ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Michael Gove has private talks with Lord Levy

Our first reaction to the above story in tomorrow's Times was to recoil.  Why on earth is Michael Gove talking to one of the most controversial figures from the Blair years?  Our second reaction was to appreciate that Lord Levy was a significant influence on the Academy Schools initiative - an initiative that the Conservatives are determined to extend.  He also remains a significant figure within Britain's Jewish and charitable communities.  We can't help but come back to our first reaction, however.  Is Lord Levy really a figure we should be associating ourselves with?

What public enquiries should the next Conservative Government initiate?

From Paul Goodman MP...

"As I write, the pointy-headed geniuses at Cameron Towers are drawing up our programme for Government.

They’re looking for good ideas.  So here’s one.  But to work, it needs the help of ConservativeHome readers.

It’s as follows.

In 1997, Labour launched a public enquiry into BSE.  I’ve spoken to some of those involved.  They say that it was carried out by the book and to the rules – but also that its purpose was blatantly party political.

I’m not suggesting that the next Conservative Government should act in a similar spirit – dear me, no.  But it’s surely fair to ask what public enquiries, if any, such a Government should set up after it takes office?

This is where you can help.  All suggestions welcome in the thread below…"

David Cameron's reaction to Hain's resignation

David Cameron's reaction Peter Hain's resignation:

"It's the right decision, but it shouldn’t have happened in this way.  I said some time ago the Prime Minister should have said to Peter Hain you’ve got to give a convincing explanation of your situation or you can’t stay in the Cabinet, instead we’ve had a long delay where one of the most important departments in Government hasn’t been led properly , and I think that was wrong.  The Department of Work and Pensions is one of the most important jobs in government. It is one of the highest spending departments: responsible for pensions, responsible for benefits and welfare reform. It is a huge department and a very big hole will be left by Mr Hain’s departure, which the Prime Minister will have to fill. The Prime Minister should not have allowed this to go on for so long."

Earlier this afternoon Chris Grayling said: “Peter Hain’s resignation was inevitable and the right thing to do given the Electoral Commission’s decision.  What is important now is for Gordon Brown to take rapid action to restore effective leadership to a department that has clearly been distracted by the events of the last few weeks.”

4.15pm: Chris Grayling's statement on James Purnell's appointment as Hain's successor: "“I hope he will be able to take a firm grip on a department that is clearly losing its way, with revelations in the last two weeks alone that National Insurance numbers have been issued to illegal immigrants and personal data has been left on the roadside.”

5pm: The man the Politics Editor of The Daily Telegraph thinks might be the next Labour leader - Andy Burnham - is the new Culture Secretary. His old job, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is filled by Yvette Cooper. Caroline Flint is the new Housing Minister.

6pm PlayPolitical: Watch Peter Hain resign

Chris Grayling at his best

Chris Grayling has sent a list of questions to Peter Hain.  Here are the main ones:

• When were you first made aware of the fact that your campaign had debts of over £100,000, for which you were personally liable?
• Did any of the payments to trade creditors to meet those debts exceed significantly their normal trading terms, and if so, have you sought advice from the Electoral Commission about whether these also constituted declarable loans?
• When did you first become aware that donations to your deputy leadership campaign had not been declared? And when did you first inform the Electoral Commission that your original declaration to it was incomplete?
• What checks did you personally make during the deputy leadership campaign to ensure that donations were being properly registered?
• What involvement, if any, did you have in raising the money to pay off the debts of your campaign?
• If you had no involvement in this, who did take responsibility for organising the fund raising effort to clear your debts?
• Will you commit to publishing any correspondence, by email, letter or internal memoranda, between members of your campaign team about fund raising?
• When were you first informed that sufficient funds had been raised to clear your debts?
• Given the fact that you knew that your campaign had substantial debts, and that fund raising was taking place to meet those debts, why were you unaware that additional donations were being sought for your campaign which would be declarable?
• Please could you publish a list of the actual dates on which the undeclared donations were received by your campaign?

Brown "tainted by sleaze"

An ICM survey for Newsnight suggests that twice as many voters see Gordon Brown as sleazy (57%) as see David Cameron as sleazy (28%).  44% agree with Mr Cameron's PMQs' attack that Mr Brown is not "cut out for the job".  Unfortunately only 41% think the Conservative leader passes his own test.  43% think Mr Cameron the most competent leader and 42% think the same of Mr Brown.

Those LibDems who think Vince Cable should be their leader might have their enthusiasm cooled by the revelation that just 8% think their acting leader is cut out for the job.

