« Drug-pusher doctor confesses. | Main | Drugs Goddess »

November 26, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Praguetory, Czech

"Stupid ? ...yes. Wicked?...hardly"

Why should we accept stupid leaders? On the other hand, I applaud Brown's decision to return these illegal donations.


Actually I think the situation over the donations shows Labour as a victom of its own success. In the run-up to the 1997 election we did get stories about 'sleaze' and incompentance in government against the Tories and it was a major factor in their defeat in that people did not trust them any longer. However successful that approach was it has changed the rules on the how we view the actions of politicians. In this case it seems that it was no malicious intent to hide the identity of the donor but because of the current situation over Northern Rock and the HRMC data then anything will be seized on as evidence of malpractise / incompetence - if you use the weapon then you can hardly be surprised when the opposition, having been burnt in the past, realise how effective this can be in discrediting the government.

Paul Flynn

The legislation brought in transparency. Without the 2000 Act neither cash for questions or this latest donation would be in the public domain.

Unless there are elements in this that we do not know, this is still at the lower end of sleaze scale. Stupid ? ...yes. Wicked?...hardly

Praguetory, Czech

"Please try to answer the questions on who or what was harmed."

A victimless crime to rank alongside white collar fraud, shop-lifting, prostitution, drug-taking and other crimes not included in the British Crime Survey?

"Of course it's wrong but where is the harm?"

The proper application of political donation rules are crucial to a level playing field. Anybody can see that breaking of these laws/rules harms democracy.

"A ticking off perhaps, but a resignation?"

Why did your government bring in this legislation if you don't think the laws should be enforced?

"On a scale where 100 is the worst financial scandal, this would rank at minus 2."

Good to see you bring up the subject of financial scandal whilst £25bn of public money is on loan to Northern Rock and another £15bn is on the line and 25 million citizen's bank details are at risk. Care to place them on your makeshift financial Richter scale?

I think the end to your disastrous tenure is finally in sight.

Paul Flynn

Please try to answer the questions on who or what was harmed. Of course it's wrong but where is the harm? A ticking off perhaps, but a resignation?

On a scale where 100 is the worst financial scandal, this would rank at minus 2.

The Labour party is punch drunk with repeated bad news and acts irrationally. This was the main item on the BBC News. the world has gone mad.


Who has been harmed ? What great principle has been breached? The two named donors are not seeking any advantage from the party . Neither is Mr Abrahams.

Stop jumping to the most convenient conclusions. The rules around donations are there for a reason. That the offical who is responsible for your party's reporting obligations didn't know the rules is atrocious. It remains to be seen why Peter Watt decided to leave so quickly.

The comments to this entry are closed.