BLAIR: “I know nothing” - & Petty Distractions
- Home
- Abrahams says - “Cock-up … was party’s responsibility”
- HOW DID Labour get into THIS mess? A question of trust?
Comment at end
1st December, 2007
BLAIR’S HANDS CLEAN ON ‘DODGY DONORS’
[Pic: David Abrahams at Blair's Sedgefield constituency farewell, in May this year]
As in today’s “Sun”
TONY Blair dramatically entered Labour’s funding row last night — and insisted he knew NOTHING about the dodgy donations.
He doesn’t say much these days on domestic politics or even on Labour’s party problems. But when he does … it’s pretty devastating. This comment is from “a source close to Mr Blair”.
Anyway, it’s only fair that he is allowed to say what he knew. He knew nothing. Just as none of the present named in the dodgy dossier which is now with the Police knew ANYTHING about how their party had been funded for the 2005 general election. (The one Blair secured for them just two short years ago! Remember?)
They were happy then to opt out of the hard decisions on party funding and union involvement, which Blair identified clearly as part of his modernising agenda. THEY were happy to let Blair be painted as the Union Basher, whilst they went around distancing themselves from him, and being nice to as many of the unions as they could find. (Or those which had any power, cash or bloc votes, anyway!)
And they were happy when the proverbial hit the fan, to allow it to land all over their previous PM and a few of his colleagues.
Jack Straw, who is a capable politician, and has served at senior levels in both Brown’s and Blair’s camps, must know he cannot get away with this nonsense now.
Blame by innuendo will not wash.
Watch this space as Brown tries to salvage something from this mess by persuading the Trades Unions that changes (as per Blair’s original ideas on union cash limitations) are necessary.
WHY NOW, BROWN (CASH) COW?
They are entitled to ask - “WHY, Mr Brown? Why NOW? Why didn’t you stand with Blair to make the case at an earlier time? Why did your silence speak (misinterpreted) volumes then? Is this volte face just to save your own skin?”
They are entitled to ask, and probably will be asking this as I write.
But since the unions have little choice in the matter, and no choice of alternative leadership without schism, Brown will probably win through with this distraction tactic.
It’s sickening/interesting/annoying/satisfying (take your pick) to watch Blair’s proposals coming to be seen for what they were - common sense.
The Sun on Blair - “I know nothing” (continued from above):
The former Prime Minister distanced himself from the scandal after allies of Gordon Brown tried to point the finger at him. Justice Secretary Jack Straw led the attack on Mr Blair and admitted Labour had become engulfed in a “firestorm”. He stressed Mr Blair had been in charge when the party started taking cash from Geordie businessman David Abrahams through go-betweens in 2003.
Asked if the affair was a “hangover” from Mr Blair’s days as PM, Mr Straw said: “It’s a matter of history that this arrangement goes back to 2003. “One reason we are irritated to distraction is we assumed these historic problems had been sorted out with additional controls put in place following the so-called ‘cash-for-honours’ issue.”
But last night a source close to Mr Blair rejected the criticism and insisted: “He did not know anything about this arrangement.”
Mr Straw also took a swipe at Mr Brown’s personal fundraiser Jon Mendelsohn, who knew about the dodgy donations for more than a month but did not tell the PM. He said: “The precise state of mind of Mr Mendelsohn and what he did is a matter for these inquiries.”
The attack came as Mr Brown wrote to Scotland Yard pledging his “co-operation and support” for the police probe into the affair. He ordered everyone in the Labour Party to do the same, warning them not to leak details or provide a “running commentary in the media”.
Scotland Yard was yesterday handed a damning dossier on the scandal by the elections watchdog, the Electoral Commission. A crack police unit led by Chief Supt Nigel Mawer will probe more than £650,000 given to Labour by Mr Abrahams through at least four people — including a builder and a lollipop lady.
Mr Brown has already admitted the donations were “unlawful” as Mr Abrahams was not named as the real donor. The affair has triggered bitter clashes at the very top of the Labour party.
Deputy leader Harriet Harman faced a ferocious backlash from Labour MPs yesterday amid claims she tried to blame the Brown camp for her decision to accept a dodgy £5,000 donation.
Her parliamentary aide Chris Bryant was attacked by Labour insiders for trying to pin the blame on the PM’s campaign manager Chris Leslie. One senior backbencher fumed: “Most MPs wouldn’t trust Bryant as far as they could spit. He needs to shut up.” Miss Harman insisted she had “absolutely not” tried to knife her boss.
The Sun’s timeline of events that left Labour reeling in the ‘Donorgate’ scandal:
JANUARY 31 2003: Businessman David Abrahams gives the Labour party £25,000 through Janet Dunn.MAY 6 2003: Mr Abrahams makes his first donation through secretary Janet Kidd of £25,000.In four years, he gives more than £650,000 through four middlemen — Miss Kidd, Mrs Dunn, builder Ray Ruddick and solicitor John McCarthy.