8am on 4/12: As our party attempts to present itself as an alternative government - competent and prepared - one of the most important tasks has been given to Francis Maude and Greg Clark - our shadow cabinet office team.  They will oversee the party's implementation office - a unit that will ensure policy ideas are ready to be implemented and not just press released.  The unit will also help to prepare shadow ministers for the responsibilities of office.  At last night's Policy Exchange reception David Cameron was the speaker and he announced that Nick Boles - that think tank's highly-regarded founder and our candidate in Grantham and Stamford - will run the implementation unit.  I hope to write a lot more about this important unit soon and, in particular, the division of responsibilities between the MPs like Francis Maude, who has ministerial experience, and Nick, who doesn't.

An Iranian not entitled to vote in UK General Elections is Brown's second biggest donor

The Mail on Sunday's Jonathan Oliver, who broke the Abrahams story, has done it again.

Tomorrow's newspaper has this:

"The focus of the sleaze scandal engulfing the Government switched dramatically last night to the Labour Party's second biggest donor - an Iranian-born car dealer who is not even entitled to vote in general elections.  Mahmoud Khayami, a French citizen, has given a total of £830,000 in the past eight months, making him Labour's biggest individual backer after Lord Sainsbury... Khayami made his first donation on May 2 this year.  But The Mail on Sunday has discovered he only became a "permissible" donor on May 1, when he first appeared on the Electoral Register.  Had he made the payment 48 hours earlier both he and the Labour Party would have been committing a criminal offence.  Even though his name is on the register, he is permitted to vote only in local and European ballots, not general elections.  Commentators said that while he was thus technically qualified to make party donations, the fact he had done so meant Labour was 'sailing close to the wind' on donation rules."

More here.

Chris Grayling commented: "It is now very clear Gordon Brown had ordered a 'dash for cash' ahead of an early Election."

Grayling attacks Brown's attempts to switch attention from donations scandal

I agree with Fraser Nelson.  Francis Elliott's piece in this morning's Times, is a perfect summary of the last week's donor scandals that have engulfed Gordon Brown.  I particularly enjoyed this section:

"Behind the scene No 10 aides are furious at the Harman camp’s attempts to pass the blame on to Mr Brown for her involvement in Labour’s donations scandal. Mr Brown had his competence and integrity called into question by David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions over his admission that a controversial property developer used proxies to channel money to Labour. Now, as the cracks begin to show after six days of pummelling over the David Abrahams affair, the Tories can claim that Mr Brown’s administration is not only bungling and sleazy, but divided to boot."

Mr Brown wants to move on from his troubles by proposing reforms to the whole system of political funding.  He wants to use this opportunity to increase state funding of political parties.  The Labour machine is already trying to embroil the Tories in its mess by launching attacks on how the Conservatives receive money.  Lord Ashcroft inevitably and the Midlands Industrial Council are in Labour's mind.

Chris Grayling is having none of it.  He's just issued this statement:

“This morning’s speech is a pretty opportunistic attempt by Gordon Brown to erect a smokescreen around events of the past two days.  David Cameron wrote to him in October urging major reforms to party funding and a cap on donations, Gordon Brown refused because he didn’t want to give up on the multi-million pound financing from the trade unions.  His decision to pick up the issue again today must be more than an attempt to divert attention away from party problems.  The other real concern about this morning’s comments is that it looks like he’s trying to find ways of giving himself greater political advantage.  He wants to cut campaigning by his opponents in marginal seats whilst continuing to use tax payers’ money to give his MPs a communication allowance to spend in those same marginal seats.  It also looks as if he’s set on protecting big trade union donations whilst putting limits on everyone else."

Even if Labour did reform the laws governing party funding, does anyone believe that they are competent or honest enough to abide by them?

Editor's comment: "This is dangerous for Labour.  If the Conservatives choose to oppose extra state funding of political parties (as they should), Labour's attempt to extract even more money from the taxpayer will cause new public fury.  The Tories should be doing much in the meantime to increase the proportion of funding they receive from individuals.  The Canadian Conservatives would be a good example to learn from."

Labour's reputation for competence and integrity is lost

Last night we covered the fact that the Telegraph/ YouGov poll gave the Tories an 11% lead.  Within the poll there's lots of interesting details:

• 23% are satisfied with Gordon Brown and 59% dissatisfied.
• The Conservatives have a 1% lead on economic competence - 33% to 32%; Labour had a 49% to 27% advantage at the last election.
• 11% think Alistair Darling is doing a good job; 53% think he's doing a bad job.
• 52% agree that the Government is neither competent nor efficient.
• 60% agree that Labour appears sleazy; only 31% say the same of David Cameron's Conservatives.

The table on the right indicates the extent to which the loss of the HMRC data on 25 million peoples' personal information leads public perceptions of Labour as incompetent.

You can access all of the numbers from within this page on Telegraph.co.uk.

