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’”.