Today's Guardian reports that "Scotland Yard will broaden its "loans for peerages" investigation to cover the Conservative party as well as Labour".
Mr Cameron has proposed sweeping reforms of political funding arrangements. He has inherited nearly all of the hidden loan obligations from before he was leader although his tenure has been tarnished by a £100,000 connection with the wife of a Saudi arms dealer.
After a meeting at Scotland Yard the SNP MP, Angus MacNeil - who initiated the police's proceedings - was uncompromising:
"The police are interested in crime. They are not interested in which party committed it ... After meeting people at Scotland Yard I would say anyone who has been involved in the selling of peerages should be shaking in their shoes."
The Guardian continued:
"Scotland Yard has refused to say which figures the detectives intend to interview as the inquiry unfolds, but it will not rule out speaking to Tony Blair. Westminster sources believe they will almost certainly speak to Lord Levy, the prime minister's chief fundraiser, and key players, such as the party chairman, Ian McCartney."
Somebody must have leaned on the police heavily. Only the party in power can actually sell peerages.
Posted by: EU Serf | March 29, 2006 at 07:35
Hi Serf, I thought the Tories could nominate people for peerages too?
Didn't Howard nominate Bob Edmiston for a peerage, and he, as we now know, "loaned" the party 2 million quid just before the election.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 09:01
Naive as it my seem I think the best policy would be to just be open and honest about everything thats happened in the past.This may lead to embarrasment in the short term but it will probably be better than having the information dragged out of us by the Electoral Commission.
Posted by: malcolm | March 29, 2006 at 09:36
I would welcome this if I didn't have a suspicion that it will play out as
1)Downing St. has done nothing wrong and it's quite normal for large contracts and honours to be handed out in a suspicious manner by a secret unit outside the normal structures of the Labour party.
followed by
2)"Howard Creates Corruption Catastrophe for Cameron"
Labour are trying to equate anything done in opposition with corruption at the core of government and our failure to be totally transparent has allowed them to do this.
This is where Chad's gone wrong; parties have always rewarded generous benefactors; what is different with Blair is he appears to have set up a secret unit in Downing street specifically to solicit very large donations directly in return for an honour and did so outside the normal structures of the Labour party. That is why it is Labour who should be the focus of attention.
Posted by: kingbongo | March 29, 2006 at 09:38
Mr Edmiston was nominated but from what has been reported his loan was desclosed to the Appointments Commission. This was not the case for Labour nominations.
Labour has succeeded in its plan to dirty the whole of the political scene so that Blair escapes again. Expect to hear more Labour spokesmen using term "dodgey Dave" to continue this underhand but effective tarnishing of the opposition.
Posted by: Ted | March 29, 2006 at 09:39
Hi KB,
As I have said many times before, I don't care about the peerages. I care about parties deliberately sidestepping transparency rules to hide large donors because for me, I am more interested in how these millionaires affect policy direction.
What has basically occurred is this (from how I understand it):
1. Tories being financially smarter, some clever bod came up with the ruse to hide large donors by making them into "loans".
2. The LibDems followed.
3. Close to the election, Labour panicked. Oh sh*t, the tories have millions rolling in via 'loans'. What to do? Copy them!
4. Labour mess the whole thing up in a ham-fisted way because they are not as good at corruption as the Tories and so the whole issue is blown wide open.
I prepared to place another £20 bet (winnings to the TPA again) that the very first soft loan (i.e. it could be extended or converted to a donation) was to the Tory Party.
In short, Labour's incompetence has exposed a nasty practice that the tories were doing well but was still a shameful sidestep in the aim of transparency for political donations.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 09:58
I don't see why exploiting a loophole in the disclosure requirements was 'shameful'. The only blame should be attached to those who made the clearly inadequate law in the first place. Cameron is quite right to uphold the right to confidentiality of those who made the loans. And I don't see how nominating someone for a peerage in opposition can be described as 'selling peerages' - nominations can be and sometimes are rejected.
Posted by: johnC | March 29, 2006 at 10:08
Come on John! The electoral commission has established rules to ensure that all large donations are public and so open to scrutiny.
The clear aim is that the public have a right to know who is bankrolling our political parties
We are not talking about a company using legal loopholes to reduce its tax bill, we are talking about political parties who are supposed to be setting a moral agenda for our country.
If the tory approach is that "we will use any loophole to hide who is bankrolling us" then I would suggest that they have not part to play in governing our country.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 10:17
But Chad, given you've sought to start a party which presumably will compete electorally with the Conservative Party, you WOULD say that, wouldn't you?
Posted by: Alexander Drake | March 29, 2006 at 10:24
you WOULD say that, wouldn't you?
Oh come on Alexander, we are debating issues here, attack them not the person. If you consider my argument flawed, address that instead of attacking me.
Look back through my posts. You'll see as many conservatives agreeing with me as disagreeing.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 10:31
I think if we adopt the approach you suggest John the political damage to our party will be immense.People in this country Alexander don't have much trust in political parties often as we have seen recently with good reason.The only way we can earn that trust is by being open and transparent.Hiding the identity of loaners/donors is not the way to go about it.
