« Guilt by news coverage | Main | Out of sight.. »

January 12, 2008


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

Chris Gale

ah yes Elfyn Llwyd, the pro hunting PC member who makes out hes a progressive....


Thank you, David Walter, for remembering that I did compare Peter Hain to Odo - with justification. He has got political guile but he is not sleaze merchant. The fact that I am far from being a Hain groupie should give my comments greater credibility.

With all the sneers, innuendos and smears, it all amounts to friends of Peter willingly giving him their own money legally. For this he is pilloried. It's unjust. To most of the public he has stolen the £100,000. That is the message to headline readers, Hain, Scandal, Sleaze, £100,000. Let's wait for the reports. No way am I exonerating him from blame He has been very careless and will have a slap on the wrists at least.

labour was pilloried for cash for peerages-Tories and LibDems who are equally guility were not. Tory and LibDems funding donations are far more sinister than Labour's. They are almost totally ignored by the press. That is unjust.
And as for Elfyn Llwyd.....I will blog all over him tonight.

David Walters

The difficulty about whining about trial by media is that having lived by the sword, Labour should not be surprised to die by the sword.

You once compared Peter Hain to Odo the shape shifter from Star Trek. Seeing you now morph into a Peter Hain (and Peter Mandelson) apologist is quite funny therefore.

Why am I suspicious of those who can predict so confidently the outcome of an inquiry which hasn't yet taken place? It reminds me of Joe Stalin "What's the point of holding an election unless you know the result?"

Hain could have nipped this all in the bud weeks ago when the initial cock-up took place. That was a non-story which only arose becasue of the whole David Abrahmas hoo-hah. All he had to do was check against his own incompetence. The fact that he has not done so inevitably gives rise to questions over what he's trying to hide.

Maybe all he was trying to hide was the fact that donations came from a man whose company is being investigated for ripping off the NHS and a man who formerly donated to the National Party in South Africa (bit embarassing for Hain).

In any event, the buck stops with him, and blaming his subordinates is the sort of cowardly behaviour we expect from the Prime Minister.

If he sticks to his guns, he'll be OK. Brown hasn't got enough bottle to fire him

Chris Gale

Nothing has been proved against Peter Hain and certainly nothing unethical, to say so is to pre-empt the Commons enquiry which Peter H is fully co-operating with.
That someone or some people in his campaign team did not maybe do the paperwork right is no reason to suggest Peter has acted unethically.
It is complete nonsense.


I'm not sure you are right on Hain's donors who donated to PPF the so called Think Tank, knowing that the money was going to Hain's campaign, and if they didn't, then its illegal. Was PPF set up to siphon money into the campaign coffers...it hasn't done anything else and John Underwood fronts PPF and he was Hain's campaign treasurer...the whole business stinks, oh and by the way George Osborned did declare the money to the Electoral Commission which is more than Hain did. I'm surprised at you backing someone who has behaved so unethically.


I'm baffled.

I did three interviews yesterday, Radio 4, Sky and Radio 5 - all consistent with my blog. Are you mixing my comments up with someone else's? David Davies? The Tory party did not call for Hain's resignation but, as always, David rushed in. No one told him about George Osborne's half a million foul-up. Poor dab.


I find your comments re Hain confusing. If you don't think Hain should go, why were you on Radio 5 Live last night (Saturday) criticising him?

The comments to this entry are closed.