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!
136. Jack, actually if the question was “who will be Italian PM after the elections?”, you should wait for the President to give Prodi the official mandate to form a government.
Btw, US still have to congratulate Prodi.
On the subject of House of Lords reform - in my opinion the existing House of Lords has performed quite well in recent times However, if it was possible, I would be very much in favour of appointing all of its members purely on merit. Unfortunately democratic elections do not work this way because the the vast majority of the electorate do not have true and reliable information about the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates.
I certainly believe members of the House of Lords should not be appointed solely because they happen to be hereditary peers or Bishops of the Church of England. These elements of the House ought to be replaced by non political appointees of merit and expertise who have made major impacts in their particular fields of activity in our country.
Unfortunately I see no alternative to the need for appointees from political parties to the House of Lords for our government and constitution to function satisfactorily. However I would suggest that some of the purely political appointees should not be life peers and should lose their memberhip of the House when there is a change of government or their party wants a “Lords reshuffle”.
I wonder if peers were to be nominated by local authorities (bit like Germany) in some fashion there might suddenly be a far greater interest in local elections? You can easily imagine a broadly proportional system to do this.
134 Jack, Yes, Margadale is an interesting case. As John Morrison he was Chairman of the 1922 Committee and was re-elected in October 1964. But, as you say, he was enobled in 1965, thus precipating a by-election at Salisbury. My guess is that his Barony was recommended by Sir Alec Douglas-Home in recognition of his 1922 Chairmanship. (And Harold Wilson, with a majority of one was not averse to one less Tory for a while).
Two of his sons also became Tory MPs though with vividly contrasting ideological and personal preferences. Charles (MP for Devizes elected in 1964) was the archetypal aristocratic wet who loathed Mrs. T and never reached office. His younger brother Peter (elected for Chester ten years later)…well…we all know about Peter, Mrs. T, and his distinctive life-style.
140- ” However I would suggest that some of the purely political appointees should not be life peers and should lose their memberhip of the House when there is a change of government or their party wants a “Lords reshuffle”. ”
It would become worse than the “Tony cronies”.
If a Lord goes off message, the government could reshuffle it!
142 - the Peter Morrison whom Alan Clark found snoozing during the 1990 leadership contest?
137 book value. I did say back Burli and cash in half an hour later !!
…. stay with me kid and I’ll get you that 22″ b/w PYE telly !!
139 Andrea. Has TB said congrats yet ??
144 - The very same.
145. Jack, it seems he has phoned yesterday night.
142 John O. Yes, I think that makes sense.
BTW I think that he may have been Chief of Clan Morrison, but I may have to delve into my library about that one ??
145 - Jack, I owe it all to you
147 Andrea. No exactly quick of the mark then. No holiday in Italy this year then !!
147 - (O/T Andrea - I hadn’t realised that President Ciampi was 85 years old and five more than Our own Gracious Queen. I think the King of Thailand might be more aged…but Ciampi can’t be far behind in the senescent Heads of State competition.
We talked about Pertini a couple of days ago. You Italians certainly go for older men….
150. Jack, France rushed to say congrats immediately follwed by Zapatero and Lula. Then Merkel and finally Blair.
151. John, and there’re talks to re-elect him……..
148 - Jack, I think a different John Morrison
http://www.clanmorrison.net/Chief.html
158 John O. Indeed it is, thanks.
144 Andrea. “Italy, Don…. where’dya say that is? I’ve heard of Little Italy but…….”
“Berlusconi? Don’t they make coffee machines…?”
In order to judge if a story should be run or not, try this simple test. Imagine if it were a Tory (or Tory govt) involved and see what the reaction would be.
A Tory leader accused of selling peerages? Of sending a massive finanical donor to a key policy area into the Lords?
Roger et al wouldn’t be able to control their demands for heads to roll.
61. “A Tory leader accused of selling peerages…” Which Labour leader has been accused of selling peerages? And by whom - apart from the tory press and the tossers on this site?
161
Obviously from the comment in 162 you have hit a raw nerve.
162
Give you a hint his first name begins with a T,got it now ?
162 - those hard-right tossers at, erm, the BBC, say:
Tony Blair has been accused of selling peerages after four businessmen who gave Labour unpublicised loans which together totalled at least £4.5m were subsequently nominated for peerages.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4812822.stm
Rather a tosser than a dupe, jr. But the most discredited leaders always have a few sycophants left when they’re dragged from the bunker.
“… has been accused…” BY WHOM, I ask (rhetorically). Happy to associate the beeb with you lot, tosserwise. Cheers.
165 - I must be missing something in your argument, but all I can pick up is that you think because no one in NuLab thinks Blair has done anything wrong, there is no case to answer.
Six words: “Whiter than white, purer than pure”.
66. “…case to answer…”. There is no case and you know it.
164, 166 - Hear, hear BV.
167 - Three more: “Pretty straight guys”.
167 - in the sense that the accused would surely plead guilty without burdening the taxpayer with an expensive trial.
167 - “There is no case and you know it.” - this kind of argument is only convincing under hypnosis.
165
I don’t think that Diane Abbott would agree with you,but she’s Labour as oppossed to New Labour.
Does anyone know the expect number of non-NI MPs after the boundary review comes into force?
I would like to see the proof before accusations are made.
Also if it will stand up in a court of law.
If anyone on here has that proof, let them print it and be damned.
However I strongly bet not.
Inuendo is proof enough for partisans.
when they come looking at to arrest people, a bit more is needed than partisan accusations.
167
If there is no case to answer why is Scotland Yard involved, after all it’s TB’s cronie that’s running Scotland Yard,it could be another whitewash for public consumption,but maybe just maybe it will be a serious investigation.
Are you saying that political parties and governments should be able to ignore the laws that they don’t like or just get in their way?
