Cameron faces the heat on Tory loans

There is speculation that a Sunday newspaper will reveal the names of the businessmen who loaned money to the Tories during 2005.  Up until now the Conservatives have said that they will not break confidentiality undertakings that were made to their lenders.  Lenders to the Tory party apparently fear that, if their identities are revealed, they will be penalised by the Government in any bidding for contracts.

Today's Times reports suggestions that the Jersey-based Morain Investments is being used to hide a £2m loan that was made to the Conservative Party in the last week of Michael Howard's unsuccessful General Election campaign.  The £2m of extra borrowing was used to finance a last minute advertising offensive.

Editor's note: "I'm not sure if the most offensive thing was the wastefulness and nature of the dog-whistle advertising campaign itself or how it was financed."

Labour are desperate to turn the media's fire on to the Tories after enduring a terrible ten days of negative publicity.  Cabinet minister Margaret Beckett wrote to David Cameron yesterday asking him to disclose all of the Tory lenders.

Pundits have not been impressed with David Cameron's handling of the political funding scandal.  "This has been David Cameron’s first major test as leader of the opposition, and his performance has at best been useless," was Peter Oborne's verdict.  Andrew Tyrie's proposal to cut the number of MPs in return for greater state funding of political parties was damned as "more taxation with less representation" by the Daily Mail.   

3pm update: IAIN DALE reveals one of the 'loan Tories'.

Comments

[Rob Largan]

It does not look good for Cameron, thats fair to say. Its amazing how this situation has turned around from government scandal and corruption, which not only failed to give us a boost in the polls, but now is damaging us more than Labour.

[Biodun]

Oborne's analysis is spot on. Thanks for the link to the article, Ed. His last paragraphs (which I quote below) are particularly scathing.

This is very disappointing. Cameron has only just become leader, and surely cannot be held responsible for deals struck by his predecessors, however discreditable. He should have turned his back on the Old Tories, been ruthless and gone for the Prime Minister's jugular.

This act of political cowardice means that he entered into what amounts to a conspiracy against the British public on the part of all mainstream political parties. Only a small group of dissidents, led by the exemplary backbench Labour MPs Robert MarshallAndrews and Alan Simpson, are asking the searching and proper questions which this national crisis of trust demands. The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru also deserve credit for passing the cash for honours case on to Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. There is abundant circumstantial evidence that both New Labour and the Conservatives have infringed the 1925 Act of Parliament, which prohibits the sale of honours.

This week's failure of guts by the Conservative party explains why, though Tony Blair's personal rating has fallen through the floor, there has been no Tory poll benefit of any kind from what amounts to a first-class sleaze scandal striking at the heart of government. It may turn out that Cameron has made a fundamental mistake.

His political strategy has been to position himself, rather than Chancellor Gordon Brown, as the true successor to Tony Blair.

But that calculation failed to take account of one looming possibility: that Tony Blair's reign might end in shame and disgrace.

Gordon Brown has recently been building himself up as a man of integrity; his allies present him as a political saint compared with his next-door neighbour. Brownites have been careful to let it be known that the Chancellor was the force behind Sir Gus O'Donnell's recent advice to the Prime Minister on raising public standards. And on Wednesday he made certain that his powerful Budget contrasted sharply with the sloppiness and corruption in Downing Street.

He, not David Cameron, is the massive winner from the stench emanating from No. 10.

What more is there to say?

[Ted]

I remember posting before last weekend that the Conservaticves mustn't let Labour off the hook - that Blair & co would turn story from peerages for cash to secret loans because while damaging them it would damage us equally or more. The only riposte was to take control by early action.

Cameron & co failed on this - Steve Hilton & strategists faced with an open goal failed to do anything until after Falconer had made his statement. They failed to plan for Labour's openess on lenders. All foreseeable.

Perhaps it was because the English Test match took precedence for our Treasurer - away in the sub continent he was unaware of the hyped up atmoshere at home. Perhaps preparing the Budget Response took precedence.

