Today’s ‘cash for access’ revelations (£) are, taken individually, less perturbing than last week’s. What we learn is that David Cameron (and other ministers) met with donors on occasions (and at locations) other than those already disclosed, and that Peter Cruddas was more involved with this process than Downing St would have us believe. There is very little added to the most serious allegation from a week ago: that big money donors could gain special insights in the policy process, or even involve themselves in it.
But, taken as a whole, today’s revelations are extremely tricky for Cameron. Not only do they keep the story going, but they also highlight how absences of transparency will often be probed and exposed. Because Downing Street last week revealed only which ‘signficant donors’ had dined at No.10 and in Chequers — and not all the times that Cameron met donors at parties, fundraising events and the like — it has enabled the Sunday Times to run with a very stark frontpage headline: ‘Tory cover-up over “cash for Cameron”’.
As James reveals in his Spectator column this week, David Cameron finds much of this exasperating. After all, this is a uniquely transparent government which has already applied some transparency to this particular problem. But they are still making this tortuous situation even more tortuous for themselves. For instance, the Tories’ internal investigation headed by Lord Gold is unlikely to be met with anything but scepticism, given Lord Gold’s links with Cameron’s inner circle.
What this demonstrates above all, though, is the necessity of a proper, lasting solution on party funding. Until donations are capped and made as transparent as glass, there will always be questions raised whenever a Prime Minister sups with his party’s moneymen — whether in an official residence and capacity, or not.
Comments