Or maybe the Rule of Law is not applicable to New Labour?
172. I don’t think Diane Abbott knows whether she agrees with herself too much these days!
Sometimes I see Brillo,Abbott and Portaloo on the TV and I cannot work out which is the biggest Tory.
On the main topic I do not see what the fuss is about. It is a much more significant problem for all the parties that there is a sense of peerages for donations to their political organisations, and a lack of transparency. However, if someone gives to education (City Acadamies), rather than political campaigning, and then gets a peerage, it does not seem to me to be an issue. If they gave money to the NHS or to a government scheme to rehabilitate offenders what would be the reaction? Clearly Des Smith is a fool but he is not a party political hack and quite possibly he is a very decent guy. By all accounts he had an excellent reputation as a head teacher.
68. Meaning what?
74. Quite.
79 - I imagine that any government enquiry will come up with a whole dossier of evidence showing that Tony Blair is a saint and this is a load of fuss and nonsense.
177
The fuss is about whether an existing law has been broken or not, the fuss is about whether or not individuals that gave large loans / donations to New Labour received anything in return e.g planning consents and or the blocking of competitor planning consents,government contracts etc.etc.
How do you conclude that Des Smith is not a party political hack when he has been a key government advisor for city academies.
80 - but I won’t believe the outcome.
Lets get things in perspective;
Hamilton; real brown envelopes - if you don’t agree, perjure yourselves.
Archer; porridge.
Aitken; porridge.
AMH, bet you loved them all, and said so.
81. “,,,key..”. You tossers parade your prejucices so obviously.
183 -
‘Whiter than White, purer than pure’ Riley - never forget it.
Perhaps you ought to make yourself useful and invite a few of these errant comrades of yours up to Knutsford Heath and sort them out?
183 - That makes all Labour’s sleaze OK then? You (and Roger) are probably the only people in the country who still believe that Ecclestone got nothing for his £1,000,000. I think perspective is something your sadly lacking.
184 - You’ve been out brawling on Knutsford Heath again, haven’t you? ;). Don’t think that elderly abusive hooligans are exempt from ASBOs!
187 - Why don’t we all have a quick straw poll - who is the ‘top tosser’ on Pb.com. My vote goes to our good friend ‘jr’. Now I’m afraid it’s one title that money just can’t buy!!!!
A court of law needs , proof beyond any reasonable doubt.
This is not a partisan, on the balance of my percieved probabilities.
Therefore I will wait with intrest for that proof, if it comes.
However even if a judge says not guilty that is still not enough in the political world as Hutton proved.
185 - Perhaps there’s a pbc award from synchronised posting
But dear old John R…if IIRC, he’s quite partial to conspicuous consumption of something whiter than white …
The problem with this government is since they lied over Iraq, we now assume they are lying all the time. Which is a shame as they are sometimes legal, decent, honest and truthful - perhaps.
190 - Well, that would certainly explain a great deal…
188. Nice to see what charming, eloquent supporters the current government has, isn’t it?
126 - Nick, I have to question your possible support for a unicameral system. It tends to work in homogenous, small countries, but this is a UK of 60 million people we’re talking about. I dread to think what kind of legislation we’d end up with if the Commons were the only chamber of Parliament.
187,
surely there is no need for that every one is entitled to their opinion on events even you.
193 - Fred, I wonder if you would email me on alastairmatlock@gmail.com ? Would be much appreciated.
181.
You seem not to understand the difference between government and party. In the specific case discussed the donors gave money to a government scheme, not to New Labour. There is no evidence I am aware of that government contractual procedures (administered by civil servants) were in anyway distorted. If you have some do present it. Also, there are two types of government adviser - political advisers, who are essentially party supporters - and non political appointments who advise governments of all political persuassion (civil servants advise government but there are plenty who do not vote for it). As far as I am aware Des Smith is not a Labour Party member, he is just interested in education. He has been arrested, not charged, and certainly not found guilty.
195 - Er, need for what? For gentle teasing in the face of unremitting tosser-ism
86. £11.000,000 actually.
85. 87. I see I’ve awakened you, severally, from your dogmatic slumbers. Congrats, by the way, for keeping your peckers up.
186,
Ecclestone got a lot for nothing he got the money back.
195, 198 - Indeed, John O. Surely dez is reproaching the wrong party here…
197. Interesting. NuLab apologists have been conspicuous by their absence on this site in recent weeks - with one or two ‘excellent’ exceptions - but all of a sudden this story brings them out of the woodwork. I wonder why?
197 - “In the specific case discussed the donors gave money to a government scheme, not to New Labour. ”
It does not matter who gets the money; if the result is a guaranteed honour then the law has been broken.
202 - I suspect they have given up canvassing for May elections, Fred. They must be getting a rough ride on the doorstep, poor little blighters!
re 184. “You tossers parade your prejucices so obviously”
What is that saying about pots and kettles???
195,
Well in your opinion, but surely just abusing someone over their views from what ever side is`nt called for.
206 - You think that *we* have been abusive toward him???
You should have a read back through the archives, old chap. The run up to last year’s general election would be particularly insightful for you!
3. “…It does not matter…” Be honest, nothing matters as long as you nail Tony Blair. In your dreams, baby, as they say.
207 - Alastair, Does Dez really believe that describing fellow posters as “tossers” is the normal etiquette for expressing opinions. Perhaps he does. I respectfully disagree. But enough.
206,
AHM, If thats correct I was not aware.
Need to read up more then.
However do prefer the usual politeness on here between people of strong differing views.
jr 162 & others Please do not use offensive language about other contributors.
6. Dez. Ignore these people. I use the the word tosser not as a term of abuse, but a a synonym for W….r, meaning someone who can’t manage the real thing. In this case winning elections.
162.”apart from the tory press and the tossers on this site? ”
it’s too early to start disccussions with sexual contents! Sorry, maybe later…..when Jack will arrive.