The party may have done nothing wrong or dishonourable - it may have advised the Appintments commission of loans (unlike Labour), it may have arranged real loans at commercial rates of interest. We may have agreed with lenders to keep arrangement private.

But this is politics, we are a political party not a golf club.

Blair isn't a gentleman pugilist he's a streetfighter. He'll take the hits, doesn't mind being bloodied, will betray promises (ask Gordon), will mislead as long as he comes out on top. We can either sink to his level or recognise & plan for his response, to the dirty tricks, the briefings to friendly journalists.

That means being quick but prepared, putting effort in, thinking ahead, gaining the high ground.

Cameron has been tarnished by these innuendos about the Party's finances. The Party has been set back in its re-launch as a different party from the 90's. Our slim chance of being a minority or small majority government at next election has been reduced.

I hope that the inner circle look critically at their performance over last two weeks - and it's not just DC, but Jonathan Marland (who should never have agreed to be interviewed in India away from the action and come out with definitive statements without understanding the political weather), Francis Maude, the shadow cabinet, the party strategists. We must up our game.

[kingbongo]

I am very disappointed that the way the party has handled this whole situation is now allowing Labour to distract attention from the potentially criminal goings on in their own backyard.

Having said that I thought Margaret Beckett on the Today programme struggled to switch attention away from all the apparent coincidences in contracts being granted and loans being made.

The party needs to make a clean break with the past on this issue and though I don't like the idea of breaking undertakings given I think it is important we announce who it is we owe money to - we are going to lose the opportunity to show we are not behaving in the secretive and corrupt way that Labour have been and the electorate will just adopt the 'their all the same' attitude unless we go in strong on promoting full transparency.

We can can get this out of the way over a couple of days and then attention could be focussed where it belongs - what were Downing Street up to and was criminal behaviour a part of it?

[Ted]

kingbongo
Agreed and it should be a clear statement saying that we borrowed £24+m, that these loans were from x, y, z and on which terms. That if loans preceded peerages or honours that our nominees declared or didn't declare the fact they were creditors of the party. That we took loans (or didn't) from off shore institutions.

If we cannot break confidence at the very least we can say "The party accepted a loan for £2m at base rate +2% payable over x term from a private individual, resident/not resident in the UK, who does no wish to be identified. The terms of the loan were ...... The individual was/was not nominated later for .... and the appointments commission was/was not advised of this arrangement." It won't stop the dig for names but it will at least put this in the public domain - we claim its going to be in our accounts later.

As it is there are reporters all over the place trying to "dig up dirt" - which is only dirt as long as it is hidden.

[malcolm]

Sooner or later Cameron will have to give in on this,it would be better for us if it was sooner.I would agree with Oborne that Camerons and indeed the entire Tory party (excepting Dominic Grieve) has been at best useless.
One thing that has struck me is the arrogance of the political elite whose actions I think will probably result in the council elections in May having even lower turnout than brfore this scandal.
During the last election time and time again I was faced the argument that 'you are all the same'.I tried patiently to argue that this wasn't the case and we (the Tories) had learned our lesson,now I'm not so sure.For the first time my faith in our leadership has been severely shaken.

[Ted]

and unless DC pulls something out of the hat I fear the Guardian's column next month on CHomes survey will show a severe drop in confidence in his leadership.
Look at the names on the posts - mostly those who have defended DC since his election.

[Mike]

Am I the only one who believes that if someone lends you money on the promise that you don't reveal who they are, then you should honour that promise?

Cameron would be morally wrong to reveal the names of people who wish to remain anonymous for a few cheap political points, and I doubt he will.

[Rob G]

Mike: I agree. But I think Ted's approach at 13:16--giving much more information: everything but the names--would have been much more effective than the current lame approach.

[Geoff]

Politically we need to get back to the central issue - that Blair seems to have taken cash in exchange for fancy hats and a legislative vote in our second chamber. It is not a legal defence for murderer to say 'Okay, so there's a dead body in my fridge but I promise I didn't stab him myself and I think if we look in your fridge we might find a corpse too therefore it's all even".