3.15pm: A Populus poll confirms Labour's weakening position.  53% of voters agreed that "the Labour Government now appears to be more sleazy than the previous Conservative Government". 40% disagreed.  60% agreed that they had less trust in Gordon Brown than when he became Prime Minister in June.  36% disagreed.  60% disagreed with the proposition that despite recent events Mr
Brown was leading a competent government.  By 47% to 40% people still thought that Gordon Brown would make a better Prime Minister than David Cameron.

Live blog of PMQs from noon: Cameron questions the integrity of the man Vince Cable calls Mr Bean

5.15pm: Two minute video clip of Cameron blasting Brown is now on PlayPolitical.  ToryRadio has the full audio.

4pm: A great line from Fraser Nelson (my emphasis): "Brown told Peter Tapsell that "this job is an important job and I will continue to do it to the best of my ability". Yes, Prime Minister, that's what we're all worried about."

Editor's verdict: "Vince Cable steals the show today with his Mr Bean line.  As the FT's George Parker has just said on Radio Five - Mr Brown thinks himself a serious, weighty figure and hates to be ridiculed.  Well done, Mr Cable!  Another good performance from Mr Cameron.  He provided plenty of good clips for the rest of the day's broadcasts.  Also good to hear John Gummer and Michael Ancram joining the attack so successfully."

Not verbatim highlights:

12.26pm: 'What does the PM want for Christmas?', Sir Patrick Cormack asks.  A day off, the PM replies.  [He can have as many days off as he likes if he goes to see The Queen tomorrow!]

12.24pm: Another good question, this time from John Gummer: The PM said his decision to call off the election had nothing to do with the polls and his inheritance tax cut had nothing to do with what the Conservatives had done.  How can we believe him now when he says he knew nothing about the dodgy donations?

12.17pm: Excellent question from Michael Ancram: Why are all his party colleagues so intent on keeping him in the dark?

12.11pm: Vince Cable highlights the underfunding of the armed forces.  The Prime Minister replies by saying that Britain has the second best funded armed services in the world.  [Fraser Nelson dealt with that claim last week: Des Browne's Defence Funding Fiddle].

12.11pm: Best line of the day from Vince Cable: In a few short weeks the Prime Minister has gone from Stalin to Mr Bean.

12.07pm: This goes to the heart of Prime Minister's integrity, says Cameron.  His explanations beggar belief.  We've had disaster after disaster since he became Prime Minister.  A run on the bank.  Half the country's personal details lost in the post.  Now this.  The Prime Minister is looking less and less cut out for the job.  Enthusiastic Tory cheers.

12.04pm: Has the PM invited the police to investigate? [Ben Brogan thinks that a police investigation is inevitable].  If, as he said yesterday, unlawful acts have been committed, he should call in the police.  The public will see the Prime Minister wriggling.  John Mendelsohn, Labour fund manager, knew about this unlawful behaviour a month ago.  Why is he still in place?  [Guido has the background on Mendelsohn].  Mr Brown replies by saying that Mr Mendelsohn had been led to believe that the donations had been cleared by the Electoral Commission.

12.02pm: David Cameron invites the Prime Minister to say if he believes he still is delivering competence and trust to British politics.  The Prime Minister responds by saying that he has set up enquiries and is determined to ensure that party political funding is all above board.

11.59am: I'm listening to Radio Five Live: Commentator says 'goal gets wider for David Cameron every week'.  Indeed!

Cameron: Labour has become indifferent to the law

David Cameron has been addressing the CBI Conference and has launched a stinging attack on Labour:

"What we have learnt over the last few days is that when it comes to regulation and legislation there’s one law for government – and another one for everyone else.  These people, they set up these quangos, they pass these laws, they introduce these regulations, they insist on this bit of scrutiny, that bit of compliance – and whether it’s their own government debts or their own party machine they just don’t obey it.  There is a time in the life of every government when they’ve been in power for so long that complacency tips over into arrogance, and arrogance even becomes indifference to the law. They’ve passed that point and change, real change, is needed now in Britain."

On this morning's Today programme Francis Maude accused Labour of "institutionalised cheating":

"It frankly defies credibility that Peter Watt didn't know that this most basic of compliance rules was in place... If that is the case, we wonder what else has been going on there... This kind of looks like institutionalised cheating in the system and adds to this general sense there now is of this whiff of decay and, frankly, greed.  These are rules that Labour themselves brought in, with our support, and we think it is really important they should be followed. It does look like institutionalised evasion of the rules going on here.

Large sums of money don't come spontaneously. You don't get a random cheque through the post. They come about through conversations and discussions, persuading people that supporting your party is a good thing to do.  These are not obscure technical breaches.  This is the most basic thing. The whole point of the Act was to require disclosure and transparency over substantial amounts, so people would know who was paying it.  If the money was being disguised and laundered in this way, you do just wonder what lay behind it."

