Someone else knew (and sorry Harriet & Janet)
Well well well. A second senior Labour Party official knew about the secret donations by David Abrahams. Jon Mendelsohn - who was appointed by Gordon Brown to raise funds for him - was told about the arrangement last month by Peter Watt - the man who resigned as Labour's General Secretary a few days ago.
Mr Mendelsohn will, I'm told, issue a statement today in which he will claim that he was told the arrangement was a long-standing practice and was acceptable to the Electoral Commission. I am told that Mr Mendelsohn was uncomfortable with this arrangement and asked his office to arrange a meeting with Mr Abrahams to put the donations "on a proper basis".
We now know from Mr Abrahams that he received a handwritten letter from Mr Mendelsohn which began "Dear David" and ended, "with warmest regards, yours Jon" suggesting that the two should meet.
This version of events is clearly designed to cast Mr Mendelsohn as the innocent party. His only fault, according to this account, would appear to be that he failed to challenge his General Secretary and to tell members of Labour's NEC and his party leader of his concerns. The date on the letter is the only thing we know that casts some doubt on this. According to Mr Abrahams it was written on Saturday - that's the day after the Mail on Sunday contacted him and the party with the allegation that Labour had taken secret donations.
HARRIET HARMAN CORRECTION:
I was called with this story moments before going on air with it on the Today programme. In my rush I stated incorrectly that Harriet Harman had received funds from a Janet who now says she's a Tory voter. Ms Harman was, in fact, funded by the other Janet - Janet Kidd, who has not spoken at all since she was revealed as an intermediary for Mr Abrahams. I corrected myself on air but wanted to make sure that this slip caused by too little sleep and too much adrenalin was not repeated.
The nub of my point remains, however. Harriet Harman has accepted that her campaign may have asked Janet Kidd for a donation after seeing her name on the list of Labour's donors. If that call was made what did Janet Kidd reply given that she was not, in truth, a Labour donor but was merely a front for David Abrahams?
I'm 
Comments
I'm no longer interest in this topic, Nick. There's been a run of stuff that's had the media wringing the life out of it for a while and it reaches a point where it's just more clutter on clutter, more angst on angst, or more mind on mind. Look hard enough and you can find trouble anywhere.
While I'm sure Harriet Harman isn't Gordon Brown's first choice of deputy leader, and he didn't state his support for her, I think, you're barking up the wrong tree. The Prime Minister's cool focus should be a big enough hint he's brushing this aside and moving on to more constructive affairs.
Hope, fear, and resolution are the classic Aristotelian three act structure. Perception lags reality and I'm fairly certain we've moved into the final act, and another cycle will begin soon thereafter. The political shear is only at the surface while the core remains untouched.
For gods sake man, find something worthy of attention.
I would like to repeat my call of a week ago now for a vote of no confidence in this government.
The only opposition to this suggestion appears to come from those who believe we should all 'get over it and move on' but I'm finding it difficult to move on when the government keeps preventing me from doing so.
I also repeat that governments should lead by example or they simply cannot expect the rest of us to do anything other than follow their example; that it's okay to be incompetent, irreverent, spend more than we earn and never be accountable for our actions.
I challenge anyone to tell me this is the way we should behave, yet this is the way our govenrment behaves. It has got to be challenged wiht a vote of no confidence.
So are we about to see the unedifying spectacle of the entirety of Labour's senior leadership claiming they didn't understand the laws relating to their job and attempting to shovel the blame solely onto Mr Watt? I suppose when the choice is between being considered stupid and being considered corrupt they've decided the former is the better option, but neither are characteristics people like to see in their rulers.
I'd be interested to know when Labour are actually going to pay the money back. I know Brown's said it will be but he was a bit vague as to when and how this payment will be financed. I hope the media keep track of this to hold him to his word.
Nick - have you read Stephen Pollard in the Spectator re the sort of smoozing David Abrahams got up to in Labour circles? (Iain Dale has a link to it.)