I am stunned and quite impressed how easily No10 have turned around revelations of a series of possible criminal offences at the highest level and somehow made us look complicit in the whole thing too.

Someone's eye is off the ball. DC is right to say that donors should fear losing contracts. I've always wondered how Craptia survived as a company, and now we know. From inside knowledge I can say that it certainly wasn't on standards or quality of service. NuLab are certainly spiteful enough to take backhanded revenge against our donors by denying contracts - and they would have entered into their loan arrangements with an agreement of confidentiality with exactly that in mind.

Regretably, it will be the drip feeding of leaks, slander and gossip to the papers which will betray their trust and support.

[Ted]

Geoff

I don't think we should break our word but we should be as open as we can.

By not responding early we handed the initiative to the spinners(Tyries plan - though I don't like it- should have been out on time for last Sunday's media without pre-warning, not held back to Monday, a list of loans without personal details accompanying it) .

Now we are exposed, Labour's red herrings are hiding the central issue.

[Geoff]

Ted, I agree completely. This is now being spun out of our control and what could have been a fantastic opportunity is turning into a millstone. A declaration along the lines you suggest would have spiked their guns from the start. Now, however, the pressure is on to reveal absolutely everything despite the fact that the law and the Labour scandal that we should be focussing on don't require it.

We will have made guarantees of confidentiality to donors which we should honour, but the Times and other Labour proxies smell blood here, and are determined to feed.

From a scandal which should have brought down a government, we have been skilfully spun on to quicksand.

[Mike]

Rob G: I think a good comparison to this might be the drugs furore during Cameron's leadership campaign. If you start giving bits and pieces of information, then the press will continue asking for more and more. There is the danger that if Cameron gives everything but the names then more questions will be asked. There is also the danger that the Conservatives may well have taken more money in large loans than Labour. Questions may then be asked as to how these loans were 'brought'. The public and the press are very cynical nowadays. Also it makes the Conservatives appear weak and acting to appease the media when they wish to know information (in accordance to whatever story is popular at the time). Labour do this, should the Conservatives follow this lead?

The New Labour spin-machine is unprecedented in it's expertise with handling the news. It should be no surprise that this issue has been turned around. The best way to respond would be for Cameron to go back onto the offensive. Perhaps making it more explicit that this is not a measure to cover his skin, but it's actually one of principle. That is, if you promise not to reveal loans to those who loan, then you should honour this.

Also highlighting how differently Labour acts now that this issue is in the news, compared to how it was acting beforehand would help.

When it comes down to it, the Conservatives have committed no crime. Labour potentially HAVE. Labour hold a losing hand in this battle - the Conservatives just have to fight and start hitting home with these points. Going on the defensive and releasing information in bits and pieces simply won't work.

[Buxtehude]

This is what you get when you have kids running the show. Sorry, but you just have to realise that politics does require some kind of longer view, some kind of maturity, some kind of knowledge of the world. Dave's reliance of the brainstorm kid (Steve Hilton, the £276k part-time brand consultant) means that our campaigns are going to be entirely hit-or-miss. This week it was two missrd. Maybe next week we'll have a hit. It's a matter of pure chance.

For these guys, it's just a gamble. If they get lucky, they'll be in Number 10 a few years from now. If not, what the heck, they'll do something else.

[Buxtehude]

sorry, 'reliance on', 'two misses'

[Geoff]

There is the danger that if Cameron gives everything but the names then more questions will be asked.

All you would do by selectively releasing information would be to save some lazy journalists a bit of legwork by giving them half of the answers they are already desperate to splash all over the tabloids.

It has to be all or nothing now to sate the media feeding frenzy. At this stage of the argument I'm torn - on one hand we must honour a legally binding contract, be it written or verbal, to keep a confidence and maintain the long term trust of our donors, or we throw them to the media sharks for a short term headline and some breathing space. I'm shocked that we have ended up in this corner when we had an open goal to shoot for.

