Politics
At the heart of the Labour funding scandal is the moral collapse of a once-great party
Wednesday, 28th November 2007
What the Labour fundraising scandal reveals
Mr Abrahams says that he only very recently became aware of the Act. He says he is a private man who was driven by nothing more sinister than a desire to avoid the full rigour of media inspection (an objective which has spectacularly failed). This is just about plausible. Why indeed should a north-eastern property developer bother himself with the niceties of electoral law?
The case of Peter Watt — only the 14th general secretary of the Labour party since Ramsay MacDonald became the first occupant of the post 107 years ago — is more problematic. He too claims that his breach was ‘inadvertent’, and must have been heartened throughout Monday when BBC news reported this claim without question or apparent irony.
Mr Watt is not only general secretary of the Labour party. He is also the registered Treasurer and therefore the person specifically culpable for any offence committed under the terms of the 2000 Act. Failure to grasp the basic requirements of the law in the very area which was his specific responsibility suggests incompetence on a scale which is very hard to credit.
On Monday Gordon Brown announced an inquiry — the one which reports to Lord Harries — into this catastrophe. Whatever its formal terms of reference this investigation is likely to have certain unstated objectives. The first is to ensure that the previous Blair regime, rather the Brown incumbency, should get the blame — meaning that the hapless Watt bears the brunt of the responsibility. This officially sanctioned story was collapsing by the time The Spectator went to press on Wednesday lunchtime, as it emerged that the circle of knowledge extended very much wider than the office of the general secretary alone.
The second is to ensure that the Labour party — as opposed to Gordon Brown’s government — bears the bulk of the damage. But this strategy means failure to address one of the biggest unanswered questions to emerge so far out of this scandal: what did Abrahams expect to get in exchange for his £600,000? According to his own account of events, he is a simple philanthropist who sought anonymity because he shuns the limelight. All this may well be true.
More articles from: Peter Oborne | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
To step into the House of Commons nowadays is like…
When William Hague put on his masterful performance at the…
There is a reason why Tory excitement about returning to…
Mud sticks. In politics everyone remembers the charge and not…
It was as if the banks were taunting the Conservatives…
Popular Blogger Posts
sponsored links
GASCONY
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Tony Marsh
November 29th, 2007 1:07pm Report this commentIf the Labour Party is shown to have accepted anonymous donations , how have they coplied with money laundering regulations ? Worth including in any investigation ?
Ausin Barry
November 29th, 2007 4:10pm Report this commentA hopeless government in disarray, a bolshy military, an increasingly resentful public watching despairingly as the country descends into a dystopian nightmare...coup d'etat anyone?
Margaret, London
November 30th, 2007 12:51am Report this comment"Peter Abrahams, a property developer of doubtful credentials..."
David?
Alec in France
November 30th, 2007 9:35am Report this commentYet - although UKIP cash was confiscated on a technicality, these donations can simply be repaid. Just like Blunkett's "erroneous" expenses claim. Scum!
Alan Myers
November 30th, 2007 11:08am Report this commentThe Garden Girls? Is the suggestion that Clunking Fist's treatment of these admirable Crichtons will be as harmful as the graft at the heart of The Project really serious?
alan maddox
December 1st, 2007 3:41pm Report this commentThe Labour Party has it's roots in the wish of the working class to have their say and be represented and that is perfectly in order. The rot started when the loyalty and naivety of the labour voters and officials in local parties were used by the Trades Unions and plum,safe Labour seats were "kidnapped" by specific Unions so that one of their members would then have a voice in the House of Commons. Hence morons like John Prescott appeared.He had never set foot in Hull and probably didn't even know where the place was when he was told to go there by his Union and present himself to the local party,who were leaned on by the top dogs at Labour Party H.Q.,much as were local Tory parties lent on by Central Office when they wanted a seat for their man. The poor die hard Labour supporters in Hull had Prescott plonked upon them and this happened in many seats,e.g. Dennis Skinner. The Blair/Brown new wave quite rightly disliked this and hated relying on the Unions and ,in particular,the Labour Party HQ in England. They realised they could rid themselves of these traditional Labour shackles by putting up for bidding the resources of the state as the author says in his article,and let's throw in a bit of patronage,for good measure. Despite the lack of violence what is the difference beween the current so called "New" Labour party and the regime led by Mr Robert Mugabe?
steve
December 5th, 2007 10:00am Report this commentAlan it may not be as serious, but if Brown is treating his most junior members of staff with this sort of contemptous, nasty, bullying, then it says much about the moral fibre of the man and certainly makes him shrink in my eyes
Dave Burns
December 8th, 2007 2:29pm Report this commentBrown and Darling are bullies. The lost CDs were blamed on a Junior Civil Servant rather than accept the systemic failures in their own leadership. The bullying of the Garden Girls is a flaw in Brown's makeup. Rather than analyse the problem and come up with a solution he blames the most junior person possible.
jkmccarthy
February 15th, 2008 3:42pm Report this commentCould Mr Oborne please give the provenance of Lord Butler's declamation as given above in par.2. Further, can he provide with information as to where I can find his statement in written form? Many thanks
Christopher Davison
April 8th, 2008 10:28am Report this commentThe elephant in the room is wearing a burka and Labour is going out of office for decades due to mass immigration, many reserved British people will not admit that this is the reason.
Back to top