This story is much much bigger than dire incompetence in Labour's management team in making a 'technical error". Who on earth believes that simple explanation anyway and what arrogance on the part of Brown to hope the electorate will fall for that one?
Keep digging.
Just to keep the other pot boiling, HMRC's Disgruntled Lemmings website has not shut, as suggested, but appears to have been moved elsewhere: first to the post to find it.
However much THEY feel disgruntled, though, it's still got to be a damned sight more gruntled than the rest of our society has to feel about THEM, and if they can't see that, then it's time for them to go. We need to recast the old "no taxation without representation" slogan as "no taxation without accountability", and that strikes at the heart of this government.
What is the role of Mr Harman, aka Jack Dromey Nu Labour Party Treasurer in all this? How long can he keep claiming ignorance? It's all been happening on his patch. He's like some bloke receiving stolen goods from some dodgy guy at the pub claiming "I didn't know they were hot, honest guv".
Nick,
The roots of the present funding crisis for the Labour Party go back to Tony Blair.
Because of Blair's failure to be guided by socialist principles, including his duplicitous behaviour over the illegal attack on Iraq, the Labour Party has lost more than half of its members. As a result, to try and cope with their massive debts, they are scrabbling around trying to get funds from wherever possible. The failure of New Labour to meet the aspirations of ordinary people continues under Gordon Brown and will get worse as long as they veer away from true Labour ideals. It seems that there are very few people left in the party who have any integrity, Harriet Harman is a good example; prior to her election as chairman, she said that the government should apologise for the invasion of Iraq, as soon as she was elected, she denied saying it!
Tony Blair set the standard for double dealing and it is no wonder that those who supported him have followed in the same vein.
Whilst we still have people on the front bench like Harriet Harman, Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw, Hazel Blears, Ruth Kelly, Tessa Jowell, Jaqui Smith, let alone Gordon Brown, none of whom had the guts or the integrity to challenge Tony Blair for fear of loosing favour, Labour will never regain its traditional support and will continue to slide into the mire.
I very much doubt that any politician would be allowed to explain away a cock-up on the grounds that it was caused by "too little sleep and too much adrenalin". So why should it be acceptable from a journalist? After all, putting out a false report is about the worst sin a journalist can commit. It therefore seems to me that in order, in some small way, to help level the grieviously sloping playing field upon which journalists and their political prey perform, a journalist issuing a false report should be sent, unpaid, to the touch-line for at least a month. An adequately rested substitute could then be sent on having first been tested for exess adrenalin levels. The latter would be essential because adrenalin is known to be a bio-chemical which adversely affects judgement.
Jack at #7
The current shambles doesn't result from a failure to be guided by socialist principles. The sorry state of the present administration and the widespread unrest in the country is a direct consequence of socialism in action. 'Twas ever thus.
NB. I bet Charles E HardOfThinking and Quietzapple are never seen in the same room at the same time.
After ten years of Labour trying to criminalise any behaviour that doesn't match their New Labour vision, they've managed to criminalise themselves! The irony of it all is delicious.
There seems to be a lot of people who respond to your postings who demonstrate ill informed opinions based on half baked news stories; just a cursory scan gives us 'Jack Dromey should have known' why and how? By magic, when he doesn't deal with individual donations?. How about 'Harriet Harmon apologised and then denied it'. No she didn't this was brazenly misreported. Someone else accuses the whole Labour leadership, as if they would have had anything to do with this. The first poster to comment hit the nail on the head; this is all starting to look a bit forced to be honest, and faintly pathetic.
As far as I know (claimed) ignorance of the law is no defence so all those who were aware of the funding arrangement and did not go immediately to the police are presumably guilty of a criminal offence?
On a seperate point, whatever the legality of the matter, surely the attempt to decieve should not even have been considered, let alone condoned by a political party?
yes Nick I heard you on Today this morning.
