Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Who or What is the Smoking Gun?

I shall be returning to the Labour donations story in a few hours time. So much has happened, it is almost difficult to keep up with, but it seems to me that there is a smoking gun out there somewhere. Read THIS rather informative piece by Stephen Pollard and you'll see why my nostrils are-a-sniffin'...

24 comments:

Diablo said...

Will this be the tipping point for Brown?

PMQs will be interesting and a real test for... Cameron! Yes, that's Cameron. He has to be careful how he delivers his attack.

He still has to get his policy programme across to the public and not appear to be "opportunistic" in bringing Brown and his miserable cohort to book.

Now's the time to look like the Prime Minister in waiting.

Interesting tomes!

fatboyslimming said...

Is he trying to say that politicians may have actually bent the truth and misled those who ask them questions now ? well I never ( I say sarcastically ) This will be the time when we see how teflon like Brown and labour still are.

Don't forget we are talking about politicians here... They could be found with the blood sodden candle stick in the libary over the body of Dr Black in the Libary and still profess that all isn't what it seems and it is all down to the previous administration for how this looks as it does.... and theier record for the past ten years has never seen such growth in the sale of candle sticks. And if all else fails resign and go off and get a job in europe.

Nothing will truly happen just another story will emerge next week and the week after the only person which will suffer is joe public who has to pay for all this each time.

jonathan hemlock said...

Poor Harriet...


Pin the Tail on the Donkey

dougal said...

Newsnight alleged that Abrahams had been expelled from Labour Friends of Israel, and a variety of comments make it plain the guy was one of a kind that will be familiar to anyone who has worked in a political Party for many years.

It's rare for any Party to have the determination and sense to kick out undesirables, and far too often these individuals end up being used by certain powerful, and less than decent, politicians - from Council level upwards.

I would like to think that the Conservative Party will learn some harsh lessons from this unsavoury story, but looking at what is happening currently in my own particular part of the country, I doubt it.

john miller said...

Erm, I think you are barking up the wrong tree Iain. All is ok, everything is fine, it's making Gordon a better person and a more capable leader. All he needs is a new frock to cheer him up. It must be true, Mary Riddell says so in a column in the Telegraph.

Oh and by the way , I wonder if the Times still think independent schools, or the Indie that the Oxford Union, are more important than this story?

cassander said...

The absolutely key question is: why did "Dave" Abrahams, an obviously notoriously attention-seeking person, feel that it would be necessary to disguise his donations? What was he trying to hide?

Sabretache said...

Property developer; 'Donors' all employees of the Abrahams-owned company whose blocked development plan became mysteriously unblocked. Shades of the T Dan Smith affair. That's where the smell is coming from - they just can't help it.

Anonymous said...

Stephen Pollard's article is interesting, but denying knowledge of dodgy money is a New Labour "thing".

Despite being on holiday with Robinson and Mandelson, Blair knows nothing about R lending M money to buy a house way out of M's ability to purchase.
Brown masterminds the 2005 Election but never asks where the millions spent on the campaign comes from.
No one in the Labour Party follows up the Ruddick and Kidd donors as likely FUTURE donors, which would reveal they were not in a position to donate money.
Everyone denies knowing Abrahams despite his longstanding links with New labour as Pollard illustrates.

Do they really think we are stupid enough to believe all of this ?

Anonymous said...

iain.

I await with interest details of the smoking gun.Dromey ,Harman and Jay would do nicely particularly the supercillious Jay.
Here`s hoping that DC makes today Brown`s "Black Wednesday" or perhaps more appropriately "Cherie`s Revenge"

JH

Man in a Shed said...

It will be worth watching Newsnight on watch again. It seems Mr Abraham's wants to talk - Labour's PR machine must be having kittens ...

Anonymous said...

I think it will turnout to be smoking guns, lots of them.

Danvers said...

Iain, for me the unanswered (and unasked - as far as I can tell) question is what criteria did Gordon Brown's campaign use for accepting donations? Harman's campaign said they accepted donations from donors with a track record of giving to Labour. Did Gordon have the same policy - and if not why not? If he did have this policy and rejected the Janet Kidd donation, he or someone in his team probably did know about the link to Abrahams. If he didn't have this policy (and rejected the donation for this reason) it begs the question of how much faith the Brown campaign had in the donors giving money to the Labour Party - and suggests, perhaps, that there was a concern that not all the donors to the Party were properly vetted.