162.”apart from the tory press and the tossers on this site? ”
it’s too early to start disccussions with se*ual contents! Sorry, maybe later…..when Jack will arrive.
162.”apart from the tory press and the tos*ers on this site? ”
it’s too early to start disccussions with se*ual contents! Sorry, maybe later…..when Jack will arrive.
I swear the first 2 were blocked my the spam filter and so I posted the third one! I didn’t want to be tedious! I swear!
Andrea - I’ve banned the word “tosser” - but then let your comments through.
217. Mile, it was a wise decision. It was the first time I managed to spot the banned words without too many tries!
197 “You seem not to understand the difference between government and party. ”
Surely, this is (one of) Tony Blair’s biggest problem (s)?
What’s the matter with you people? Tony Blair has a substantial majority in the house of commons. Be assured he will do what he likes for as long as he likes. You might have problems. He has no problems. Got it?
220 - one could call it the tyranny of the majority, but that would imply that Labour had won rather more than the 36% of the popular vote they obtained.
Incidentally, “Could “Cash for Peerages” bring down Blair?”. Absolutely not. Next question.
21. Call it what you like, you lost!
211 - Sorry Mike. I promise not to use the T word again.
24. Do you mean “Tsar”?
re 222. Disagree. If he is charged then it would certainly be in danger of finishing him.
The police are clearly taking this very seriously and it’s hard to see how the investigation can be stopped until all the facts are found.
225 - No it’s a more famous Romanov!
26. You want to bet?
re 228. I have bet - two hundred pounds in total today - reducing my position today on TB still being there on Jan 1 2008.
29. You’re a wily fellow, Smithson. I’ve no doubt that if Blair left in Dec 2007, you’d claim it was this current nonsense what did it!
Jr 230. Probably not. I mostly bet on short term changes on long-term markets going in and out when I forsee sentiment changing. I’ve cleared at least £10,000 profit in political bets in the past twelve months
Yuck! One of the worst yah-boo ad hominem threads for a long time. I don’t know why you bother, guys - nobody here is going to be persuaded. A well-known political commentator said to me recently that the site used to be good but has been spoiled by all the backbiting - seems a pity to undermine Mike’s good work. I’d vote for Mike banning the worst offenders for a week or two now and then, to encourage the rest of us…
Elena and unicameralism: I think there is a fundamental problem about bicameralism - either the two Houses are elected the same way, in which case the same party dominates both and you get get everything duplicated, or they are elected differently, in which case one is likely to be more democratic than other. In the USA, for instance, it would seem outrageous to suggest that Utah and California should both have two senators if we weren’t so used to it.
Instead, I’d like to see a single chamber but with qualified (2/3) majorities required for major changes affecting the constitution. That would give a more effective and democratic system but prevent elected dictatorship. It won’t happen, though -Commons opinion is clearly moving towards some sort of hybrid, maybe 70% elected, 30% appointed. Britain seems to muddle through with inelegant solutions like this (cf the West Lothian Question).
Nick - If you can’t take the heat……
The good thing about British politics, and something that has been sadly lost over the last 10 years or so, is the sharp partisan political divide that exists today. I’m a Tory who despises this Nu Lab government and their whipped sheep (like Nick?).. I am prepared to get nasty if I’m riled into it as Labour is ruining this country. But I respect the right for the other side to have a go back.
It’s called POLITICS!
NickP, has it not occurred to you that the amount of backbiting and anger is in direct proportion to how annoying/corrupt the government is being at any one time. Right now we have a Labour dude under arrest for arguably selling political power - no wonder people are a little het up. I’d be worried if they weren’t.
I’m sure you’d like us all to be polite and nice so your sleazy government and your devious colleagues can carry on ripping us all off in a pleasant and unchallenging atmosphere but sorry mate, no dice. If you stop debauching British politics, and invading sovereign countries under false pretences, and personally trying to impose laws allowing for 90 days without detention, etc etc, then we can stop sniping. Until then, deal with it.
Can you imagine the anger we’d be hearing from the Left if the situation were reversed?
Anyway, that said - yes we do appreciate your coming here and hobnobbing with the helots, and we don’t wish to frighten you into a hissy fit and scare you off, but people out here ARE angry. And that anger isn’t assuaged by on-message drones from NuLabour clones. Happy Easter!
seanT - touche!!!
232 - Nick - agree with your first sentence.
As to the second paragraph, I’m interested in your views on unicameralism (partly because it’s the first time I’ve used the word) - it’s certainly the most logical solution - what we’re saying otherwise is that we don’t trust ourselves to elect the administration we want. Now, I certainly don’t - but that’s because I expect to be in the minority most of the time. But do the majority of us not trust ourselves not to elect the administration we want?
232 - Nick, So you would favour a written constitution then?
Nick - I agree with your first point. Their is a lot of backbiting etc. I wouldn’t pretend to be better than anyone else but maybe everyone should think a bit more before they post. It would be very sad if it got to the stage that posters didn’t feel welcome on the site.
As to the second point - unicamaeralism does seem to be something reserved to smaller countries (it works in Scotland) and I would share some of the concerns about the HoC not having sufficient time to review legislation thourghly. My own preference is an almost fully elected upper house (90%) - I’m not really convinced of the benefit of appointing as many as 30% but I do think a case can be made for appointing law lords.
33 - I disagree entirely Anthony. I disagree with New Labour about both policy and tone, but I don’t want my disagreement to become a tribal knee-jerk rubbishing of whatever the government does. Nick P and I (for example) aren’t polar opposites; we both want what is best for the country - we just disagree on (say) exactly how much state spending is needed to maximise the advantage to the country.