Pity it was radio
Johns face must have been a picture as he tried in vain to alert you to your clanger.
Your face must also have been a picture as the penny finally dropped.
Public Service Broadcasting at its best ??
Nick, isn't this the second week of PMQ's that a shadowy figure is mentioned in donations?
Firstly, Lord Ashcroft whom is busily funding the Tories from 'tax haven' in South America (send some to the NHS, Mike) and now Mr.Abrahams(Note the titles).
How much do private aircraft cost Dave Cameron?
Should a tax dodger be funding a party that the public doesn't want?
I think we needn't be told.
Gary
Ask Janet.
Too prosaic when you can make stuff up I suppose.
Usually when politicians are accused of sleazy activities it is because they have received some benefit from them. Can somebody please point out to me the benefit that either the Labour Party or the Government received from this subterfuge by a donor? The donations were clearly illegal under the terms of the law introduced by this government, but while all illegal acts are to be condemned they are not all of equal seriousness. Still, it allows Cameron to squeak away at PMQ's, though I suspect that he is under the mistaken impression that he is thundering.
Meanwhile there are serious events happening in the world, though you would hardly think so from the media (who are of course the best in the world by their own admission).
I'm the senior partner in a firm of estate agents and from 14th December we are required to take detailed identity verification checks on any persons or company that we do business with. These is part of the EU's anti money laundering and proceeds of crime objectives. Failure to comply, even if none of our clients are found to be guilty of said activities, are either hefty fines or worse, imprisonment. How can it be then that this Government can accept large financial donations from person or persons unknown?
Hi Nick,
I listened to PMQ’s and your analysis on the Daily Politics and a few questions spring to mind…
1.When did Jon Mendelson reveal to the PM his knowledge of David Abraham’s third party donations? Remember, at his press conference yesterday, Mr. Brown claimed that only Peter Watt, knew of the affair. Now let’s give the PM the benefit of the doubt. That means that Mr. Mendelson, not only stayed silent during the run-up to the election that never was, but also stayed silent when the story broke, last weekend.
How can Gordon Brown possibly have any confidence in a man, who kept him in the dark like this? Remember, if the above account is true, Mr. Mendelson allowed his boss to face the worlds’ media and tell an untruth i.e. nobody else knew. Surely, in such circumstances, the PM would sack him. I know I would, wouldn’t you?
2.On the daily Politics you intimated that Baroness Jay’s defence was that she approached Mr. Abraham for a donation on behalf of Mr. Benn. Mr. Abraham offered a donation via a third party and after conferring with legal advice, the Benn camp turned the money down.
But, why would Baroness Jay, approach Mr. Abraham for a donation in the first place? Remember, the official position was that Mr. Abraham was not a registered donor – only his aliases had sent money. So why approach him and not them? What made Baroness Jay, believe that a man who had never previously contributed to the party, would suddenly stump up for Mr. Benn?
3.In TV interviews yesterday, Harriet Harman, claimed that she had first learnt of the affair on Friday [a statement contradicted by the PM at PMQ’s today – he claimed, his deputy had learnt of the affair on Saturday]. Assuming that Miss Harriman is the better source [after all, she must know when she was told] why didn’t she tell the PM? Remember, he claims not to have known anything until Saturday evening.
Harriet Harman has admitted accepting a donation to her deputy leadership campaign from a third party in breach of electoral rules.
I am sure she acted in good faith, and was unaware of the situation, but ignorance is no defence against breaking the rules.
Harriet has to resign as deputy leader, both because of the acceptance of the money and the role that money may have played in her electoral victory. If she doesn't resign, Brown must sack her.
Nick, unlike Mr Hardwidge, far from losing interest, I think clearing up this matter is vital to the health of our democracy. I have to repeat my earlier post on your other thread that Harriet Harman was the Solicitor-General, and just after this electoral law was passed by her own government. If the political officer responsible for overseeing the law cannot be trusted to understand or comply with it, then this government deserves everything it gets.
