I have the Rallings and Thrasher volumes but they of course only summarise the situation in each May.
I have a feeling that the ALD, was it, used to have up to date lists on their site, but I may be wrong; anyway, i can’t find one now.
Once again, very grateful for any information!
118 gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm
Even the HOuse of Commons Library uses this as their prime source!
Welcome Roger, still lobotomised into smearspeak, sorry Nu Lab.
Most veterans here know you, but try and get some facts right before your rants.
Better still stay as you are - it is quite amazing to realise that theer are still people (presumably you are not on the payroll)who believe Blair and his crowd.
118 - Robert, this is probably the best site. It’s kept up to date for by-elections too.
http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm
I’m afraid posters are way out on the number of hereditary peerages granted since the Life Peerages Act of 1958. In addition to those noted there have been :
1. One creation of Earl - The Earl of Snowdon (1961)
2. Ten creations of Viscount.
3. Twenty one creations of Baron.
Robert - you’re probably thinking of Kevin Edkin’s list here:-
http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm
118 - Sorry not sure if my first post worked.
Anyway here’s a site that may help you Robert.
http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm
120 - And how many since 1964?
David H puts my point more succinctly than I did: if the system allows parties to appoint supporters to the Lords (and seanT’s post seems essentially to be disagreeing with this), then the question that matters is whether there is an explicit deal or some sort of automaticity. As someone who would prefer an elected
Lords or a Danish-style unicameral system, I agree that it’d be better to get away from appointed lawmakers, but that’s a separate issue that will shortly be coming up…
118. Robert, Keith Edkins has a list of party standings here: http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm
122 - Difficult to believe that any MP could support a uni-cameral legislature considering the mess of so much of the legislation that the Commons currently sends to the Lords.
121 Since 1964, Other than those already noted :
Viscount Eccles .. Viscount Dilhome .. Lord Martonmere .. Lord Sherfield .. Lord Inglewood .. Lord Glendevon .. Lord Grinston .. Lord Renwick .. Lord St Helens .. Lord Margadale.
In addition there were creations of Viscount MacMillan for the Earl of Stockton and Viscount Severn for the Earl of Wessex. The latter will also become Duke of Edinburgh on the death of his father. The Duke of York also enjoys the title of Earl of Inverness.
surely we should have either unicameral system or totally elected second chamber and this will become the issue.Lib Dems have or used to have a sytem of party nominating people for house of Lords does this still happen it was to recomemnd to leader who shoudl be nominated not much notice seemed to be taken of it more recently by leaders
124 - According to wikipedia, and appreciate it might not be reliable, the only one since 1964 was Lord Margadale in 1965. So David’s post at 107 was basically accurate.
Having just read the thread today I am surprised at the extreme reaction of some to Nick Palmer’s personal view of the developing scenario after Smith’s arrest. Nick’s assessment does not appear to me to be “spin” and apart from increasing public cynicism nothing significant will come of the matter unless the conditions described in his 3 points are met.
Most second chambers (whether directly or indirectly elected)are based on regional or federal representation. Perhaps a sizeable proportion (60%) could be indirectly elected via the English local authorities, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly for say 5 year terms.
Personally, I would favour the remainder being nominated but with strict rules to prevent funding and other abuses of patronage: the work and credibility of the Lords is significant enhanced by the expertise and good sense of the many distinguished cross-benchers from all walks of life. The legislative process would be the poorer for their absence.
Finally, the Lords’ 12 months suspensory veto should not be weakened and their absolute veto to prevent an extension to the Parliamentary term retained.
126 alex. Essentially correct. Although David indicated “until” 1964. The 1964 creations were essentailly Home’s resignation honours list.
The Duke of York is also the Baron of Killyleagh.
126 - Certainly neither Wilson, Heath nor Callaghan nominated any hereditary peerages while in office or as dissolution honours.
As I understand it new creations of hereditary peers don’t get a seat in the Lords (or a vote in the Lords’ “by-elections”); perhaps this might be a way to pay for City Academies and so forth…
127 The trouble is that I am sure that most of the government ( and myself for that matter ) thought the affair and police investigation would slowly fade away and be forgotten except for a tarnished Nulab reputation . To actually have had an arrest must have given them as much a nasty shock as it was to me . Whether it leads to anything even more serious may be doubtful but in this context Nick P’s post was rather complacent spin .
I think there were three non-royal hereitary peerages awarded under Thatcher:
George Thomas (not the marrying type)
Willie Whitelaw (only daughters and unlikely to procreate again)
Harold Macmillan (he’d earned it prior to 1964 and presumably could have taken it whem he stopped being PM. I believe his grandson is now Earl of Stockton).
Apart from Macmillan she seems to have avoided giving peerages which would have led to a long term increase in hereditary seats in the Lords
130 John O. I’m unsure of the circumstances of Lord Margadale’s nomination, as although a Conservative politician, his elevation took place a year after Wilson became PM.
Certainly it’s true after Margadale that it took Thatcher to nominate Speaker Thomas for his Viscountcy. Margadale has the distinction of being the last hereditary Barony for a commoner, although recently there has been some speculation concerning a citizen of the male Beaconsfield variety.
133/134 PaulW/Moi. Thatcher nominated Willie Whitelaw for his Viscountcy shortly after the 83 election. Had Whitelaw’s peereage enjoyed a Special Remainder allowing the female of the line to succeed, then his eldest daughter, married to the Earl of Swinton, eldest son would have inherited both titles, but seen the Whielaw viscountcy become the secondary title.
Winners Italian Election cash set to be paid out ?!?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4909120.stm
136 - thanks for the link Jack. Fortunately I was prudent in hedging my supposed “easy money” on Silvio so I do have something to collect!