Labour officials helped lawyers acting for David Abrahams to draw up complex covenants that allowed the millionaire businessman to pay up to £650,000 indirectly to the party, the Guardian has learned. The arrangement, which was set up four years ago, was regarded as a "loophole" that allowed Abrahams to lawfully pay the money and remain unidentified. The Guardian understands it was drawn up in 2003 through John McCarthy, the Newcastle solicitor acting for Abrahams, and put to two middle-ranking Labour officials at the party's London headquarters.
Sources close to the party say the officials are said to have taken legal advice from Labour solicitors and sought approval from other senior party members. Lord Triesman, who was general secretary at the time, has categorically denied that he had any knowledge of the agreement. Under the arrangement, Abrahams is said to have covenanted the money to his close associates and fellow company directors Janet Kidd, Ray Ruddick and McCarthy, the solicitor. They then used the cash to donate to the Labour party in their own names. It is understood that Labour officials were well aware that the arrangement exploited what they believed was a loophole in Labour's recently passed legislation, the 2000 Political Parties Act, so as not to reveal Abrahams' identity.
In the words of a Labour insider, the two officials were then "given the job of shepherding the cash", aware that the arrangement was technically legal, even though it went against the spirit of the legislation which is to ensure transparency for all donations to political parties.
I am sure that our resident New Labour apologists, Chris Paul and David Boothroyd will find an explanation for this corruption, but I am damned if I can think how they will do it. And I don't use the C word lightly.
32 comments:
Remember the Michael Caine film "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels"?
I do remember it, Jeremy. But this isn't a film. This is a bunch of desperate crooks trying to circumvent the very law that they had introduced.
This Labour sleaze has to be exposed - who else is implicated?
And it's the Guardian that has exposed it! What a wonderful world!
Some of us will be ecstatic - check this out: http://devilinthedetail.blogspot.com/2007/12/land-of-long-white-cloud.html
Sadly for this country and the standing of our political system, the C word is the one that best defines the nature of Labour's squalid behaviour.
Over the last week the lies, the spin and the devious damage limitation exercise has unravelled and exposed the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of this Labour government.
If you are going to lie, then you need to be a good liar. Gordon & Co are not a good liars - in fact Gordon is a
Who would have thought that political history would repeat a children’s programme from the fifties?
Enter Billy Bean and his funny machine.
“The puppets Billy Bean and his friend Yoo-Hoo the cuckoo, operated a machine which was a wonder to behold, featuring such devices as a windmill, a Dorset-Faucet, a mixerator and a cartoonerator which drew magic pictures.
Operation of the machine was by means of the 'cartoonerator' which had a screen very much like a present-day personal computer.
If Billy wanted the machine to make something he would draw it on the screen. The machine then drew pictures to indicate what raw materials were required. When these were placed in the mixerator, levers pulled and buttons pressed the machine got to work with suitable mechanical sound effects.
Needless to say there were 'bugs' and the possibility of misunderstanding the graphical communication gave rise to considerable amusement. Some of the things the machine made were very surprising”.
Sounds familiar… change a few words to ‘money’, and a few names (except Billy Bean of course), and you have the whole story;0)
Hat-Tip; Whirlygig-TV
Downing Street has hired a new Director of Communications.
In view of recent events, they needed someone who was "ideally qualified" for the job.
You can read his profile here
Ha, ha
The 'it was someone junior and I didn't know' defence is getting tedious now.
If the top people really didn't know, that demonstrates incompetence and lack of control, so they should resign.
If they did know, they have broken the law and should face prosecution - end of...
Its no suprise what the y have been up to. One thing for sure is the the BBC will not investigate as it is Labour and not the Tories.
The BBC will avoid reporting it.
If it was "technically legal" it was legal and if it was legal it can't be corrupt in the not "lightly used", rather than gratuitious use, of the C word.
Talking of Labour Sleaze and Question Time, isn't Paul Myrers who was on last week's panel praising Beanie Brown, getting dragged into the sleazepit? Given a cushy £150,000 a year, 2 day a week,jobby by Beanie Brown, Myrers had made donations to Beanie Browns one donkey leadership campaign. Obviously 'onours are out of the question, so perhaps very part-time highly paid jobbies will become the order of the day?
For those of you who think that there is no news in Pravda, and no truth in Ivestia, there is no mention of the Gruniad story on the bbc paper review.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7130143.stm
Are the beeboids still sending out a subliminal message, privatise us, privatise us?
I wonder if the Blairite mole(s) responsible for this story know or care about the impact it will have on their hero.
What a "legacy"!
As I don't know about the details I don't propose to comment save to say that the real identities of donors should have been revealed both to the Electoral Commission and in the annual party accounts. The same principle should identify exactly who gives money to the Conservative Party through the Midlands Industrial Council, and it's an interesting comment that David Abrahams could have followed the Conservative approach and set up the 'Newcastle Labour Society' as an unincorporated association, topped it up with regular donations, and all his donations would have been hidden. The Conservatives are being hypocritical in attacking Labour for disguising the source of David Abrahams' donations while all the while disguising the source of a large amount of their funding through the Midlands Industrial Council.
Meanwhile, if Wendy Alexander has to resign because her campaign accepted £950 from an impermissible donor, then surely the Conservative candidate for Westminster North should resign given that her campaign accepted £25,000 from Gareth Lake, also an impermissible donor. I presume all Conservatives would agree.
However, if it is
By the broadest definition, corruption means the abuse of public power in order to make private profit - there's no suggestion of personal gain here for party officers (in contrast to 'cash for questions in the Tory yrs)
In some ways, the Guardian story today mitigates the Party's actions. Labour Party staff believed that the use of covenents between Abrahams and the donors was a legal practice - as it may turn out to be. (what if I inherited money on the condition it had to be donated to a particular party?) It was, of course, wholly against the spirit of the 2000 Act and I condemn it on this basis.
btw - labour moved out of Old Queen St several years ago. The London HQ is now 39 Victoria St.