Either she knew about this clear breach of the law, in which case she was dishonest and should be prosecuted, or she didn't, in which case she was negligent and should be sacked. Either way she should be toast. I am staggered that people like Mr Hardwidge and Gary Elsby try to defend this; then again, maybe not.
It defies belief that this sort of thing was going on even as a protracted and highly public police inquiry was being conducted into cash for honours. Any half-sensible person, let alone an honest one, would have been double-checking everything to do with party funding. Keep digging and report what you find out.
Nick, I find this whole episode wholly upsetting and just reinforces in my mind Tony Blair's image of a 'feral press'. I am intelligent enough to look at the facts: Labour accepted donations from Mr. Abrahams, whether through 3rd parties or not. Some of these donations were for internal Labour Party officials - nothing to do with Governement or the role of Government. The motivating factor for Mr. Abrahams was annonimity, not secrecy. A far as i can seee everybody involved was trying to abide by the rules. Why should they do otherwise? Especially Harriot Harman - what have she to gain in accepting a measily £5ooo? However the Media, including you, cannot see anything but corruption where on the face of it there is none., Why would HH endanger her career for £5000? - she and her team tried their best in ensuring compliance - you are suggesting, with hindsight, a great and wonderful attribute, that they didn't go far enough. They, or HH herself, should for every donation ring the donor and grill them on the purpose and source of the money. I think this is just not feasible or reasonable to expect. And yet, and yet, what is so risable, is that you make a mistake on air, under a smigion (sic) of pressure compared to our politicians and you think it is ok to explain it away in terms you would not accept from the politicians you vilify. Come on, Nick, we should be respecting our politicians for the job they do and reasonibilities they take on. There must be respect otherwise what is the alternative? Are you prepared to take on running our country? I'm not, that is why I elect my MP. I just wish the media would allow then to have opinions, make mistakes, do things for the best of intentions. Are you really believing your own hype in this case? Do you honestly think that Gordon Brown et al are corrupt and carry out illegal activites on purpose? Come on, nail your colours to the mast!!! And remember, you are not the elected position here, it is not your responsiblity to oust ministers or gonvernments or creat an impression that our politician are institutionally corrupt or wrong-doers. Disallusioned from Bristol.
I would love a balanced news coverage of all the political party fundraising escapades. Did not the Liberal party have to return money given to them by a convicted criminal? The ±«Óãtv meanwhile has not even started to explore the issues around Lord Ashcroft funding the Tories, his residential status and the terms of his accepting his peerage - all of which have been subject to comment in some newspapers i.e The Guardian. This whole coverage seems to suggest that the ±«Óãtv should be seen as Broadcasting By Conservatives. Clearly there is an issue worthy of coverage in the mess the Labour Party has placed itself. Some objective coverage of other party's misdemeanours would, I'd have thought, have been a hallmark of a have decent political correspondent and national broadcaster.
"The first poster to comment hit the nail on the head; this is all starting to look a bit forced to be honest, and faintly pathetic."
Hallo Tony! Shouldn't you be in the Middle East?
Nick, unlike Mr Hardwidge, far from losing interest, I think clearing up this matter is vital to the health of our democracy. I have to repeat my earlier post on your other thread that Harriet Harman was the Solicitor-General, and just after this electoral law was passed by her own government. If the political officer responsible for overseeing the law cannot be trusted to understand or comply with it, then this government deserves everything it gets.
Either she knew about this clear breach of the law, in which case she was dishonest and should be prosecuted, or she didn't, in which case she was negligent and should be sacked. Either way she should be toast. I am staggered that people like Mr Hardwidge and Gary Elsby try to defend this; then again, maybe not.
It defies belief that this sort of thing was going on even as a protracted and highly public police inquiry was being conducted into cash for honours. Any half-sensible person, let alone an honest one, would have been double-checking everything to do with party funding. "I wasn't aware of anything," just doesn't convince. Keep digging and report what you find out.