As an aside, it grates somewhat as a solicitor who has to go through the most cumbersome Know-Your-Customer procedures when taking on a client (even if the client is a personal friend) before accepting money or doing any work for them lest I fall foul of all the recent anti-money laundering regulations (for which at least one solicitor has been sent down), that political parties do not have to go through the same procedures when accepting large donations and filing returns with the electoral commission.

Hats off said...

Hats off to you Iain.

Welcome to Black Wednesday - New Labour style - and if your a proud Conservative like me it couldn't have come a day too soon.

The Government is today finally in meltdown over the Labour Funding Scandal which many observers claim could be FAR WORSE than the Cash for Peerages Debacle that almost brought down Tony Blair.

Its emerged this morning that CPS lawyers have already spoken to the Electoral Commission about the fiasco and that charges could follow.

What's even worse is that the tycoon at the centre of the controversy, David Abrahams, could now face FRAUD CHARGES for using someone elses name and identity without permission.

This morning's newspapers also bring very desperately bad reading for the government.

The previously staunchly loyal Sun says it may cost Harriet Harman her job but asks how on earth Mrs. Harman couldn't have known about Mr. Abrahams given the fact that her husband Jack Dromey is Treasurer.

And the Daily Mail goes even further.

Under the headline "How much worse can it get?" it says that there are eight questions Labour must answer namely:

Is it really possible that General Secretary Peter Watt was the only person who knew of the secret donations?

Did David Abrahams get anything in return for his cash?

Why did Abrahams really keep his identity a secret?

Did Harriet Harman become aware of the secret donations after becoming party chairman?

What other ministers have had contacts with Abrahams and were donations ever discussed?

How many other anonymous donors gave money through intermediaries?

If Mrs Dunn did not sign a cheque for £25,000 to Labour, who did on her behalf?

And Did Labour Treasurer Jack Dromey know what was going on?

Of course we all know what the speaker of the House of Commons is like when it comes to "questions about the Labour Party" rather than about the Government but given that this scandal goes right to the heart of Government I will be amazed if opposition MPs don't make Gordon Brown's life a misery today and the most gripping PMQs ever seen since television cameras came into the House.

vervet said...

It seems to me that one of the many 'smoking guns' is in the hands of whoever instructed withdrawal of opposition to the planning application for commercial development by Abrahams' company.

Two major donations were made 'by' directors of that company.

Coincidence ? ... I think not.

Man in a Shed said...

Off topic - but only a little - Anyone else having problems loading http://www.LabourHome.org ?

Newmania said...

You have been superb on this developing story Iain. I am too busy to comment but the effort required to get back to work has been considerable.

Keep it up

simon said...

So we have the spectacle of a donor who wished to remain anonymous, pushing himself to the fore at LP-ish meetings! Well, he sure as heck ain't anonymous now! I have every faith that the Gord has never met- never spoken to, never corresponded, and never taken any cash from Mr Abrahams! Bloody hell, i just saw a pig fly across me window! Btw; if a government/political party is found to have acted illegally, can HMQ dismiss the government and call a GenElec?

Neil Craig said...

The thing that gets me is that he gave £5,000 to Harmen for her deputy leadership campaign & tried to do the same for Benn for the same race. Clearly he did not genuinely want both of them to win & thus could only be buying favour while covering his bet.

I believe this is a common practice in US elections where money doesn't just talk, but shouts.

DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST said...

It is a well known fact that the PM has to check out every penny given to the labour party. How could he not have know that someone was using different people to give cash to the party. I mean it is not like he as country to run.

Anonymous said...

sorry but why if pollard is so on the inside can he only point to abrahams' presence at the blair farewell speech in Sedgefield(which I'm sorry to disappoint you was hardly a gold plated event) as evidence of Abrahams access to the party?

Anonymous said...

Can't wait for PMQs.

Davey Cameron must be shooting solid 8 ropers over this.

Let's see if Gordon shits his pants live on air.

DIRTY EUROPEAN SOCIALIST said...

He gave money secretly to the labour party. He has admitted he likes to the things secretly. Labour cannot be blamed for that. Most of labours money comes for unions not big business. We work for the people not bug business.

jonathan hemlock said...

Dirty European Socialist said:

"We work for the people not bug business."

Do you mean Rentokil?

monsieur l'espion said...

I thought the only people that bugged businesses were other businesses interested in the former's development plans. Or of course the various security services' operatives around the place. Silly me!