On the blogs: Guido is at his best at the moment.  If you want to follow the twists'n'turns of Labour's donations crisis I suggest you bookmark order-order.com.  Ben Brogan wonders if Harriet Harman could be in trouble for accepting £5,000 from Abrahams for her Deputy Leadership bid.  Nick Robinson notes that Brown did not give her backing at his press conference.  In a must-read post, Danny Finkelstein finds Labour's explanations "ridiculous".  And Dan Hannan worries that taxpayer-funding of political parties will be presented as the answer to the problem of big private donations. 

CCHQ highlights widespread abuse of parliamentary communications allowance by Labour MPs

Ruth Kelly has issued an overnight apology for spending part of her parliamentary communications allowance on a constituency newsletter that, in clear breaches of guidance, boasts of Labour Government achievements.  The guidelines state that "no party political or campaigning material is allowable in any part of a publication funded, in whole or in part, from the allowances."

Mrs Kelly told the newspaper that broke the story - The Mail on Sunday - that she apologised unreservedly.  Her autumn newsletter includes the following sentences:

• “This reaffirms Labour’s commitment to investing in the NHS”
• “The Labour Government has invested so much in improving early years’ services"
• It boasts of “the difference made by Labour’s commitment to investing in and modernising our NHS"
• It includes the slogan from her website “Your NHS. Better with Labour”
• It also promotes the work of Bolton West Labour Party.

David Davies MP has written to the Serjeant at Arms to complain of these abuses.

Mrs Kelly is not the only offender.  CCHQ has identified other leaflets - paid for by taxpayers - but which appear to be in breach of parliamentary guidelines:

• "Bridget Prentice, a Minister for Justice, has the Labour Party logo on every page of her newsletter – and even includes a photo of her local Labour Party HQ.
• Gisela Stuart, majority 2,349, also uses the Labour Party’s colours across the entire leaflet, including photographs with Gordon Brown and claims Gordon Brown is ‘delivering a fair deal for pensioners today’.
• Julie Morgan includes a section in her leaflet celebrating the arrival of ‘a new Prime Minister’ who has seen ‘many testing occasions’ as well as pointing out she supported Harriet Harman for Labour’s Deputy Leadership."

There are also problems with Labour MPs' websites.  Andrew Mackinlay publishes press releases attacking the Conservative Party – linked from his main news page.   Janet Anderson's website boldly displays Labour party logos and does not acknowledge that the site is taxpayer-funded.

Commenting Francis Maude said:

“The Communications Allowance was deliberately created to enable sitting Labour MPs to protect themselves against their democratic opponents. This is further evidence of how Labour voted through taxpayers’ cash to bankroll their political campaigning in marginal seats. If Gordon Brown is serious about restoring trust in politics, he should scrap this unfair Allowance now”.

Lord Ashcroft and his beneficiaries have contended that his and others' financing of Conservative candidates in marginal seats is a necessary counterweight to the huge advantage enjoyed by incumbent MPs - at taxpayers' expense.  Even without the abuses identified by CCHQ, these leaflets give a huge boost to incumbents and thus produce a very unlevel playing field.

Ruth Kelly's offending newsletter - please click on the graphic to enlarge.

No charges over cash for honours

Carmen Dowd of the CPS has confirmed that there will be no charges over the cash for honours scandal because of "insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction". She praised the police for their "diligence and professionalism."

Update: Lord Levy has made a statement saying he is "sincerely delighted and relieved to put this all behind me." He also said he wouldn't comment on the police handling of the investigation, saying that others are better placed to do so, but did say he had "been disappointed by the constant leaks to the media", without saying who he thought to be responsible.

Still burying bad news

Theresa May has compiled a list of 12 stories that the Government machine timed for the 48 hours of election coverage.  She commented:

“The government that thought September 11th was ‘a good day to bury bad news’ is still at it.  This research shows that Labour buried twelve bad news stories during the fallout from the elections.  And they’re hardly petty matters.  More than £5 million was spent trying to recover tax credit overpayments.  Nearly £500 million was spent by the National Health Service on clinical negligence claims last year.  And more than £150,000 of taxpayers’ money went to Gordon Brown’s friends at Opinion Leader Research.  This is yet further evidence that proves, whether we have Blair or Brown, Labour’s spin and deceit will just go on and on.”