Today is a good day. First I see the Guardian report then the Times on Lee Jasper and his pal the Mayor.
Note the instant reaction-Its an anti black story-somewhat countered by a contributor saying they are not all like Jasper
JH
Oh, it's probably Margaret Thatcher's fault .... or perhaps Lord Liverpool's .... or maybe Robert Walpole's?
If Iain Dale knew anything, then he would know Labour movged out of its 'Old Queen Street HQ' almost three years ago, & that the same building is now home to...The Spectator!
Hi Iain
Saw the piece briefly last night and must admit I found it intriguing but didn't have the time or energy to blog about it in the we small hours. Signposted what George Galloway seems to think could be a dirty funding sting with loose Tory connections instead (John Major's man, now at Interserve who are the parent of the proposed donor company).
So I've slept on it. And my initial thoughts are now right here.
It's fair enough to ask us to comment. Could do with a bit more comment from the big bloggers on Tory troubles including Ashcroft's status and why ancient promises to secure his big P on appeal have not been honoured.
And before anyone starts this will remain a bone of contention until the facts an dexplanations are nailed.
PS You've got the wrong man with the New Labour tag Iain. I'm Just Labour me.
New Labour is something old, something new, some things borrowed and some things blue.
The honeymoon is long over and Just Labour is the way forward.
In a way Chris Paul is right. It is right for the Tories to go for Labour on this donation malarkey, but they can't take the moral high ground unless their own house is in order. Everyone needs to be transparent and accountable otherwise the whole political system is brought into disrepute.
The Tories should not make the same mistake of thinking that just because a particular arrangement is legal that it is morally acceptable.
Now would be a good time for all parties to sort out their funding systems.
Boothroyd. He didn't!
Your corrupt lot did and whatever you say to mitigate against this corruption will not wash.
I would have far greater respect for any Labour Party Member if they were to demand an Extraordinary Party Conference to allow the real membership to voice their feelings!
I doubt, dear boy, if your kind of 'spin' childish that it is will be on show at such an event.
I believe the party leadership would face a rout!
I'm amused at these people who crawl out of the woodwork and claim in a 'yes but no but' fashion that 'other parties are at it as well dontchaknow.'
If my house was burgled and the prints of Burglar A was all over it I would expect Burglar A to be sorted by the Plod. I wouldn't give a flying f*** if there was a Burglar B at it in my town as well. He could be sorted when there was such evidence available to sort him.I want Burglar A convicted first.
Iain.
Did you see Hazel Blears on the Daily Politics yesterday?
I saw it on tape last night and I've been researching ever since because I am 100% certain that she was not at all diplomatic with the truth shall we say.
Blears yesterday denied on The Daily Politics that Anthony Bailey (who gave £10,000 to her campaign for the Deputy Leadership) was ever offered the post of Chairman of Labour's Faith task Force.
I suggest Ms Blears reads the following linked article in the Guardian from July last year because it seems quite clear to me that this totally contradicts what she said.
See http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:nJ33-nl_ylgJ:www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2089276,00.html+Anthony+Bailey+Labour+All+Faith+Task+Force&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
Mr Bailey's profile on the Eligo International web site also states quite clearly that Ms Blears statement is not quite correct.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:nUr8xiwVXDsJ:www.eligo.net/aboutus-management-abailey.htm+Anthony+Bailey+Labour+All+Faith+Task+Force&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk
What's more according to the Independent on 15th July 2006 he "was one of 28 people who declared in a national press advertisement they were "proud to help fund the Labour Party" by giving "£50,000 to the party to help it recover from the financial crisis it faces following the "cash for peerages" affair" on top of the £10,000 given to Ms Blears Deputy Leadership Campaign.
See this: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1178597.ece
When I see one of my children being naughty and their only excuse is "But [other child] did something far worse!" they get an extra-serious punishment. One punishment for being naughty and added punishment for putting up such a feckless and inappropriate defence.
Why does Labour think that "But the Tories might have problems too!" in any way absolves their criminal behaviour?
As always, it's the cover up that does the damage. Had they said, 'We took legal advice and on accepted the donations on the strength of that advice' they would be in the clear.
Instead they chose to say, 'Nobody knew anything about it except one man who has now resigned.'
-------
scroblene [5.29 AM] Was the programme you remember Whirligig hosted by Humphrey Lestoq and Mr Turnip?
I think the danger is that as the public begin to tire of these allegations, they actually become more serious. The Conservatives have to think about leaving this story alone to avoid being seen as a nasty party.
@ David Boothroyd
So Abrahams could've set up a 'Newcastle Labour Society', then.
Well, why did he (and his Labour Party advisors, lawyers etc) not do so? Did he somehow manage to make an ethical choice?
Not only are these people devious gits they're also seriously incompetent gits. They've had at least ten years to refine their criminality - and failed to do so.
What's the distinction between Labour and New Labour anyway? Are they not all Socialists or something?
Self-proclaimed whiter than white governments shouldn't be trying to circumnavigate the spirit of their own laws. This is hideous behaviour indicative of systematic arrogance.
Didn't Alistair "45-mins from launch" Campbell suggest that no news story had legs beyond 4 days? How long has this rumbled along now?
There is a stench about this government - it's time to clear the decks.
I don't normally do this, but what I've got to say is too long for a comment, so here's a link: Who farted?
Suggest you all read The Huntsman this morning. excellent blog about Follett...it gets worse for bottler!
"What's the distinction between Labour and New Labour anyway? Are they not all Socialists or something?"
Socialism is a dirty word in Labour circles these days.
Post a Comment