And all that Nick is saying is that this isn’t going to be a story. Now, I think this is a story, mainly because of the rumpus there would have been if the government in 1995 was in this situation. I’m quite happy to argue civilly about this, though, without getting into ‘well, you’re a Tory you would say that’ etc. But surely we can quite easily discuss the relatively neutral subjects of what the press will do with this?
Party politics was rubbish in the eighties. It was too polarised, and the instinctive reaction was to paint the other side as not only wrong but evil and shout the message of our own side ever louder. I don’t want politics replaced by your-not-singing-any-more competitive chanting. I’d much rather have a point-by-point discussion - my political opposites shouldn’t be my enemies, and there’s no reason I should disagree with them about everything. I still believe in my principles, but sticking to our colours without analysis is no recipe for political improvement.
139.”Party politics was rubbish in the eighties. It was too polarised, and the instinctive reaction was to paint the other side as not only wrong but evil and shout the message of our own side ever louder.”
obviously I wasn’t present in the 80’s, but when for ex Labour accuses the tories of wrecking the country (don’t let the tories in and the usual stuff) isn’t a tentative to paint them as wrong and a bit evil (the nasty party)?
The only difference is that it’s not shouted and Blair manages to say it with a smile.
239. Nope, wrong. Read Nick’s previous post. He isn’t just claiming it’s not a story, he’s actually trying to divert us from the central story - his spin is that people are happy to see donors who pay for schools properly honoured blah blah blah.
Quite frankly, who cares? The central issue here is that is that Labour appears to be selling seats in the legislature: selling serious political power to wealthy men. Thus debauching the entire democratic process.
That’s the story. We mustn’t let Labour put up one of their smokescreens, and get us focussed on this or that detail - that’s what they did over Kelly/Iraq, it’s their classic tactic. And it will not wash.
I don’t want to get unparliamentary, but I think Nick has come close to lying on this, in this thread. But then, lying is what a politician does, c’est son metier. Perhaps I am naive in being surprised! But still. What’s wrong with wanting something better? I want some honest people in the Commons, I want an end to these tired old cronies, of ALL parties, I want people to vote and know that it will matter. The more politicans lie and spin and cheat the less people will care and so the process of disengagement goes on, and the elite will drift ever further from the electorate. *sigh*
Re the backbiting on this thread. I note that, as far as I can tell, it was Jr who first stooped to true juvenility in using the word ‘tosser’. A lefty/Labourite.
Surprise surprise. Perhaps they are a little rattled by all this, over there in Labour circles. And if they aren’t they should be.
239. Nope, wrong. Read Nick’s previous post. He isn’t just claiming it’s not a story, he’s actually trying to divert us from the central story - his spin is that people are happy to see donors who pay for schools properly honoured blah blah blah.
Quite frankly, who cares? The central issue here is that is that Labour appears to be selling seats in the legislature: selling serious political power to wealthy men. Thus debauching the entire democratic process.
That’s the story. We mustn’t let Labour put up one of their smokescreens, and get us focussed on this or that detail - that’s what they did over Kelly/Iraq, it’s their classic tactic. And it will not wash.
I don’t want to get unparliamentary, but I think Nick has come close to lying on this, in this thread. But then, lying is what a politician does, c’est son metier. Perhaps I am naive in being surprised! But still. What’s wrong with wanting something better? I want some honest people in the Commons, I want an end to these tired old cronies, of ALL parties, I want people to vote and know that it will matter. The more politicans lie and spin and cheat the less people will care and so the process of disengagement goes on, and the elite will drift ever further from the electorate. *sigh*
Re the backbiting on this thread. I note that, as far as I can tell, it was Jr who first stooped to true juvenility in using the word ‘t0$$er’. A lefty/Labourite.
Surprise surprise. Perhaps they are a little rattled by all this, over there in Labour circles. And if they aren’t they should be.
213/4/5 Andrea. Well that’s 3 times I’ve arrived tonight Andrea. ….. some entrance !!
…………………………………….
I had hoped to post a “Moray” report tonight, but I’ve not got all the info to hand, so it’ll be Saturday or Sunday now. Apolopies for that dalay.
232 Nick Palmer says “I’d vote for Mike banning the worst offenders for a week or two now and then, to encourage the rest of us…”
So he’s now against free speech - is this a foretaste of NuLab to come?
243. I’d agree with him on that. This is generally an excellent site and discussion forum, but it only takes one person to spoil it and spoil it badly as one rude or offensive phrase invites a similar response.
If people want to be excessively abusive, they can, but there’s no reason to assume that Mike has to provide a platform for them.
I’ve been involved in politics for 10 years or so and am not particularly bothered about insults being thrown at me, but it would be a shame if the site were to be undermined by the actions of a few.
Mike. a strange bet. I think there are reasons why TB might decide to leave sooner rather than later (mainly to do with Iraq actually) but I can’t in a month of Sundays see this non story about patronage having anything to do with it. Memories on here are short. It’s not even necessary to go back to Wilson and his gannex raincoat manufacturer or to his “political Secretary’ the fragrant Marcia to remember these stories affecting every government. Try this test; name five Tory donors who have given over £1,000,000 to the Tory party and not recieved a peerage? Then do the same with Labour….the public aren’t stupid and they certainly wont be surprised. For my part if anyone thinks it’s worth shelling out £10,000,000 for a peerage they obviously havent been sent a membership list!.
Nick Palmer wrote:
Yuck! One of the worst yah-boo ad hominem threads for a long time. I don’t know why you bother,
Reply:
That’s nice. Insult the people who have posted on here.
Nick Palmer wrote:
guys - nobody here is going to be persuaded. A well-known political commentator said to me recently that the site used to be good but has been spoiled by all the backbiting
Reply:
Sounds like the Labour Party. Used to be good, but look at it now. And you haven’t helped matters either.