Andrew A #9
Your contention lacks credibility without examples to support it.
Spuriouser and Spuriouser. I can't help noticing that a number of commentators here and on other ±«Óãtv boards demand:
1. A vote of confidence - a pointless exercise since the parliamentary maths would never see it pass. Labour are the majority party like it or not - hence Cameron won't do it because he would lose. That cause is a loser - move on!
2. Reference to EU money laundering - another spurious suggestion since this relates to criminals buying and selling of tradeable commodities with "hot" cash and political donations don't quite fit that pattern except possibly cash for honours....
I'm with Jim Brant on this - let's focus on more important things....
Nick Robinson, yet again provides us with accurate, precise and hard honest reporting. This "go getting" political reporter is always on the ball and ive no doubt that his sources are reliable and trustworthy.
We have the right to know in what and how our Government are running this fine Country and you have got to "take your hat off" to good old Nick, he tells it how it is, plain, simple and understandable.
If i was a betting man .....Nick Robinson being a poilitician in years to come !!!!!!!!!!
Watch this space............
Tony (#11) asks: Jack Dromey should have known' why and how? By magic, when he doesn't deal with individual donations?.
Um, he could have asked his staff: "I say, who's this unknown chap/lady whose just given us £50,000 / £80,000?". He is either incompetent or didn't want to know - either way ignorance does not excuse anything. Surely it's his job to know - it's not all about sitting in the Counting Room counting all the dosh.
On Newsnight last night Mr Abrahams gave a telephone interview in which indicated that he attended a seminar for donors dealing with the new rules after they came into effect. His comments were along the lines that he could see they were full of loopholes. Presumably if he attended the seminar he attended because he was a donor in his own name prior to new rules coming into effect: ie., when donations were anonymous. If he started to gift in other peoples's names after the rules came into effect it a pretty safe bet that whoever was handling his previous donations in his own name knew about his new arrangements. If he could see the new rules were full of loopholes, was the purpose of the seminar to highlight the loopholes and how they might be used or was he rather more perceptive than he would have us believe. It would interesting to find out if the seminars were repeated in other parts of the country and if other Labour donors drew similar conclusions. Were the seminars part of a systematic attempt to circumvent the new rules? If they were it would be strange if Mr Abrahams were the only one to come to the same solution.
Surely one of the main qualifications for being Mr Fundraiser is to know and obey the rules - let alone the relevant law - which Labour passed! As for not knowing nuffin mate, or the only following the bosses orders routine - doesn't this all jar with the fact that he returned the £25,000 donation to old bottler's leadership campaign? And didn't he even mention it to Brown that he had binned £25,000? That seems incredible to me. As for the obvious Labour plants above - I can't believe this scummy lot are still in power - so lets have a bit more please and look at the planning side of things. Coincidence or what?
James Griffiths wrote:
"Failure to comply, even if none of our clients are found to be guilty of said activities, are either hefty fines or worse, imprisonment. How can it be then that this Government can accept large financial donations from person or persons unknown?"
Easy enough - you and I are only "little people" and the laws passed by our govt. apply to us and not to them.
The inner circle of Soviet govt (the nomenklatura) used to operate in a similar fashion. Consider yourself lucky you are even allowed to ask the question - that'll be a crime soon too.....
The PM has said that the £600k will be given back as it was unacceptable and unlawful. But to whom will it be given? To the third-party 'intermediaries' or to the property developer?
Charles E Hardwinge (post 1) says he "is fed up of this topic" and asks you to "find something worthy of attention"
Really? Probity in Government or politicians ignoring their own laws isn't of any interest to him?
I take it he is not a taxpayer then. Maybe he is just another doner waiting for planning permission for some of Gordon's 3million new homes.
I haven't a biscuit left for Mr. Hardwidge to take.
Keep going Nick, it would be a very sorry day if our media and press were silenced.
