|
|
|
It was a bit like an archaeological dig as enthusiastic excavators
exposed, one layer after another, not the remains of some prehistoric
wanderers but the identities of Labour leaders who had been offered and
in some cases accepted, donations to help their campaigns in
contravention of the rules of their party and, even more to the point,
against the law which their own government had introduced. Day after
day the incriminated names emerged from the soil of Westminster: Gordon
Brown and Hilary Benn (who both refused): Harriet Harman and Peter Hain
(who both accepted). Then there were the people outside the Commons but
who, as party officials, must have known what was going on and how
troublesome it could be but who apparently did nothing to stop it ;
people like Labour’s funds organiser John Mendelsohn (who put up a
defence so feeble as to be incredible) and Party Secretary Peter
Watt (who could find nobody to say how blameless he was and why he
should not under any circumstances be required to leave his job over so
insignificant a peccadillo so had to carry the can and resign). After
the Honours for Loans affair, which so bitterly flavoured the final
months of the Blair government, another such scandal was the last thing
on Gordon Brown’s wish list.
Illegal
The law in this matter is clear; in the case of any donation over
£200 the party must record the full name and address of the
donor, who must be a registered voter in this country. If the amount is
over £5000 these must be reported to the Electoral Commission. In
view of this it is not advisable for a donation to be accepted unless
the source of it is known to the party. What is not acceptable under
the law is that the donor’s identity should be obscured by the money
passing through the medium of another person. This was what happened
with those generous gifts from David Abrahams, a man who has been
variously described as one of the party’s strongest supporters and
their third largest financial backer. While there is no question
about his support for Labour and the fortune he has given to the party,
there are other aspects about Abrahams which are rather less clear.
To begin with there is his name; to the tenants of some properties he
manages in Newcastle he is known as David Martin. Then there is his
age, variously given as 53 and 63. When he was resi
| | |