Here's the 'dirty dozen':

1. "More than £5 million was spent last year trying to recover tax credit overpayments (HC Hansard, 3 May 2007, Column 1810WA)
2. £466 million was paid out in damages and legal costs by the NHS for clinical negligence claims (HC Hansard, 3 May 2007, Columns 1847-1848WA)
3. The tender to organise ‘Skills Challenge: A Public Debate’ was won by Opinion Leader Research – an organisation with close links to Gordon Brown – with a contract value of £153,484.38 (HC Hansard, 3 May 2007, Column 1807WA).
4. It was revealed that 197,441 complaints had been made about accommodation provided for members of the armed services by the Ministry of Defence (The Sun, 4 May, p.39)
5. The Government was forced to back down and will now allow a vote in the House of Commons on the Government’s handling of Home Information Packs (HC Hansard, 3 May 2007, Column 1646)
6. DEFRA’s Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) reported on genetically modified crops.  Its deputy chairman said that the UK could get its first commercial production of GM crops within two years (The Daily Mail, 4 May, p.4)
7. A Freedom of Information request showed that a hospital superbug killed four people at one of the Government’s flagship £229 million hospitals (The Daily Telegraph, 4 May, p.14)
8. The Office for National Statistics revealed that half the register offices in England and Wales have suspended the new £6 million IT system for recording births and deaths (Financial Times, 4 May, p.4)
9. 128 rural post offices closed last year (HC Debs, 3 May 2007, Column 1820WA)
10. The number of hectares of land in Afghanistan used to cultivate opium poppy increased from 109,103 in 2005 to 180,300 in 2006 (HC Hansard, 3 May 2007, Column 1821WA)
11. The Department for Work and Pensions spent nearly £4,000 on media training for ministers last year (HC Hansard, 3 May 2007, Column 1829WA)
12. Insolvency Service statistics show that a record number of people were declared insolvent in the first quarter of 2007."

(ConservativeHome's editorial reaction to Thursday's very encouraging results will follow later).

There may be trouble ahead...

Yates hands cash-for-honours report to Crown Prosecution Service (BBC).

Public reject Blair as a "pretty straight kind of guy"

A poll for tomorrow's Sunday Times (not yet online) rejects Blair's famous early years claim to be a pretty straight kind of guy.  Just 16% told YouGov that they saw the Prime Minister as "honest and straightforward."  Over half (56%) said they believe he awarded peerages in return for loans/ donations to the Labour Party.  55% want Tony Blair to leave Downing Street now.

Despite Labour's woes the Tory lead is down slightly on the previous YouGov survey.  The Tories enjoy a 37% to 32% advantage with the LibDems unchanged on 18%.

56% want Blair to go now as loans-for-peerages inquiry is set to lead to three charges

An ICM survey for the Sunday Express finds that 56% of voters are unwilling to wait for Tony Blair to go in the summer and want him to leave now.  43% of Labour supporters want him to go now.

Mr Blair's diminishing reputation has been further undermined by two more stories this weekend.

First is today's News of the World story that three people are set to be charged in the cash-for-honours enquiry.  They are Lord Levy and the Downing Street head of government relations, Ruth Turner, and also the businessman Sir Christopher Evans who faces a charge under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuse) Act because of his lending to Labour.  Evidence from the Prime Minister's political secretary John McTernan "started the dominos falling," says the News of the World.

Meanwhile Welsh Tory MP David Davies is writing to the Prime Minister about yesterday's Daily Mail revelation that Tony Blair has bought a fifth house - meaning likely mortgage debts of £5m when the Blairs' current earnings could only justify borrowings of about £1.3m.  This is what Mr Davies tells The Sunday Telegraph:

"I find it astonishing that the Prime Minister feels the need for another house.  I don't believe he can afford them on the basis of his current salary, and I assume he must have secured the mortgage on the basis of future earnings.  I will be writing to Downing Street to find out what public funds, if any, are being spent on the house."

It could be the cover-up that kills Downing Street

For most of the cash-for-hours scandal the Conservatives have been quiet but Tory Chairman Francis Maude lets rip in an article for this morning's Telegraph:

"From Ecclestone to Mittal to PowderJect, allegations abound that donations and loans have resulted in privileged access, influence, legislative changes and honours. The Prime Minister of the day and his advisers have been interviewed by the police on allegations of selling seats in our legislature in return for keeping the Labour Party afloat. On top of that, according to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, electoral fraud is rife and the watchdog set up to police elections — the Electoral Commission — is guilty of "regulatory failure"."

The Tory Chairman's intervention coincides with news that is potentially deadly for Downing Street.  An alleged cover-up of computer records was revealed by ITN and Sky last night and is reported in today's Daily Mail:

"Police investigating the cash-for-honours affair have recovered sensational deleted e-mails from Downing Street computers.  They have unearthed potentially vital evidence that key figures close to Tony Blair openly discussed the possibility of Labour donors being rewarded with peerages.  Many of the e-mails were not voluntarily disclosed and may have been deliberately concealed, police sources say.  These internal communications are key to the file submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which will make the final decision on whether to bring formal charges.  The Daily Mail can reveal that detectives are now increasingly confident that the ten-month investigation will end in a criminal court case - either over claims that peerages were traded for political donations, or an attempt to conceal evidence."