I still agree with Ted that the strategy he suggested would have been a good thing at the outset, but the ground is getting is getting treacherous now and we need some fancy footwork to stay ahead.

[john Skinner]

Cameron should stand firm and honour the promise of anonymity for donors. he could say how much has been given, but that's it. I agree and have said before that the Tyrie plans should have been out without prior announcement to avoid New Labour getting in first. But to say Cameron has been useless over the issue is stupid and a typical bit of Oborne hyperbole. A few weeks ago he was telling the world that the Tory leader was wonderful. He should calm down (along with contributers to this blog)and take a more-considered view.
The fact is that the New Labour loans story, following the Tessa Jowell story, has been reminding newspaper readers daily that Blair's party is corrupt. It's all we could have hoped for, because there was never going to be a resignation. And to the general public (not the political anoraks on this blog) Cameron comes across as a nice guy and not an opportunist. It's always better to let the newspapers do the dirty work for you.

[Ted]

Bux
Agree the response showed ineptitude and should be a lesson to the NEW leadership but...
It wasn't the Kids who borrowed the cash
It wasn't the kids who made the promises
It wasn't the kidswho got us into position that makes us look as if we have something to hide

Remind me again who was the Leader, who were the Chairmen, who were the Treasurers who ran this party until December. Who of those responsible has appeared on TV, who of those have defended the decisions they made.

[Buxtehude]

You're right Ted. DC and SH are only to blame for the current handling. The majority of the 'loans' were made during Michael Howard's tenure. Plus some not-so-great Lordships were created at the behest of IDS.

But isn't the problem now the way in which we're handling it, rather than what happened previously? DC isn't responsible for the loans, but he certainly IS responsible for this week's mess.

And I really think the SH £276k is relevant too. The fact is the Conservative party doesn't know how to use money. It spends it lavishly, and pretends it understands 'market rates'. It spent vast amounts on pointless poster ades, which we know made huge profits for M&CSaatchi but had no effect on the electorate. Now we're spending way over-the-odds on a part-time media monkey with no real experience of the game he's playing. Result: we're going nowhere while our finances head due south.

And all the time we behave as if we've got a bright new wonder-boy in charge. We need to get serious pretty quick.

[Buxtehude]

I know I sound negative, but i care more about Conservative ideas and the Conservative Party than I do about being polite to the Notting Hillers. I really want DC to become PM, but to have any chance he needs to wise up. But applauding him and letting him dismantle the party and its foundations, we are allowing him to fall flat on his face in the future. No good for any of us.

So yes, I want DC to be a good leader of the Conservative Party, which is why I'm so critical.

[James Maskell]

Its largely irrelevant who was in charge when the loans appeared. the fact is that this has blown up in Camerons face and they knew this would happen. Its hypocrisy for Cameron to demand public outing of the loaners (loanees?) to the Labour Party and not be in a position to do the same. Weve just told the public that we dont want to release the names because we are worried about the reaction from them. Nice one Cameron, the moral ground is gone from us now! We now sound like we have something to hide. If I remember correctly its illegal to have loans/donations from abroad...would I be crazy to ponder the chances that the Tories might have one of those? The Tories have a farther reach than Labour when it comes to business links...

If theres a good chance of it backfiring like this has definitely done, dont bother with it. The papers are now interested in what the Tories have to hide, not what Labours been up to!

[Ted]

Bux
Agree its his responsibility as he's leader and hope he does a shake up - I think strategy was to step back and let Labour implode, but Labour didn't with John Major. What Steve Hilton gets paid isn't an issue for me, sorry, but what is an issue is Marland watching cricket when as Treasurer he was one of few in the know, Howard, Maude & other current & past party officials keeping their heads down.

Cameron has apparently impressed his shadow cabinet with his leadership skills, well he also needs to know when as leader he says get this sorted, report to me in x hours the position, issues, risks etc.