232-Nick Palmer
‘Yuck! One of the worst yah-boo ad hominem threads for a long time. I don’t know why you bother, guys - nobody here is going to be persuaded. A well-known political commentator said to me recently that the site used to be good but has been spoiled by all the backbiting - seems a pity to undermine Mike’s good work. I’d vote for Mike banning the worst offenders for a week or two now and then, to encourage the rest of us…’
What a surprise ,your first post to-day basically inferred that we shouldn’t even be discussing it as it could have consequences for Mike and the site and then we get your next piece of prose at 232 with the line of ‘a well known political commentator’yeah yeah,are we supposed to be impressed.
I can quite understand why you would like anyone that has the audacity to critisise New Labour banned,you,like your party really can’t take it.
Your comments seem to be straight out of the Alistair Campbell distorted spin machine.
Naturally if the discussion was about Tory or Lib Dem sleaze there would be no holes barred.
Sorry you don’t like the open discussion,but it used to be called democracy!
245. But Roger, the difference this time is that there is a police investigation underway. Whether there is a can of worms for other parties is not particularly relevant. If something smelly hits Michael Howard’s fan, or IDS’ or William Hague’s, or John Major’s then it’s embarrassing but not much worse. They are the past (to coin a phrase). Tony Blair has been Labour party leader for getting on for 12 years. The buck(s) stops with him.
You may well be right that the public doesn’t care whether peerages have been sold or not - as it happens, I disagree on that, but accept that it’s not perceived as a scandal of the first order by itself.
What would be a scandal in the political sense would be if anyone closer to Number 10 is arrested (this, by the way is the story - it’s not the selling, it’s the arrest), or if the legal process goes further with Des Smith - charge, trial, conviction.
Let’s clear away some of the Nick Palmer-y spin and smoke and remember the facts here.
The Labour party treasurer, Jack Dromey, has come out and accused his leader of keeping him, and the party, in the dark.
Dromey said that £14m in secret loans had been made to the party, loans only known to a few.
The loans, it turns out, were made in a strange way, allowing the Labour party to circumvent its own transparency rules on political donations.
There are now strong allegations that these loans were made, illegally, on the understanding that the donor would become a peer.
Several donors were indeed put up for peerages. Lord Levy, Tony Blair’s close ally, has been implicated.
Remarkably, the police have already gathered enough evidence to arrest a Labour-related apparatchik in a DIFFERENT cash for peerages scandal. This friend of Lord Levy, Des Smith, promised an undercover Sunday Times reporter that large donations for educational purposes would ‘guarantee’ a peerage. Again illegally.
The police investigation into these secret loans, the cash for peerages, and the illegal guaranteeing of ermine, is widening.
Now, call me a hysterical journalist, but I get the slight whiff of A Story here. Indeed, more than a whiff.
This stinks. It’s that simple.
249-sean T
I think you could add one further point ‘Is the Rule of Law applicable to everyone or just to be used selectively?’
Oh, I forgot to mention earlier the speed with which Tony Blair has been creating peers. Although not quite the same issue, he’s created more peers in 9 years than Margaret Thatcher and John Major managed between them in 18, while at the same time getting rid of upwards of 600 from the upper house that he didn’t like. No Prime Minister in history has had such a profound impact on the Lords.
Let’s not get too het up about the term “T*$$er” - we hear far worse from 10 year old school children - it’s a pretty mild term by today’s standards, otherwise we’ll have to start considering censoring the likes of “Banker”, etc!
Mike - on the Blair Switch front, I believe the best value on Betfair is to cover the last two quarters of ‘07, currently at 9/1 and 11.5/1 respectively, although I personally favour the latter, i.e. after next year’s Labour party conference.
249 seanT Of course there’s a story here. But the story is that the public expect little from their politicians, of whatever colour, and know that money buys influence and has done for centuries and therefore are not shocked by this news. Thus the polls have not moved.
The Tories have not benefited either, or indeed run with the issue much, as they are implicated in the same system.
Mr Palmer. who do you want to ban for a week or two; Roger, jr. No of cousre not, they merely articulate what you and your ilk think.
Sorrry, when you conclude your career in Parliament you will end up with a gold plated mega pension. The rest of us will be working until we drop, regardless of our savings, because that nice Mr Brown has snitched it.
Okay, but please do not patronise people. You are as one with Mandelson, Jo Moore, Byers, Campbell and the rest. They are, after all your friends.
Lets be clear everyone who has given Labour a decent bung gets a gong or more. The gongs, so what? It makes the donor happy and presumably enables their wives to get a hairdressing appointment easier.
The seat in Parliament is outrageous. Has Lord Levy ever made a valid contribution to national debate?. Thinking of Lord Cashpoint, when are we going to get the details of the infamous blind trusts?
So the last lot had Archer, Aitken and Hamilton. If we go back earlier, Wilson had Lord Kagan and “Sir” Eric Miller who blew his head off before the police arrived.
We might add that Labour leaders from Gaitskell to Kinnock kowtowed to that great man of charity Maxwell (at least the Charity marked Maxwell). Presumably you were happy to accept his support(embazzled from pensioners) when it was thrown in the direction of your career.
No Nick, you have been caught out and no weasle words will stop it. People have been p***** off with Balir and his robots and we are now beginning to see the absolute fury bubbling over.
Dodgy dossiers, illegal wars, innocent officials driven to suicide, scandal reidden ministers, Labour Ministers so capable with money they forgetshe has mortgaged mortgaged their homes, another Minister described as a genius who cannot fill a mortgage application correctly, it goes on and on.
Of course in your world, every one is happy, your pay package expects you to be so and to communicate that.
David. Of course if there was a trial even of the hapless Mr Smith the story would run but I think you’ll agree that there is about as much chance of that as Ming being our next PM. It’s a gimmick by a provincial police force who are sadly no less inebriated by the notion of celebrity than are the Scottish Nationalists and everyone else these days. It will be quietly dropped in the next few days and that will be that.