In addressing Labour's current refusal to agree to a cap on donations - because of its increasing dependence on funding from the big unions - Mr Maude appears to suggest that the Tories would walk away from a cross-party deal on extra state funding of political parties.  That would be good news for democracy and may be partly rooted in the Tories' recent fundraising successes.

Blair's banana republic 1; British rule of law 0

It's not often I find myself in complete agreement with The Guardian and the Liberal Democrats but I do today.  The Blair government's decision to stop the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into suspected Saudi/ BAe corruption is, as Oliver Kamm writes in today's Times, the lowest of many low points of this Blair government.  According to The Guardian the SFO were about to get hold of a Swiss dossier that contained print-outs of BAe's recent offshore banking transactions with key Saudi middlemen.  The Guardian continues:

"The SFO believed the banking files could unlock the answer to three questions: Were members of the Saudi royal family receiving secret British pay-offs? Were offences committed under UK law? And had BAE lied to the Department of Trade and Industry to get insurance cover when the company recently claimed it had cleaned up its act and got rid of its confidential Saudi agents?  But the events of the next 48 hours ensured that the SFO would not be allowed to collect those files. Instead came a sudden harsh lesson in the realities of power and politics in Blairite Britain."

Here are a few reasons why I object to Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's decision to halt the SFO investigation:

1. Tory Dominic Grieve said that “On the basis of the Attorney General’s comments about the highly speculative nature of the inquiry, and that any final prosecution was unlikely, the decision to discontinue the investigation in view of the potential damage to our national security was inevitable and the only sensible course of action."  I'm sceptical that Lord Goldsmith made his decision for entirely legal reasons.  The  Attorney General has 'form' in terms of giving legal advice and it is clear from all reports that the Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and Downing Street were all involved in the lobbying/ decision-making process.  The Prime Minister declared himself responsible for the decision.  This was clearly politicised.  The SFO should have been permitted to conclude its investigation without political interference.
2. Saudi Arabia recently warned that the Eurofighter contract with Britain was at risk if the SFO investigation went on.  The Saudis know that the British establishment is weak.  They prevented Death of a Princess from ever being rebroadcast and they have now appeared to succeed in blackmailing Britain over an SFO investigation.
3. The worst reason for surrendering to Saudi blackmail was that we needed support from the desert kingdom for the war on terror.  If we had continued with the SFO investigation there were warnings of no more intelligence sharing and, worse, Saudi support for Sunni fighters in Iraq.  What kind of signal does this send to every Muslim nation?  Threaten to join the wrong side in the war on terror and you'll get what you want.
4. If Saudi Arabia is an ally in the war on terror then God help us.  This is the nation that has funded the most militant expressions of Islamism all around the world.  The kingdom's human rights abuses include execution of homosexuals and zero tolerance of conversion from Sunni Islam.  No Jews of any nationality are permitted to enter Saudi Arabia.
5. There is terrible hypocrisy here.  It is a core of UK development policy that African and other developing nations must have zero tolerance of corruption but it now appears that the British state is willing to turn a blind eye to Saudi corruption.

If Labour comes out of this affair badly then so do the Tories.  Dominic Grieve's line is unbelievable.  MPs Gerald Howarth and Michael Jack - both with big BAe-related constituency jobs - lobbied to stop the investigation.  Edward Leigh defended the decision on Any Questions - joining Charles Moore and Peter Oborne in embracing the Government's 'realpolitik'.  Bernard Jenkin told the BBC that "The SFO should not be tempted to go on these fishing expeditions unless prosecutions are likely and these prosecutions are in the national interest."  Worst of all was Jonathan Aitken's suggestion that  even if the allegations against BAE were true, it was the correct decision to end the investigation in order to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia.  I hope the human rights charity Christian Solidarity Worldwide is reconsidering having Mr Aitken as their president.

Final word must go to 'Russell' who made this brilliant comment on Danny Finkelstein's blog:

"The rule of law having been dismissed, and the public interest having been equated with the Government's interests (for which Blair takes "full reponsibility"), the Attorney General can now step in to halt the cash for honours enquiry. Not in the public interest, you see. While we're at it, why not arrest DC Yates for conduct prejudicial to national security?"

Related links: Saudi Arabia's funding of Islamism and Tories launch first human rights report

Taxpayers pay £300m for Labour's spin machine

On yesterday's Today programme - during a discussion of the twentieth century's most effective Prime Minister - it was suggested that Tony Blair was more of a press officer than a Prime Minister.  The Conservative Party has, this morning, uncovered evidence that the whole Blair government is being taken over by press officers. 