Leadership is not being involved 24 hours a day - he can lead, change nappies, take kids to school, have a family life - if he delegates and gives strong direction. Its' a quick decision on his part "Francis I want you and Jonathon to report to me by tomorrow what our financial position is, who the loans are from, what exposure we have both on perages/honours and financially" together with "Steve I want you to put together a position on party funding, I think Tyries got good ideas, together with plan on how we best clear the suspicions and focus back on Blair". I've received enough of those from my CEO!

You see I don't think we have got much to hide (could be wrong). From what has leaked we have kept funding away from policy, we have advised the commission, we have shown our exposure in our returns. DC certainly hasn't - and if Howard has then he should carry the can.

[malcolm]

I wonder if some of the commentators above quite appreciate how contemptous of the Conservative party so many people became during the 1990's.Our reputation for sleaze was not entirely underserved and whilst it didn't (unlike the present government) reach the top some very senior people did not behave honourably.Therefore we have to behave well now and to be seen to be behaving well.This silence on the loaners looks truly awful and Marlands arrogance when being interviewed in India reminded me of an East European dictator.
Why would anyone demand to remain anonymous when loaning the party money?Either they have something to hide or more likely it is the Conservative party who are ashamed of revealing the names of some of the loaners.
I certainly hope that Cameron changes his mind before the information is forced out of the party by the Electoral commission.
One good thing will result from all this,we have propably seen the end of the ludicrous ad campaigns that have disfigured elections in the last 30 years and just maybe the party will ralise the importance of attracting more ordinary members to the cause.

[Ted]

I quite like some of the ads....

Hopefully it will concentrate minds on what we do between elections, on building strong local presence, building in target/marginals early.

But please DC get it sorted this weekend - probably too late now for "disclosures" in tomorrows papers though.

[Buxtehude]

"Cameron has apparently impressed his shadow cabinet with his leadership skills" - I'm not so sure. From what I've heard doubts are beginning to creep in. Management does not in fact seem to be their strong point. I keep hearing that things are more disorganised than ever before. But even if you were right - Ted, this is more than being an effective senior manager. This is about creating an alternative government. About having some instinct for what is right and wrong, for how the country can move forward. I don't see it.

"What Steve Hilton gets paid isn't an issue for me" - for me it's an issue because of what it says about our take on the world. Would it be an issue if it was £300k for part-time? £400k? At what point do we expect responsible spending from a team that wants to lead the country? But I probably should shut up about it now, because if you and others are happy to keep up your fund-raising efforts to pay for twenty minutes from the CSR-genius, then why should I care.

[Buxtehude]

"more likely it is the Conservative party who are ashamed of revealing the names of some of the loaners"

"One good thing will result from all this,we have propably seen the end of the ludicrous ad campaigns that have disfigured elections in the last 30 years and just maybe the party will ralise the importance of attracting more ordinary members to the cause"

Exactly right.

[Annabel Herriott]

The other points Francis Maude made in response to my sharp question as to why we didnt just print out all the names and be done with it, was, after he said it was a good question, that labour have been lying about what they have disclosed basically. I wish I had taken a notebook so I could remember all his points. He said it wouldnt do us any good revealing all our stuff, as they had not revealed theirs to anything loke its full evtent.

[Annabel Herriott]

oops sorry.... anything like the full extent. typo!!

[James Maskell]

Thats the thing (re. Annabels comments), we shouldnt be having to wait for Labour to declare before we do. Quid pro quo should not be the rule when it comes to financial disclosure. For the Conservatives to redeem themselves, in my eyes at least, they must co-operate with the Electoral Commission completely, with nothing held back. If anything give more information than necessary to prove that we are willing to repent for any sins that emerge. The public will forgive as they see that we are willing to admit to whatever might be wrong. Marlands comments were comical at best. It makes the situation seem less serious than it actually is.