If you’ve only been interested in politics for ten years then you wont remember the regularity with which these ‘incidents’ occur and in each of them it seemed unbelievable that the government remained unscathed afterwars. I’m thinking of Westland, arms to iraq, the coal strike,Major resigning in 95, Lawson resigning, Howe resigning, poll tax riots and loads more that I can’t remember. All political crisis that looked like they would bring the Government down never mind the leader…….but none did either
253. I agree to an extent, of course the Tories are also implicated. But they are not in power, nor did they promise to ‘whiter than white, purer than pure’; nor do the Tories seem to be guilty of the same elitist subterfuge as Blair - lying by omission to his own party, even keeping his loans a secret from his own Treasurer! Very weird, and very fishy…
But yes, all the parties must share some of the blame, even if the government deserves the biggest kicking. And this is what is so depressing - the relentless lies of Blair and Major and the rest are further fuelling voter cynicism and apathy. Not good.
Incidentally, I note the Times is reporting tonight that police have seized files and emails in Whitehall ‘a few yards from Downing Street’. Startling.
I think the reason that this story raises the ire of Tory supporters is that we know what the reaction would be if the boot was on the other foot. We took a real kicking over sleaze and when it is now patently obvious that Labour are no better than we were (not this issue but a whole range) it does grate somewhat when it’s treated as a complete non-issue by Labour supporters.
Personally I don’t think the story is that big yet. And won’t be unless it goes higher up.
252 - It’s not that bad but those of us who remember ‘jr’ from before the general election find it a bit hard to take.
257. I forgot about him. I was a bit puzzled because everyone seemed to know him, then I was reminded who he was!
Er, Roger, Howe’s resignation speech did indeed lead directly to Heseltine’s challenge for the Tory leadership, and hence to Thatcher’s resignation.
Sometimes these things do change the political world. Right now, no one knows where Levygate is headed - certainly not you. And it’s far from impossible that Smith will be tried. They said at first it was impossible anyone would be arrested. Heh.
Read what Smith said to the Sunday Times journo. Doesn’t look good.
Poor Nick Palmer. Why he bothers to post when the usual suspects do nothing but insult him I don’t know. I must say though that if you asked every poster here whether they would prefer to read Nick’s posts or those of Pot and Kettle or SeanT I’m pretty sure that the answer would be overwhelming.
255. I said I’d been involved in politics for about 10 years, I’ve been interested since the 1980s, and have read fairly extensively, so would not claim complete ignorance. I certainly would not claim that Howe’s resignation did not bring down the leader, and if you’ve read John Major’s memoirs, you’ll know how close he came to resigning the premiership in 1995 after the leadership result (by the way, if you haven’t read them, they’re one of the most enjoyable I have).
Of course, there are plenty of ‘crises’ that don’t bring down Prime Ministers and/or governments, but it is not an absolute rule: some do.
258 - I’d forgotten to untill Alastair pointed it out - I think Mr Matlock’s memory must be better than mine!
Afraid I still haven’t found out more about the extra questions in that mysterious YouGov poll though Andrea.
261.”Of course, there are plenty of ‘crises’ that don’t bring down Prime Ministers and/or governments, but it is not an absolute rule: some do. ”
sometimes to affect negatively a government is not a single episode, but a series of episodes that wouldn’t have an effect alone, but they’ve an effect together.
Not sure if I’ve been clear
262 Max. The nobility rarely forget …… or might it be that Alastair has tusks ?!?!
Roger, I know it’s late, but try and stop blithering. Answer my point: Howe’s resignation led to Thatcher’s, ergo you were wrong. No?
Turns out the police seized the files from the Cabinet Office, this evening. A few nervous people in Labour circles tonight, methinks.
255-Roger
Yes, you are right Roger all governments have crisis’s,however, I can’t remember one that was investigated by the police for alledged corruption,can you?
So if you are right that it will all blow over and doesn’t resonate with the public,then New Labour can look forward to some great results on the 4th of May, right!
sometimes to affect negatively a government is not a single episode, but a series of episodes that wouldn’t have an effect alone, but they’ve an effect together.
Not sure if I’ve been clear
Very clear, especially to anyone who remembers the Major years!
I believe this cash for peerages row could be the tip of far greater corruption.
I would like to see how many government contracts are given to friends of New Labour.
I would like every single contract Labour has awarded to be scrutined by journalists and any questions put on the front pages of our tabloid newspapers.
I would also like Tony Blair to tell us the total cost of all his freebies that the Daily Express calculates to be worth £1.7 million. I doubt it is that much, so I hope Tony can clarify for us.
Yes the same Tony Blair who told his MPS in 1997 to reject “the trappings of power.”
The tide is turning for Bush and Blair. Slowly but surely the truth is coming out.
262. Max, thanks for having tried to search the questions!
264. Jack, Alastair has a detective agency with lots of file about us
267. BV, I thought about him whilst posting it!
260 “I must say though that if you asked every poster here whether they would prefer to read Nick’s posts or those of Pot and Kettle or SeanT I’m pretty sure that the answer would be overwhelming”.
I agree with you Roger, but not in the way you suggest.
268. Was that the same speech as “we are not the masters; the people are the masters”?
262 - We are an inclusive party Jack but I didn’t think it extended to Elephants yet.
I’ve heard one or two things out of Moray myself from a couple of friends up their. But all in strictest confidence. Suffice to say I am unconvinced by the LD’s ‘private poll’.
