Chris Huhne has just announced on the Daily Politics that he has "done an Angus MacNeil" and written to Sir Ian Blair asking him to launch a police inquiry into the Labour donations inquiry.
He then had a rather nasty little spat with little Ben Bradshaw about the sale of honours. Bradshaw had goaded him about not repaying the Michael Brown money and Huhne then accused the Labour Party of selling honours. Bradshaw said that could be libellous and Huhne invited him to sue. Bradshaw concluded the spat by saying it had demonstrated why Huhne was unfit to lead his party. No one can say Chris Huhne hasn't shown what I am told people on Neighbours refer to as 'spunk'.
UPDATE: Huhne has just been on Sky News and said this. "There's no way the LibDems would bank a cheque for £5,000 without knowing the person it came from". No, of course not. They only bank cheques for £2.4 million without checking out their provenance. Glass houses, Chris. Glass houses.
Last weeks PMQ Brown said "In the last 10 years we have had the lowest interest rates and the the lowest inflation rates in any decade."
ReplyDeleteThis weeks PMQ Brown said" We have had the lowest interest rates and the lowest inflation rates for a generation"
His he losing the plot.
Bradshaw came across as a nasty piece of work. His justification of an internal enquiry that "it's in no-one's interest" for there to be a cover up is simply nonsense.
ReplyDeleteHe should get a better haircut too.
Good on Chris Huhne...saw it and think Ben Bradshaw a squirmy little man
ReplyDeleteSurely it demonstrated why Huhne was unfit to e the leader of the Labour Party
ReplyDeleteI'm not a lib dem and have never really liked Huhne. But... he would surely make an excellent leader, why cant more politicans say it like it is and echo the voice of ordinary people. Most people do think peerages were sold and Huhne was quite right to turn to Bradshaw and said "sue me" Bradshaw came across as a wannabe playground bully.
ReplyDeleteDo *you* have spunk Iain?
ReplyDeleteNonesense Iain: the Liberal Democrats did check out the Michael Brown donation, and as the Electoral Commission has confirmed these weren't mere cursory checks, but were done properly:
ReplyDelete"The Electoral Commission has previously made clear its view that it was reasonable for the Liberal Democrats - based on the information available to them at the time - to regard the donations they received from 5th Avenue Partners Ltd in 2005, totalling just over £2.4m, as permissible."
Regarding 5th Avenue. The Lib Dems knew perfectly well who the money came from. They should also have been able to tell that the company had no business in the UK because they knew that Michael Brown was resident in Switzerland, but they decided not to check.
ReplyDeleteIf Huhne has written to Sir Iain Blair, it seems only fair to write to Sir Iain asking him to investigate whether the LibDems are guilty of an offence in not returning the £2.4 million donation.
Er, I think the Tories should be careful of glass houses too!!
ReplyDeleteHuhne was rightly shown up as a hypocrite. I suggested some months ago that all personal contributions over a negligible amount should be subject to a written contract and independent advice for the donor. This was proposed when you asked for questions for the Electoral Commission boss Iain. It was intended to support vulnerable donors in particular but would also help protect parties.
ReplyDeleteBen Bradshaw actually played it quite well I thought. Huhne should not have risen to the tease. This will help Clegg is given wide circulation.
Re: Michael Brown donation...
ReplyDeleteBut the commissioner for standards said that all the necessary checks according to the rules at the time had been carried out...
Mark Pack:
ReplyDeleteIf the Lib Dems had done their due diligence correctly they would have found that 5th Avenue Partners had never carried on a business in the UK, as was found by the judge in the HSBC case against Brown.
The Electoral Commission's position is that they do not wish to proceed against the Lib Dems for fear of being in contempt of court or prejudicing a Brown prosecution. Quite frankly that is a pathetic excuse and they deserve to be prosecuted along with the Lib Dems under s61(b) PPERA 2000.
Evasion of restrictions on donations
61 Offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations (1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) knowingly enters into, or
(b) knowingly does any act in furtherance of,
any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of any concealment or disguise or otherwise, the making of donations to a registered party by any person or body other than a permissible donor.
Mark Williams: you're skipping over the fact that the Electoral Commission has looked into what checks the party made, and concluded that the party did investigate properly.
ReplyDeleteYou claim the party didn't do due dilligence, but this is one of the points the Electoral Commission investigated - and it concluded the party had.
While it was delicious and refreshing to see Huhne set about Bradshaw like a Jack Russell after its favourite busted tennis ball, it does make one wonder about his self control. Yes, say such things, but in a dry way. Far more effective IMHO.
ReplyDeleteBTW if the cameraman on Daily Politics does that again (and he knows what he was trying to do), I'm tempted to go round there and punch him up the "frote".
It is amazing that this Michael Brown keeps coming up when the Electoral Commission couldn't have made clearer that the necessary checks were done and the matter is closed. Do you want to appoint a new Electoral Commission because the current one isn't to your liking?
ReplyDeleteIain, you know the Lib Dems went through all the corect channels, even asking the electoral commission whether it was admissable to accept the money.
ReplyDeleteI know of several Tory PPC's who accepted money from holding companies, and several failed Tory PPC's too. of course these "holding" companies are within the letter of the law, but hardly the spirit.