More than 3,200 press officers are now employed to promote the Government's message.  The £300m cost of the 'wages of spin' has trebled since the last year of John Major's premiership:

• Oliver Heald noted that the Home Office alone employs 145 press officers but they have been unable to finesse the PR blunders that have dogged John Reid's department throughout this year.
• John Prescott employs three press officers but no longer has any department.
• Hilariously, on this morning's Today programme, Sarah Montague noted that a BBC reporter tried yesterday to find a comment on the Tories' expose.  The reporter was passed from press officers in Downing Street to the Cabinet Office to the Treasury as each press officer suggested someone else was responsible.  Eventually someone told the BBC reporter that they would need to speak to individual Government departments.  It's good to know that BBC reporters don't get treated any better than someone desperately applying for benefits or anyone else trying to navigate the Whitehall maze.

This obsession with taxpayer-funded propaganda isn't just a New Labour problem.  It's one of the few things that unites the whole Labour Party.  On the London Mayor blog Phil Taylor recently spotlighted Old Labour Ken Livingstone's £100m advertising spending.

Labour's five deadly sins

This morning's newspapers are full of stories that cover almost every aspect of the fall and fall of this Labour government:

Disunity: "The New Statesman magazine will today question how long Mr Blair can last at No 10, with police planning to present a report to the Crown Prosecution Service on the eve of the Labour conference.  "Party officials talk openly about a second conspiracy: a plot to oust Blair before the end of the year led by the Parliamentary Labour Party, or even elements within the cabinet," the magazine claims." (Telegraph)

Ineffectiveness: "A rise in young people carrying mobile phones and MP3 players is being blamed for street robberies and muggings jumping by 8% last year.  The latest crime figures include a 10% rise in gunpoint robberies." (BBC) and "Ministers have expressed "disappointment" at statistics showing fewer young people from poor backgrounds are going to university... The data for 2004/05 showed that while the total number of students from all groups rose, the proportion from poorer backgrounds fell from 28.6 to 28.2 per cent." (ePolitix.com)

Sleaze: "Lord Levy was last night facing fresh pressure over the peerages row after it emerged that he personally nominated his former secretary for an MBE.  MPs from across the political spectrum called for a probe into whether Jean Cobb deserved to receive the prestigious honour in 2002 for her 'services' to charity." (Daily Mail) and "John Prescott is facing a mild rebuke from the Parliamentary standards watchdog for failing to register his stay at the Colorado ranch of an American gambling tycoon and the gift of an elaborate cowboy outfit." (The Telegraph) 

Flip-floppery: A leader in The Telegraph lists some recent Government U-turns... on immigration, prison-building, automatic sentence reduction for guilty pleas, home information packs, marching yobs to cashpoints, no referendum on the EU Constitution, scrapping GP fundholding... we could all think of plenty more!

Weakness: "Why the shock over Tony Blair supporting Sinn Fein while at Oxford?  Surely making heroes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness while prime minister is more serious." - Daily Mail.

Blair: "Nobody in the Labour Party to my knowledge has sold honours or sold peerages."

On the day that the Mail on Sunday broke new allegations about Cherie Blair the Prime Minister took part in a wide-ranging interview on today's Politics Show.  The full transcript is here.

He consistently refused to answer questions about the loans-for-peerages row and again refused to put a timetable for his departure.   He did, however, confirm that he intended to still be Prime Minister at the time of next summer's G8 summit:

"JON SOPEL: So we come back to the G8 next year, you'll still be there as Prime Minister?

TONY BLAIR: I've made it clear all the way through, I carry on doing the job and so I look forward to next year's G8 of course, but er, in the end the most important thing is to do the job."

Related links: 65% do think that Labour raised money by offering peerages for loans poll finding and WhenWillBlairGo.com texting competition.

Voters reject greater state funding as solution to sleazy Labour

A YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph produces the rather unsurprising finding that Tony Blair's government is now thought to be sleazier than John Major's was once thought.  In 1997 only 19% of voters recognised Labour as sleazy and disreputable.  62% thought it of the Conservatives.  Today just one-third of voters think it of the Conservatives but 63% think it of Tony Blair's New Labour.

Other key findings of the poll:

• 65% do think that Labour raised money by offering peerages for loans;
• Exactly the same proportion think Blair knew that this was happening;
• 82% think that Tony Blair has failed to clean up politics;
• Only 25% support greater state funding of political parties in order to try and clean up politics - 59% think it wouldn't clean up politics or they don't favour the move.

The poll coincides with a report in The Times which suggests that "The Labour Party has run up the biggest debts in its history at £27.2 million."  "Almost half," Andrew Pierce reports, "is owed to a dozen rich businessmen who are demanding repayment."

The figure is not quoted in the main poll but Simon Heffer - discussing 'Dodgy Dave's' EPP shift - reports that "51 per cent of the public say they find the Conservative Party untrustworthy."