273 Max. Have you forgotten the “Great She Elephant” ?
Although I don’t always agree with Nick Palmer’s views, I support his point @ 232. A number of people seem to use this site as a means of shouting their (doubtless honestly felt) prejudices. I think that this is particularly reprehensible when it comes to abuse of Nick (whom I do not know if one excepts this site), because he is a public figure, whereas most of the rest of us (I am an excellent example) are mere names; and even identifiable posters are not subject to criticism from outside this site. Similarly with Stewart Jackson MP and Cllr Iain Lindley, to name but two; thank you for giving us your views. I’ve had occasion to criticize Rik Willis, but never on the grounds that he’s made a bald-headed attack on an identified poster. Please look at Cookie’s post @ 236, or Max @ 238, to see how to criticize.
273.”We are an inclusive party Jack but I didn’t think it extended to Elephants yet.”
and pink hippos?!
seanT and his mates are (deliberately?) misunderstanding me, apart from calling me a liar and a sheep (chuckle). I’m not saying they shouldn’t post on web sites being as angry as they like about anything they wish, though they’re mistaken if they think it’s having a useful effect.
I’m just saying that the proportion of posts on this particular site that discuss politics soberly is diminishing and gradually being marginalised by the screaming, just as happened with vote-2005. That seems to me a pity, not least for Mike who has put a lot into building up the reputation of the thing (though it’s really up to Mike whether he cares enough to curb it). It also suggests an inability to argue on the issues, and I wonder if some of the anger isn’t frustration that their rage over the last couple of years hasn’t so far been echoed by the electorate.
Look, we can all slag each other off. If I recall correctly, one of the angriest Tories here has said he used be a drugs courier (into Millbank Tower, no less). I don’t use it as an argument even when he gets self-righteous, since it shouldn’t really matter here what he’s like personally - what’s potentially interesting is what he thinks, but his posts shout so much that I usually don’t bother reading them, let alone replying. Who benefits from that? And yes, that goes for jr too - chill out, mate. (By contrast, commentator has moderated his style, and manages to be strongly Tory without being abusive.)
john O: in principle yes to a written constitution. The problem, as with the Human Rights Act, is that it gives judges the power to overrule Parliament in unexpected ways. But on balance that’s probably not a bad thing, so long as the rights of the individual are as precisely defined as possible so we know where we are. What is your view?
269 - There was one more question I didn’t mention. Apparently people were asked if they thought the SNP were too inexperienced to form a government.
What I would like to know is the second vote figures but we may never know. Unfortunately since the Herald stopped running polls we don’t get regular Scottish polls anymore.
I was speaking to a friend in the SSP (I have one!) who was hopeful of hanging on to around 3 seats in Glasgow, Central and West of Scotland. That would mean their leader would lose his seat though.
What a wonderful evening I’ve missed. The best way to respond to people like JR is probably just to ignore them rather than get provoked into a slanging match. Hopefully we won’t have to come to Mike banning people like Nick Palmer suggested, though the flaming which goes on here does seem to be between less regular posters than others. I’m sure if we leave the malcontents to one side then the rest of us can continue to enjoy this site separately.
273 - Could it not be possible to reveal a little more information
It might distract JR 
260-Roger
Send some Kleenex please,that’s a real tear jerker.
Again I have to agree with you,some of the contents of ‘poor Nick’s’ rants were pretty insulting.
277.”, apart from calling me a liar and a sheep (chuckle). ”
They probably borrowed the term from Diane Abbott. In a Evening Standard article she referred to loyalist MPs as “loyal New Labour sheep”.
274 - Never forgotten!
276 - I think we prefer Elephants due to their close links to the Republican party.
That reminds me of one of the great Democrat slogans - think it was ‘Who ever heard of a great piece of elephant’ You might not get that Andrea!
John. Unlike you and SeanT I don’t have the same love for the Labour party or any Party as you two Tory activists do. I have no more knowledge than I read on this site of who will win on May 4th. I’ve not even decided how I’ll vote myself yet! I’m more interested in General elections than local ones though if I find out who is standing in my ward I will definately vote against them. And I don’t think these locals will affect the General election at all which in my opinion is Labours to lose but I don’t see any sign of that yet……but it’s early days!
SeanT. Yes Howe did bring Maggie down.
Pobedonoscev - hmm…. Occasionally NickP comes on here and makes informed and enlightening remarks, given added value by his position as an MP. I agree with you that, in those circumstances, he does not deserve partisan sniping.
However, I have noticed on several occasions he has come on here and tried to spin a serious issue in New Labour’s favour, while still trying to maintain his identity as a somehow neutral and level-headed observer. His post earlier today on Levygate was a particularly egregious example of this spinning - and on a very important issue.
Of course he is well within his rights to come out and spew NuLabour cant and waffle, but when he does he must expect to be vigorously challenged. We would be failing if we didn’t challenge him.
And we’re not all anonymous. I’m a slightly well known journo (very slightly!); I comment in my own name; with my memoirs coming out I may be about to be a little more famous…. but I don’t mind people calling me names. Nor should Nick.
281 Andrea. I find New Zealand sheep excellent at this time of year, especially the little ones !!
282. Max, I’ve a difficult relationship with elephants since I’ve dreamed Mark Oaten talking to an elephant……
285 - You can take the man out the Highlands . . . . is that the sound of velcro gloves on wool I hear?
286 - please tell me I’m not the only one who just thought of Blue Peter
286 Andrea. You need to see someone !! …… I know a pink hoppo that might help !!
289. Jack, it was long time ago…..even before the Lynne Jones as a French Maid dream……
As I see it this is one of the best threads I have read for a long time. Some of the comments Pot and Kettle, Sean T, David H spring to mind, but in my view Mr Palmer is doing an Alistair Campbell on us.
Remember when Campbell got all upset because the BBC reported they had a source that allegedly said the government had “sexed up” the case for war (which we now know is true, including the fabrication of a dossier using a student thesis).
Well instead of answering the allegation, the government went to war with the BBC as a smokescreen for their deception. And an innocent man died after Campbell and pieces of work like Ben Bradshaw trawled TV studios demanding to “flush out the mole.”