Posted by: malcolm | March 29, 2006 at 10:33
Tim - isn't it a bit harsh to say Mrs Said's donation has "tarnished" Cameron.
Wafic Said is a respected businessman - his investment compnay, Sagita, is regulated by the FSA with onerous requirements about suitability of directors etc, and he has been a generous benefactor not least to Oxford University - to whom he gave £20 million for the business school.
Once we buy into the language smearing all succesful businessmen, be they in the business of selling cars, or armaments (a trade which by they way has strengthned the security of democratic developed countries) we're heading down an unpleasent path.
Posted by: get real | March 29, 2006 at 11:12
The answer to the loans for honours scandal is simple. Make the House of Lords totally elected then no one would be able to buy there way in.
Sometimes the simplest solutions to problems are the best!
Posted by: Jack Stone | March 29, 2006 at 11:21
the very first soft loan (i.e. it could be extended or converted to a donation)
Commercial loans can be extended and their payments rescheduled, and any loan turned into a donation would then be disclosed as a donation.
The scandal is not about loans, it's about cash for honours.
Posted by: James Hellyer | March 29, 2006 at 11:23
I really dont understand how having two 100% elected assemblies helps. It makes the HoL a duplicate of the HoC and that is not good for democracy.
Posted by: James Maskell | March 29, 2006 at 11:27
The scandal is not about loans, it's about cash for honours.
Well, I would say it is a whole load of scandals rolled into big one steaming mess that has implicated all the big parties.
If there was nothing "wrong" with the loan arrangements then there wouldn't have been such a hasty agreement to declare all future loans when the practice was exposed.
BTW, have you paid my winnings to the TPA, James?
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 11:28
Tim - isn't it a bit harsh to say Mrs Said's donation has "tarnished" Cameron.
especially as it was at an auction so it's not as if DC had any control over who made that particular bid. I think this is a non-story
James Hellyer is right this is about genuine corruption by the soliciting of funds for favours (peerages, contracts etc). I do think Chad has a point though that transparency is the clear way of avoiding suggestions of corruption. Though quite why businessmen shouldn't (in an open manner) offer cash for policy when it seems OK for Trade Unions to do so is beyond me.
I'll take the bet Chad (I can just about stretch to £20), so long as Trade Union funding is counted; they've been making soft loans to Labour for years - they just did it up front not via the backdoor of 10 Downing Street!
Posted by: kingbongo | March 29, 2006 at 11:34
If there was nothing "wrong" with the loan arrangements then there wouldn't have been such a hasty agreement to declare all future loans when the practice was exposed.
The "hasty agreement" was in response to allegations that peerages had been sold, and not to do with the disclosure and treatment of loans.
BTW, have you paid my winnings to the TPA, James?
You haven't "won" anything.
Posted by: James Hellyer | March 29, 2006 at 11:35
You haven't "won" anything.
Now that I expected!
I could reprint the wording that said that if any of the election loans were converted into donations or extended, but I'll let everyone else look back at the bet, then consider how Bob Edmiston's decision to convert his loan to a donations fits the wording.
That was no surprise James,unfortunately.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 11:38
I could reprint the wording that said that if any of the election loans were converted into donations or extended, but I'll let everyone else look back at the bet, then consider how Bob Edmiston's decision to convert his loan to a donations fits the wording.
This would be the wording you added after the event? Wording that I never agreed to? Nice bit of disingenuity there, Chad.
Your defintion is void for reasons pointed out above. Commercial loans can be rescheduled. Does that make my old graduate loan a "soft loan"?
Equally conversion to a donation doesn't make something a "soft loan". The loaner has simply decided to convert it to a donation, and thus comes outside the veil of anonymity the loan afforded him. That defeats the supposed point of these "soft loans" - whereby the party gets the cash and the donor gets anonymity.
Posted by: James Hellyer | March 29, 2006 at 11:45
James, I'll say no more except ask people to read back and decide for themselves.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 11:49
transparency is the clear way of avoiding suggestions of corruption
It has to be voluntary though. As has been said before, any compulsory code can still be sidestepped. Many countries have far more rigourous frameworks for funding, yet they still have corruption. As one Tory MP said off the record when lowering the £100,000 was proposed: "rich men have wives, families and friends". If the politicians want to take their money, they can find a way around the rules.
Posted by: James Hellyer | March 29, 2006 at 11:49
"Once we buy into the language smearing all succesful businessmen, be they in the business of selling cars, or armaments (a trade which by they way has strengthned the security of democratic developed countries) we're heading down an unpleasent path."
That's a rather feeble straw man you've constructed there, Mr Anonymous.
The Editor was not smearing all successful business, but was correctly hinting that the caring, sharing image of Cameron's Conservatives™ could be harmed by association with a Saudi arms dealer.
You say the arms trade has strengthened the security of democratic developed countries, but you conveniently ignore the fact that Saudi Arabia is as much a democracy as I am a halibut, and fail to consider that the arms trade is one of the most morally dubious going (along with the diamond trade, the fast food industry and others, but let's not go down that road...).