[kingbongo]

I see from Iain Dale's blog that one of the loaners has come forward and it looks as though there is nothing very big for newspapers to get excited about.

I suspect we have been wrongfooted on this by trying to do the right thing and keep our word on secrecy. Well, frankly it's gone beyond that now - Bliar is fighting for hs life and no trick will be too dirty; we have to go for complete transparency and hope people affected understand.

I think if they care for the cause of Conservatism, which as the opposition party must be the main reason for their helping us in the first place, then they should.

The woman on Channel 4 news rolled her eyes at the suggestion that loans were being kept secret so that contracts weren't put at risk and , however true it may be it has the whiff of a playground retort.

The news at the moment should be about what Ruth Turner was up to at N0. 10, what happened so David Garrard got his big new building from Prescott ( against all planning advice) a few weeks after making a loan and what exactly Lord Levy was saying to lenders (who wanted to be donors). DC is doing a great job on the NHS and other things but he is definetely putting a lot of his good work at risk by not breaking completely with the ways things were done before.

[Andrew]

What'll happen now is that the names will come out - pressure will be put on the donors to reveal themselves, and the other names will be leaked.

The only way the above won't happen is if there's some seriously dirty laundry. Labour sense as much, and will continue insinuating that it's the case until the story is killed by leaks (or worse, confirmed).

[kingbongo]

Andrew you're right the names will come out.

I know this might sound deperate but is this a 'cunning plan' by Marland - he knows the names will come out but there is nothing to hide. Therefore he keeps his word, the papers realise there's nothing to it and get back to digging up the genuine sleaze (by which I actually mean corruption) within the government.

If people haven't seen the Berlusconi video on Iain Dale (two plugs in one evening) then I reccommend it. It should tell you more about the character of people Bliar calls friend than anything else.

[Editor]

Kingbongo: "The woman on Channel 4 news rolled her eyes at the suggestion that loans were being kept secret so that contracts weren't put at risk and , however true it may be it has the whiff of a playground retort."

From my days at CCO I know many charities have refused to host visits from Conservative MPs etc in the past for fear of funding reprisals from Labour councils or ministers. The vindictiveness of New Labour should not be underestimated.

[kingbongo]

Tim

"The vindictiveness of New Labour should not be underestimated."

I bow to your superior knowledge on this. I think it is a presentational problem however. Labour can scoff and it's hard to prove your case. Like most bullies they can get away with it because they bully when no-one is looking. Also, as with any form of discrimination, they can show that they followed all the correct procedures. A problem for the party and not an easy one to overcome.

[matt wright]

Seperate from how to handle this it is a fact that some people wish to be anonymous because of the behaviour of Labour in taking away contracts or funding etc. Labour are by far the nastiest bunch of people in politics,

Matt

[Richard]

"The woman on Channel 4 news rolled her eyes at the suggestion that loans were being kept secret so that contracts weren't put at risk and , however true it may be it has the whiff of a playground retort."

This goes to the heart of the problem. By keeping the donors secret, the Tories may be trying to act honourably in relation to promises of anonymity (assuming that nothing dodgy is going on). However, the public just don't see it that way. The choice is between keeping the public happy by betraying the donors' confidence or risk unpopularity by refusing to do so.

[Editor]

I think I agree with you Richard and kingbongo on the tactics but I wanted to say there are legitimate reasons why the lenders might want to stay anonymous.

[Richard]

"I think I agree with you Richard and kingbongo on the tactics but I wanted to say there are legitimate reasons why the lenders might want to stay anonymous."

Agreed. Personally I don't think the Tories should name names. What they should do is promise that they have nothing suspicious to hide i.e no dodgy deals have been done. If the press then dig up who made the loans or the donors come forward and it is revealed (hopefully) that nothing unscrupulous occurred, the Tories will be shown to have been hiding nothing.