Donal Blaney, author of the Laws of the Public Policy Process series on YourPlatform, uses this week's law to attack David Cameron's failure to deliver the "months, not years" exit from the EPP:

"These are now dangerous times because trust, once lost, is very hard (if not impossible) to regain. David Cameron cannot get away from the fact that a vast swathe of the Party's membership in the Commons, Brussels and in constituencies will feel badly let down by what has happened this week. It may even be the case that many on the Right who had kept their counsel until now on Project Cameron may no longer feel compelled to do so anymore."

Prescott 'the buffoon' helps Tories to 10% lead

A new BPIX poll for the Mail on Sunday (the first since before May's local elections) puts the Conservatives at 41%.  In contrast to other recent polls (ICM and MORI) which suggested a narrowing of the Tory lead this survey shows the Tory lead up to 10%.  The LibDems are at just 15% - the lowest since Ming became his party's leader.

The poll is also devastating for John Prescott.  Only 19% of those questioned think Mr Prescott is very able or competent.  26% think he is incompetent and 45% think he is a buffoon.

76% have no confidence in Mr Prescott's ability to run the country when Tony Blair goes on holiday next month.  The Mail on Sunday sums up the nation's attitude in a leader:

"Try saying the words 'John Prescott is Deputy Prime Minister' out loud without laughing.  It is increasingly difficult.  The man has become a figure of fun.  Yet, this summer, this figure of fun will officially take over running the country while Tony Blair is on holiday.  That will be no joke."

John Prescott has held on to his job because both Brown and Blair regard him as essential for 'the handover'.  But Labour insiders know that the constant drip-drip of bad news is causing deep damage to the Government.  Another danger for Labour if Prescott goes is that he'll write a "warts 'n' all" book about his time as Deputy PM.  The Sunday Mirror reports that he has been offered £2m to do just that.

There is increasing talk within Labour circles of Mr Prescott stepping down as Deputy PM but continuing as Deputy Labour Leader (to avoid a damaging internal party election).  The Sunday Telegraph suggests that Tony Blair is hatching a plan to instal David Miliband as Deputy PM if John Prescott quits soon.  The Brown camp, however, could easily interpret such an appointment as an attempt to put Mr Miliband into a position from which he could challenge the Chancellor for the Labour crown.

No more croquet for No Jobs

The US may have announced a major diplomatic initiative on Iran but that's not the topic leading the news bulletins...

Earlier this evening - responding to the news that 'John Croquet Prescott' is giving up Dorneywood - Tory Chairman Francis Maude issued this statement:

"At last John Prescott has done the right thing. It is just a pity he has taken so long to do it.  But John Prescott’s absurd antics are ultimately not what matters to people - they are not really interested in what Minster moves in and out of what house.  What they are concerned about is the health service being run properly, tax credits being administered in the right way and having foreign prisoners deported. John Prescott is merely a symptom of a Government that is falling apart at the seams.”

Just interviewed on Newsnight, a more partisan Mr Maude admitted that it was in the interests of the Conservative Party for Mr Prescott to stay in post as long as possible.  Quite true.  Mr Prescott, Ms Hewitt and dear Sir Ming are probably the Conservative Party's top allies at the moment.

The Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze

A public service announcement from Guido Fawkes:

"Three weeks ago as a fresh wave of New Labour sleaze washed up over the rotting body politic like yesterday's sewage, Tony Blair again made another attempt to make out that it was not as bad as the bad old Tory days. But it is worse I thought. At least the Tories didn't get up to hanky-panky on government premises, in government time at our expense with the taxpayer getting screwed as well as the semi-naked junior civil servant. Someone should really document it all so that the next time Tony claimed he was a "straight kinda guy" they would have the evidence to prove him wrong.

Intoxicated with that idea I emailed Iain Dale, knowing he had been keeping a close eye on developments and knows a thing or two about books. The next morning he replied with a publishing timetable. It was his idea to garner a chameleon army from the British political blogosphere into co-authoring it quickly to catch the zeitgeist. The book thus introduces a wealth of diverse new writers to the book reading public, as for most of our blogging co-authors this is the first time they have been in print on paper as opposed to pixels on screen.  The multiplicity of authors meant it could be produced in two weeks - meaning it will be in Waterstones this week.  An incredibly quick turnaround by Iain who has masterminded the production of this enterprise brilliantly.

We have calculated that New Labour over nine years has produced a scandal a month on average, with little time off for good behaviour, nevertheless within the pages we document everything; shady bungs from businessmen, lying lobbyists, ministers on the make, expenses fiddled and Loans for Lordships made. So next time Tony Blair stands up to say New Labour is "whiter than white", you can throw this little red book at him."