Here we have a thread about Blair and cash for peerages and one man doesn’t like it. He’s attacking the thread. The first time he’s ever attacked a thread. What a coincidence that one man is the one Labour MP who contributes to the site.
Just a lot of spin and hot air from Mr Palmer.
279 - Fraid not. Don’t want to look daft if I get it all wrong. Fortunately Jack doesn’t have the same hang-ups!
288 - It’s not just you BV!!!
Nick, petal - I didn’t call you a liar. I said you ‘came close to lying’ - a subtle difference. I think you were being deliberately evasive and duplicitous in your now notorious comment upthread. But that’s not - quite - lying…. More dissembling.
But I don’t blame you, in a way. You are just doing your job; you are not a saint. You are a labour pol. And I am a journalist, likewise doing my job - speaking truth to power.
BTW I’m not sure you do recall correctly on the Millbank drugs courier thing. I think I remember this debate, it was me that brought it up. I said I KNEW a drugs courier who once traded drugs into Millbank. Surely you’re not ‘misremembering’ this as an admission by me?!!
Could be wrong. Maybe I’m misconstruing you! Hey - it’s late.
Sorry i mean ‘if I find out who the incumbent in my ward……’
277 - Nick - Thanks for the considered reply. As a crusty old Tory, I’m rather attached to our unwritten constitution (EU supremacy apart
) and the numerous conventions that underpin it that themselves allow evolution as the body politic changes. Codifying these into a formal document coupled with devices as 2/3 majorities in a unicameral Parliament are surely a monumental distraction from addressing substantive issues of policy.
I could certainly live with a second Chamber largely directly elected. But, as explained, my preference would be indirect election via local authorities plus some life peers. A reformed Lords would have a greater legitimacy to check the Lower House but not sufficient to rival it. On that specific point, even with an elected Lords, would you favour reducing its powers?
294. considering they’re incumbent, you should already know them…or maybe are you new to that ward?
290 Andrea. Mhhhhhhhhhhh. So it’s Pink Hippos, French Maids. New Zealand Lamb, Great She Elephants, Blue Peter and new Labour Sheep ?!!?
Time for bed Zebidee ….. Boing …… G’Nite all … Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
297. Jack, and I bet you like all of them!
It would seem that the Telegraph agrees with SeanT. See:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/15/dl1501.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/04/15/ixoplead.html
Seems like the Telegraph leader has forgotten Polly Peck.
297 - Gosh, so Jack and Zebidee are now an item
What Harpenden and Oldham have brought together….
297. Sounds hallucinogenic!!
295. I’ve got to agree with you on the written consitution, our system does have a great flexibility built in which is generally an advantage providing that all sides understand the conventions and play more-or-less by them. I’m not sure that’s being done at present. As far as the Lords goes, I rather liked the pre-1999 makeup but as we can’t go back, one option which is admittedly a bit wacky but would at least differentiate it from the Commons would be to elect a majority - say two-thirds - and select the remainder by random ballot, rather like jury selection. It would be impossible to fix, provide a different sort of person from the Commons (and a closer reflection of the electorate) and provide the Commons with the extra legitimacy needed to allow its greater powers.
301. John, I’m so shocked…I thought Zebidee prefered pagan women!
284 Sean - go on, give yourself a minor plug, tell us what your book’s titled and when it’s out.
I’m looking forward to Phase 2: the Tory arrests to come on Tuesday.
Civil contributions are of course always welcome at the Vote 2006 Discussion Forum as well as here at PB.com…
It seems to have killed my hyperlink, that’s http://www.vote-2006.co.uk
Peter P - to be honest, I’ve already plugged it on here maybe three thousand times, and Mike Smithson has shown commendable restraint in not nixing these blatant self-adverts. So I am reluctant to test his generosity again…
But what the hell! You asked: it’s called Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You, published by Bloomsbury at a very reasonable £10.99, it’s due out in early May.
But if you can’t wait that long - ! - I believe it is being serialised in the Mail on Sunday from next week.
308 Thanks for that!
Morning folks - haven’t been around today, too busy tossing (my hard disk in the bin that is
).**
Although I often disagree with Nick P he posts in an unfailingly civil manner and doesn’t attempt to misrepresent others (unlike a rabid few), there are those who sometimes appear to be the worse for drink or something, however, and that is wearying.
One things is for sure, that a more erudite and righteous indignation has been getting louder and louder over the last few years, I haven’t known an atmosphere like this since the early nineties.
Food for thought………
** that was d-i-S-k for the short sighted!
Andrea at 297. I don’t either know who the incumbent is nor do I know what ward I’m in. And I would bet that applies to over 90% of the population. Infact I’ll go further. I’ll bet that 98% of people don’t know their MEP, 99% don’t know their local councillor-97% not knowing his or her party- 96% don’t know the name of their ward and 80% wont know their MP’s name and 60% won’t know their constituency!
(Obviously this doesn’t apply to JohnO whose publicity machine in in full swing!)
312. ROger, but the 99% of people don’t post here either….so I’ve already left you out from the 99% of population!
Nick Palmer’s posts are amongst the most interesting on this site. As a Labour MP you would expect him to answer criticism and defend his political view point. He does this with unfailing civility despite some of the insults. He also provides a rare insight into how the world is perceived by many Labour MPs. It might annoy some Tory posters and even seem unreal to others. He is also a very good constituency MP whose comments about the views of ordinary voters are very useful in putting into context issues which might only be of interest to the political press and no one else. In betting terms it is also really useful because the attitude of Nick and others in the wake of events such as the local elections in a few weeks time will have an effect on Tony Blair’s perception of when he should go or not.
Dear Tony worries about his legacy, perhaps it is to be impeached!! I believe it is the bicentenary of impeachment actually working. What a fitting tribute to the Glorious Leader