[john Skinner]

Agreed Richard. Keep mum to honour past agreements. Perhaps donors could be told: "We're not going to say anything, but if you want to "out" yourself, it might be helpful to the cause. Having said that, we'll understand if you keep things as they are."
I must say, I've found this thread to be particularly depressing. A little phoney war looms and erstwhile stouthearts get in a blue funk. For God's sake, get a grip!

[Andrew]

All very noble - in the ideal world I'd agree the honourable thing is not to reveal donors' names. However, politics is not even close to an ideal world, and as for honourable.....

If the donors are not named, or (more likely) deliberately leaked, then Labour get off the hook. This should be their mess, as they've been caught selling honours. Instead, the press have moved on to the "next story", as there's essentially no mileage left in the original - there appears to be no further concrete facts available. By contrast, in our case the nature of the unknown is a reportable fact in itself: "The Tories continued to refuse to name donors, citing.....".

Not a very nice game - it's unfortunate, but the best and brightest will shy away from it (I saw plenty of evidence of this at university, as many politically interested types became disillusioned the more they learned).

[Alexander Drake]

"One good thing will result from all this,we have propably seen the end of the ludicrous ad campaigns that have disfigured elections in the last 30 years and just maybe the party will ralise the importance of attracting more ordinary members to the cause"

Er... that's just modern politics, which I don't think is going to go away. Besides, why diss ad campaigns? It's one of the few ways the Party has to open up other avenues to raise issues, and fight the BBC's dominance of news reporting, and its left-of-centre bias.

[Editor]

Alexander: agree with you on BBC dominance... but some of us simply think that targeted emailing, phone banking or direct mail is better value for money than lots of billboards screaming 'It's not racist...' etc.

[Alexander Drake]

Tim, agree that direct mail is deadly, and yes naff posters are a weak way to sell a message. I guess what I'd really love to see is to junk those boring PPBs and run some deadly TV 30 and 60-second ads. They hurt lefties very nicely (at least they do in the US and Australia).

OFF TOPIC: Blair is addressing our parliament in Canberra tomorrow. Just before I left my job in the ministerial wing at Parliament House I gave a Liberal backbencher my Tory rosette on condition he wore it while Blair was speaking. I'll see if he's got the guts to follow through!!

[mac]

Bliar is fighting for his life - says Kingbongo.

Wish I could agree. If you control the media, you survive anything. In fact pick the scandal of your choice. They make wonderful news blankets.

The bigger the scandal created about the loans - an easily survivable accusation as Tories were at it too, the less we hear about the real story which is that Labour have destroyed pensions, investment in the private sector.

The only real event this week is the collapsing morale of employers while Brown gets his trowel out to re-scrape their raw posteriors in case a small amount of fat may have lodged there in the last year.

If people realsed that news is now theatre placed before them to stop them seeing what is really going on - inconvenient things like Iraq as well.

At least demand for news is now tumbling as if people do realise that they never see anything real any more...just Labour's ghastly spinning theatre as it crashes Britain from one of the world's most successful economies ten years ago into the bottom league.

It's a tragedy that Cameron seems to like playing to the idiot factor, in the same way as Blair. People are ready to hear some truth about issues that affect their lives...not another spinning theatre of political illusion taht no one has any idea where it's headed, or why.

[Jack Stone]

I am sick and tired of all of those who contribute to this site who seem far more keen to kick David Cameroon and the party`s leadership than they do our opponents.
Its about time everyone and I mean everyone started getting behind the best Leader and leadership the party as had for getting on for twenty years.

[malcolm]

Why dis ad campaigns-Alexander.Because Alexander they are generally crap,because most people I know either ignore them or laugh at them and because they are a waste of money which could be better spent in other ways or not at all.
I'm sorry to be in a 'blue funk' John Skinner but I prefer to spend my time campaigning for a party that I'm proud of.The events of the last few days have shown the party elite at their very worst and our party if it's not very careful will pay the electoral price.