JUNE 2007: Gordon Brown rejects £25,000 donation from Miss Kidd. Cabinet minister and deputy leadership candidate Hilary Benn turns down a £5,000 donation from her too — but does accept the cash direct from Mr Abrahams.
JULY 4: Harriet Harman accepts a £5,000 donation from Miss Kidd for her deputy leadership campaign. NOVEMBER 25: Details of Mr Abrahams covert donations are revealed in a Sunday newspaper.
NOVEMBER 26: Labour general secretary Peter Watt resigns after admitting he knew about the dodgy donations.
NOVEMBER 27: Mr Brown pledges to return the money — but offers only lukewarm support for Miss Harman.
NOVEMBER 28: Mr Brown’s personal fundraiser Jon Mendelsohn admits he knew about the dodgy donations for a month — and had written to Mr Abrahams thanking him. He wanted to put it on a proper footing.
NOVEMBER 29: The Electoral Commission refers the affair to the police, who agree to launch investigation.
Yes, it seems that this ‘donor by agent/proxy’ business WAS going on as far back as 2003, when the Labour party’s own laws said that all donations made in someone else’s name, while permitted, should be known and declared.Were they known and declared then? If they were, to whom? If they were not, why did not those responsible raise the issue with the NEC, Party Treasurer or the then PM?
The issue for Brown is NOT that he knew and ignored the issue, any more than Blair did/did not. There are others responsible and, it seems, others who knew.
The issue for Brown is that he promised to be a clean broom after Blair. You’ve missed a few corners Mr Broom.
‘Broon the Broom’ - needs a new handle. ‘Mr Bean’ as coined by the Lib Dem leader this week at PMQs, seems a tad too cruel … gentle , don’t you think?
THE HAYDEN PHILLIPS REVIEW - SET UP BY, GUESS WHO?
Before the “cash for honours” fiasco was fully underway, or referred to the Police, Sir Hayden Phillips was asked by Tony Blair to report on party political funding, March 2006.In March this year, 2007, Sir Hayden produced an interim report. The Tories have completely rejected it.Until now, nine months after completion of the report, Mr GB/PM didn’t seem up for the fight with the unions or the Tories on the issue. Strange, that.As far as the Labour party was concerned, Tony Blair thought it would have been possible to break the financial link but retain other historical and political links. Not all in his party agreed on the limit of donations recommended. It has been put on the back-burner. Until TODAY!It described and recommended many more stringent investigative powers on the rules of transparency.
We should remember in the midst of all of this that we actually have one of the cleanest political systems in the world. Sadly, the perception is that we are some kind of sleazy system.
We need to grow up. This, folks, in the bigger picture, is peanut business.
There have been many changes, brought in by Blair’s government. For example, politicians now cannot give jobs to friends in quangos, a practice that was infamously used by the previous incumbents. And, we have taken politicians out of the honours system. For these kinds of changes, Labour receives little thanks or even praise.
BBC Radio 4 Report - InnacurateI’ve just heard the R4 news report referring to Brown’s thoughts on using the Hayden Phillips review as a framework around which to build a consensus on political party funding. I usually respect the BBC’s reports, but THIS TIME they had it wrong. The review was not set up AFTER the cash-for-honours business, as Radio 4 news said, but BEFORE it - just as it was getting underway in March of 2006. And Tony Blair himself set it up. It also reported BEFORE he had left office, March 2007.I only point these things out because it has become too commonplace for opponents of Mr Blair within and without his party to castigate him, when in reality they should be thanking him, and apologising on bended knees.
So, it was in March 2006 that Tony Blair asked Sir Hayden Phillips to review party political funding processes.
This was just as the cash for honours nonsense was about to try ‘by press and public opinion’ Blair and his colleagues. In the end the 18 month investigation was dismissed. NO laws had been broken. But will all in Mr GB/PM’s government escape prosecution, given that he has already admitted “illegal acts” by some?
The below is from Sir Hayden’s website.
‘I was asked to try to find as much of a consensus as possible on a future system for the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister (Blair) announced Terms of Reference for the Review on 20 March 2006. I published my report on 15 March 2007.’
Process of the Review
Analysis of the issues
Public engagement
Engagement with political parties
Biography of Sir Hayden Phillips
Read Hayden Phillips report at his website.
Interesting that NOW, the present PM thinks it’s time to actually DO something about the issue. Wonder where THIS impetus comes from?
Still, better late than never, I suppose.
Tags: blair knew nothing, brown, dodgy donors, donorgate, hayden phillips, police, unions funding