Well that's it then if I get stopped for speeding, drink driving and pretty well anything then all I have to say is no one told me it was wrong.
Well its all right for Gordon so its alright by me!
Oh and how about bank robbery and benefit fraud I wonder if they are covered by this new defence rule? ......... and there's embezelment, slander ..............
Re: Jim at #16.
If there was nothing wrong, why the attempt to hide it?
The goverment steadfastly believes that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear and even more strongly that if you have something to hide, you are a ne'erdowell.
How serious is sharing for no profit movies? No *proof* of harm is available, and many studies show that there could be a net increase in value from it. How serious is the 0.00001% chance of being killed by explosion? How serious is it that we have to keep telling the government that, no, our status is not changed wrt council tax?
WE still have to prove our innocense every day. THEY should be even more strict in openness.
Well that's it then if I get stopped for speeding, drink driving and pretty well anything then all I have to say is no one told me it was wrong.
Well its all right for Gordon so its alright by me!
Oh and how about bank robbery and benefit fraud I wonder if they are covered by this new defence rule? ......... and there's embezelment, slander ..............
This is a serious issue but at least these people are living in the UK, unlike the main source of tory funding who, as their treasurer, is at the heart of party functioning. Ashcroft's position is a much greater affront to UK politics.
Nick, unlike Mr Hardwidge, far from losing interest, I think clearing up this matter is vital to the health of our democracy. I have to repeat my earlier post on your other thread that Harriet Harman was the Solicitor-General, and just after this electoral law was passed by her own government. If the political officer responsible for overseeing the law cannot be trusted to understand or comply with it, then this government deserves everything it gets.
Either she knew about this clear breach of the law, in which case she was dishonest and should be prosecuted, or she didn't, in which case she was negligent and should be sacked. Either way she should be toast. I am staggered that people like Mr Hardwidge and Gary Elsby try to defend this; then again, maybe not.
It defies belief that this sort of thing was going on even as a protracted and highly public police inquiry was being conducted into cash for honours. Any half-sensible person, let alone an honest one, would have been double-checking everything to do with party funding. "I wasn't aware of anything," just doesn't convince. Keep digging and report what you find out.
I heard your confusion on the Today show this morning, Nick. My immediate thoughts were: Hardly surprising. With so much going on at the moment, I doubt any political correspondent is getting a wink of sleep.
Keep up the good work. You're a national treasure.
I wonder if someone will ask Gordon Brown if he considers that since his taking over of the leadership of the party, its financial probity has got better, worse, or remains about the same?
"I would like to repeat my call of a week ago now for a vote of no confidence in this government."
Not sure you quite understand what the situation is. The government has a very large majority in the House of Commons. They would easily and comfortably win a vote of no confidence. That's why the Tories won't call for one. It would backfire on them because they're certain to lose.
Usually when politicians are accused of sleazy activities it is because they have received some benefit from them. Can somebody please point out to me the benefit that either the Labour Party or the Government received from this subterfuge by a donor? The donations were clearly illegal under the terms of the law introduced by this government, but while all illegal acts are to be condemned they are not all of equal seriousness. Still, it allows Cameron to squeak away at PMQ's, though I suspect that he is under the mistaken impression that he is thundering.
Meanwhile there are serious events happening in the world, though you would hardly think so from the media (who are of course the best in the world by their own admission).
Give it a rest and start looking for news outside the Westminster hothouse. what about that poor woman teacher in the Sudan? I know, not enough room for sneering in that one.
To be honest I really do not care anymore from Thatcher to Major to Blair and now Brown, it's not been a great period in the life of politics. the sleaze the money. I have just lost interest i did not vote at the last election because i can see no difference in any party right now, and I will not bother voting again.
I do not care enough anymore and I think a lot of people feel the same.
#1: Hilarious. Brown's "cool focus". Great satire.
There are two points about recent events that continue my disenfranchisement with the political system.