[James Maskell]

So, the wife of a Saudi arms dealer giving money to the Tories... Cameron himself was in charge too. Its the start of something. Rolling thunder time from the press. Blue funk? I think they call it giving a damn about the way the party's run as well as personal integrity. If you believe in something, then why lie to make yourself popular.

The story needs to be killed quickly, and only the truth can do that...for heavens sake Cameron, co-operate fully with the Electoral Commission. The later we leave it the more the press will dig and we know exactly what happens there. Weve seen it too often in the last 9 years to ignore the basic rules of press management.

[Richard Allen]

The thing that is really shocking is just how bad Cameron and his team have handled this mess. What has happened to those magnificent media abilities we heard so much about during the leadership campaign?

Even I, as someone who has long given up on Cameron's Conservatives being of any use to the conservative cause, am astonished at how badly this has been handled.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

any lender or donor to the Tories who is associated with the defence industry need not worry at his name becoming public knowledge as MOD Policy is clearly to outsource ALL Defence procurement to foreign companies in Europe.

Likewise if they are in the power industry they would not have got the contract as Labour is currently only granting power contracts to French, German and Russian companies.

If they are in the motor industry any assets will be handed over to a German company and any manufacturing in Britain will be by a French company hidden behind a Japanese name.

Of course if you wish to build a highway or major bridge you would need to be French in concert with Italian steel supply or if shipping then the contract will be drawn up to suit Germany.

As a Tory you will of course appreciate that policy in the EU was put forward by a German Bank through the Tory spokesman La Villiers.

One really has to wonder why anyone would fund the new Vapid Cameroon common purpose party so redollent of where Tiny Blur started in government.

Of course if you want to be one of the new olygarchs in the new soviet you will have to promote the EU for the Tories who I note have fired their Press Officer for exposing the truth about the EPP, which one notes is so firmly supported by Tory MEPs that Helmer is still personna non grata at the EU troughs of the Tories!

Then politicians wonder why so many of us have turned to apathy, anger, sorrow or sabotage - we would love to vote Tory and be rid of Tiny Blur but Vapid Cameroon and the new labour lite Tories stand no chance of our vote.

Vapid Cameroon may screeeech and squeeeel all he likes, as he did after the budget when like a flee on viagra he ranted and raved with clever words and no content. Your principles have been dumped and all for what? One wonders when the party will wake up and dump its leader not its principles and its voters and supporters!

So sad!

Greg L-W.

[Andrew]

"...as MOD Policy is clearly to outsource ALL Defence procurement to foreign companies in Europe."

Hardly the MOD's fault that just about everything involved with BAe runs ridiculously late, and over budget. With no competition, they decided that ripping off the taxpayer would be a nice little earner - good to see a govt no longer tolerating it.

[Richard Carey]

Greg L-W: Vapid Cameroon may screeeech and squeeeel all he likes, as he did after the budget when like a flee on viagra he ranted and raved with clever words and no content. Your principles have been dumped and all for what? One wonders when the party will wake up and dump its leader not its principles and its voters and supporters!

I wasn't aware that the Party was dumping any of the last three. Quite the reverse, support and membership has increaseed in recent months. On the other hand, I'm grateful that none of our voters and supporters indulge in such a bizarre and incoherent rant, or else my advice would have to be to run as far and as fast from such people as possible.

[Annabel Herriott]

Now we have got the electoral Commission on our backs. Surely our lenders/donors can now see they are damaging that that they supported with their money. Very useful it was too, fighting the last election. There must be some way we can just give the electoral commission a complete list? Transparency. DC is in an impossible position. Damned if he does, and damned if he doesnt. perhaps the commissions threats will allow him to reveal without seeming to betray those who gave in anonimity. One does not know why this would be of course. If I, ( and pigs may fly) won the lottery, of course I would give a stonking big donation! But as a elderly woman, living alone except for weekends, and only being protected at weekends by an 80 year old chap, I would be terrified of the local hoodlums knowing I had come into that sort of money. It is probably a lot more complicated than we think. Francis Maude said so. Ive just remembered that bit!