All in all, a rather poor attempt at muddying the water, I'd say.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | March 29, 2006 at 11:52
James, I'll say no more except ask people to read back and decide for themselves.
Where is the wording and agreement of the bet?
Posted by: True Blue | March 29, 2006 at 11:58
Here we go:
20:37 on 23rd March: link here
James, I'll bet you £20 that some of the £20million loans are soft loans (hidden donations), i.e. they will be extended from their originally agreed expiration date or converted to donations at some point in the future.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 12:05
plus response:
Bet on then. BDO is a fairly good firm and I'll wager the last Conservstive Party accounts has the correct disclosures (i.e. you're wrong).
Posted by: James Hellyer | March 23, 2006 at 20:56
Cool. Just so there is no ambiguity, if 100% of the amounts loaned to fund the election (around £20million) are real commercial loans, you win, but if any are "soft-loans" that get extended or converted to donations, I win.
If I win, you can give my £20 to the TaxPayers Alliance.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 12:08
Please note I didn't agree to that: "I'll wager the last Conservstive Party accounts has the correct disclosures"
At the time the accounts were drawn up, those loans were loans under normal commercial terms.
Posted by: James Hellyer | March 29, 2006 at 12:10
*cough*
Bet on then. that was you response.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 12:10
Not that it is directly relevant, but I should also note that the "Last" accounts would not even contain the disclosure of election funding, but the next set will due in July.
So if your excuse to wriggle out is incorrect!
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 12:13
that was you response.
Nice editing of the caveat.
For the reasons explained above I don't accept your defintion of a "soft loan". Rescheduling a loan happens with normal commercial loans, and later conversion to a donation doesn't mean that the laon wasn't originally made on normal commercial terms.
Posted by: James Hellyer | March 29, 2006 at 12:15
Forgive me for intruding on this private squabble, but it seems you both entered the bet on different terms. As such, neither of you owes the other anything. Can we drop it now and get back to the discussion at hand?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | March 29, 2006 at 12:17
I should also note that the "Last" accounts would not even contain the disclosure of election funding
It contains the disclosure of loans made to the party that were in existence at the balance sheet date.
Who said they had to be "election funding"? Are you inventing terms and conditions again?
Posted by: James Hellyer | March 29, 2006 at 12:17
James, I'll end it here, as the thread is going off topic.
You can see my emboldened text about conversion to donations.
Everyone can see it, you are clearly not going to pay, so let's just leave it there, and let the others decide whether you have been good for you word.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 12:17
Anyone watching PMQs? Prescott holding his own!
Posted by: James Maskell | March 29, 2006 at 12:18
Such corruption should be severely punished. The public will only beginn to regain their faith in politicians if wrongdoers are made an example of. The phrase "they're only in it for themselves" is looking increasingly accurate.
Can we please have some principled conviction politicians who are honourable, don't lie, don't avoid questions, aren't pompous and don't allow themselves to become tools of the rich and powerful.
Posted by: Richard | March 29, 2006 at 13:07
Prescott was very very funny Chad. He must have been reading Mrs Malaprop, or had the services of a good speech writer.Have to say our William matched him though.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 29, 2006 at 13:45
Sorry! it was James. Getting too old for this posting lark.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 29, 2006 at 13:46
Chad
Are you taking the bet with the Trade Union caveat on who (soft)loaned first?
oh, and I think you and James should both give £20 to the TPA just on the grounds it's a great cause whose importance is growing by the day if Ed Balls' support of 50% income tax is true (which of course is 51% with NICs, so Denis Healey must feel quite pleased with the way things are going)
Posted by: kingbongo | March 29, 2006 at 13:52
oh, and I think you and James should both give £20 to the TPA
Hi KB, I gave the TPA £50 a week ago and bought the book, but Ihave also agreed already to pay another £20 to make up the shortfall owed from the bet.
Hopefully, James will do the honourable thing as you suggest and agree to do the same.
I'll steer clear of further bets though, it's not worth the hassle.
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 14:12
I'll steer clear of further bets though, it's not worth the hassle.
Chad, Probably a wise move!
As everybody thinks transparency is the real answer to the question of funding I'm still bemused why we tories can't agree to it (you independents can do your own thing).
For campaigning the tories need strong and effective local support networks and lots of local activism. Big posters which cost a packet aren't going to change anybody's mind.
Effective internet based viral marketing is cheap and powerful so why the need for ever more millions of our tax money? I've said before that there must be more people like Stuart Wheeler who can openly give money without being accused of seeking preferential treatment.
I'm off to buy the Bumper Book of Govt Waste as my contribution to the TPA
Posted by: kingbongo | March 29, 2006 at 15:45
I'm off to buy the Bumper Book of Govt Waste as my contribution to the TPA
ker-ching! I paid in the extra £20 too. :-)
Posted by: Chad | March 29, 2006 at 15:53
The BBC says<.a>:
The Guardian newspaper has reported the Tories could face police questions about how they have nominated people for peerages.
But Scotland Yard says the complaints it is investigating all relate to the Labour Party.
So the Nulab spin machine has got to the Guardian as well.
Posted by: Blue2win | March 29, 2006 at 19:45