1. Whilst not criminal in intent there appears to be a belief that government, elected and officers, does not have to comply with the rules it sets. It can fail to trace the origin of donors and send 25 million sets of personal details through the post together with numerous other 'one off' for example laptops are lost.
2. At the same time the government continues to increase the checks and compliance tests for individulas and businesses. It is galling to say the leaast to be controled by those who act as though the rules are unimportant
Alan Huint #26 and Charles E Hardwidge
"lets focus on more important things"? So the governing party of this country has carried out, allegedly, illegal acts and this IS NOT important? Get real!
Nick, why do you expect us to be sympathetic to your excuses of tiredness and too much adrenalin, when if a leading Labour politician were to make such a grave error you'd be on here for days making sarcastic quips about government ineptitude?
What are the financial implications for the four stooges? Income tax/capital gains tax on unearned income must come into play. If not Abrahams has paid these for them in the money gifted and the cost to him would be well over the £650k reported.
Finally, things can't be too bad for Labour as no-one in the media has used the phrase "last chance saloon" - YET.
Keep up the good reporting - very eentertaining.
At 01:10 PM on 28 Nov 2007, Mike Waller wrote: I very much doubt that any politician would be allowed to explain away a cock-up on the grounds that it was caused by "too little sleep and too much adrenalin". So why should it be acceptable from a journalist? After all, putting out a false report is about the worst sin a journalist can commit.
In fairness, the blogging community can be more than a bit cavalier on checking sources. On the other hand, that's a standard that is expected of the ±«Óãtv. Wasn't that the nub of the criticisms at the time reporting of a dodgy dossier led to resignations of a journalist and others to the highest level in the organization?
Please maintain a sense of perspective about this nonsense.UK citizens and residents should in my opinion be able to give to whatever legal cause they choose, how they choose, in private, including political parties. This new law is a very poor law since it prevents this-but not only that--the parties do not have the power to investigate 'the background' of donations ie cannot enforce the law.It is also obvious that £5000 pounds is far to little to bother with registration etc.
TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE?
This has effectively taken the EU constitution off the agenda. Brown will sign it amid a police investigation designed to offload Harriet Harmon and Jack Dromey.
I believe this is deliberate revenge by new labour first on Jack Dromey for blowing the whistle and second because Harriet Harmon is not on side. And the wife of Jack Dromey.
Gordon Brown Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson are the real orchestrators of all of this.
Has no-one in the Labour Party heard of the Proceeeds of Crime Act? If they did not know the provenance of funds, then they have presumably reported the matter to SOCA.
And after all those years when Labour Party people spent evenings in meetings and pubs telling one another they needed to address "the public" rather than one another it is a hoot that Nick Robinson's blaggers here are so proud that few bother turning up to disagree with them.
Thatcherites' false cry of "Ten More Years!" (was there one?) will be replaced by "ten More Leaders!" because that is how many and how long it will take to get them back to power!
Dear Nick,
As a woman who has always fought for equal rights, and the grandaughter of a suffragette, I now feel a certain despair. Mrs Pankhurst together with my humble grandmother and countless other women must be spinning in their graves. My ladies, Harman and Jowell to name but two, seem to have a vapid expression when questioned on matters of urgency. Cheap, tatty and vulgar in appearance, their foolishness seems more than skin deep. They never know anything, especially if it concerns financial matters. Just recall Jowell, who was even ready to temporary abandon the marriage 'ship' when the questioning got tough. Perhaps I shouldn't feel despair, maybe the suffragettes have won equality after all. When it comes to greediness, hypocrisy and brainlessness we are equal to our fellow men!
am not inclined to believe anything that Harriet Harman says. My reluctance to do so is because on a recent television program she said. "Tories left a ruined economy. This statement simply was not true.
61 quarters of uninterupted economic growth means that labour inherited a sound economy. Gordon Brown can only claim credit for 41 of them.
All I can say is, 'Bang goes your gong Mr Abrahams". Tee hee hee!