I have been very slow off the mark here. I have only just seen Guido's post showing that Mr Eugenides's lust object, petite Wendy Alexander, is now, as he puts it, 'toast', shown up for having incontrovertibly lied about when she knew about the donation made to her by Paul Green.
(As an aside, I think that 'toast' may be an understatement. 'Incinerated' seems nearer the mark to me. But these things are notoriously a matter a taste, of course.)
Two thoughts leap to mind.
One, I cannot wait to see her letter of resignation, which I have no doubt is being composed even now. Stand by for weasel words raised to new heights of sanctimonious special pleading.
Two, tempted though I am to instruct my staff to fetch a second small bottle of pale ale from the cellars to toast (in a different sense, of course) Wendy's imminent humiliation, I cannot help but wonder if her departure won't serve the Bottler's cause. If enough Labour high-ups can be sacrificed – and Harman will surely be the next victim – inevitably the pressure on the Bottler will be reduced. In other words, the corpses strewn so spectacularly in his wake will allow him to assert that he has been ruthless in purging his more unworthy followers, distracting attention from his own wrong-doing.
Still, on the other, other hand, Iain Dale seems to have something pretty killing on the Bottler here.
Cripes, I have never, ever known a meltdown like this. It makes even Major's long drawn-out death throes look dignified.
It is genuinely astounding.
Friday, 30 November 2007
A little something to cheer up the Bottler
He is a keen footy fan, as we know. So perhaps he'll like this.
Administrative errors
This from Peter Hain, another lucky recipient of Abrahams's largesse back in June, on his regrettable failure to register the donation:
We wish to make clear that this was entirely an administrative error on the part of my campaign. I very much regret the donation was not registered as it should have been and I am taking immediate steps to do so.
I do hope 'adminstrative error' enters the language as code for 'deliberate cover up for as long as I think I can get away with it'.
It would be a worthy companion to 'Ugandan affairs' and 'tired and emotional'.
UPDATE:
My mistake. It wasn't Abrahams who gave the money to Hain, it was Mendelsohn, which in some ways is even more sinister.
We wish to make clear that this was entirely an administrative error on the part of my campaign. I very much regret the donation was not registered as it should have been and I am taking immediate steps to do so.
I do hope 'adminstrative error' enters the language as code for 'deliberate cover up for as long as I think I can get away with it'.
It would be a worthy companion to 'Ugandan affairs' and 'tired and emotional'.
UPDATE:
My mistake. It wasn't Abrahams who gave the money to Hain, it was Mendelsohn, which in some ways is even more sinister.
Poor old Polly
In the midst of yet another plea for the Bottler to radicalise his government in her Guardian column today, La Toynbee makes the following entirely unsupported assertion:
Yet anyone impartial would say that teaching, lessons and schools are almost unrecognisably better than a decade ago.
This bear in mind only two days after the Progress in International Reading Literacy study highlighted that reading ability among English children has plummeted over the last five years, dropping from 3rd to 19th place in its international rankings of children's literacy.
Personally, Poll, I would have said the precise opposite was the case, no?
Still, I applaud your loyalty. Good to know someone is sticking by the Bottler.
Yet anyone impartial would say that teaching, lessons and schools are almost unrecognisably better than a decade ago.
This bear in mind only two days after the Progress in International Reading Literacy study highlighted that reading ability among English children has plummeted over the last five years, dropping from 3rd to 19th place in its international rankings of children's literacy.
Personally, Poll, I would have said the precise opposite was the case, no?
Still, I applaud your loyalty. Good to know someone is sticking by the Bottler.
Fame! At last, at last!
Your humble Brute, aka The Creator, responded to a question put by Dizzy two days ago to come up with a name for the Labour funding scandal.
In a brilliantly pithy one-word comment, which you can see here, under the post Name That Scandal, he came up with Donorgate.
And now Guido, political conspiracy bloggist par excellence, has endorsed the name, as you can see here.
UPDATE:
Well, I see from the Englishman, to whom I am duly indebted, that the Beeb and The Sun have picked up on the name, too.
At this rate, I may be obliged to instruct my domestic staff to fetch a small bottle of pale ale from the cellars.
In a brilliantly pithy one-word comment, which you can see here, under the post Name That Scandal, he came up with Donorgate.
And now Guido, political conspiracy bloggist par excellence, has endorsed the name, as you can see here.
UPDATE:
Well, I see from the Englishman, to whom I am duly indebted, that the Beeb and The Sun have picked up on the name, too.
At this rate, I may be obliged to instruct my domestic staff to fetch a small bottle of pale ale from the cellars.
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Poor old Bottler: a footnote at best?
Anxious as ever to scatter before you the distilled fruits of my political insights, it strikes me that the calamity of the Brown implosion is as opportune a moment as I will ever have.
In the space of two months, Gordon Brown's premiership – long yearned for by him and as long plotted for; triumphantly acclaimed for its spin-free sagacity when, finally, it was confirmed; hailed even more as it then seemingly effortlessly deployed a combination of calm and far-sightedness in the face of a series of early crises – has descended into catastrophe.
Heroic certainty meets daily reality and disintegrates. It hardly inspires.
Startlingly and suddenly, incompetence and corruption are now elbowing each other for first place.
It's unknowable of course, but I'd say that there was every realistic expectation to think that Brown, to the extent that his premiership will trouble historians at all, will emerge only as footnote, the not-very-funny joker in the political pack. In 50 years, who will know the name of the third-shortest serving prime minister?
It amounts to a political horror-show without precedent, an near instantaneous evaporation of 15 years of painstakingly accumulated electoral advantage by Tony Blair, a charlatan but, unlike Brown, a vote winner.
The transformation of Brown from sage father of the nation to sweaty victim of events has been complete.
Labour's apparently impregnable electoral edifice, elaborately built up since 1992, has disintegrated near over night.
Open-mouthed amazement is about the best I can do.
In the space of two months, Gordon Brown's premiership – long yearned for by him and as long plotted for; triumphantly acclaimed for its spin-free sagacity when, finally, it was confirmed; hailed even more as it then seemingly effortlessly deployed a combination of calm and far-sightedness in the face of a series of early crises – has descended into catastrophe.
Heroic certainty meets daily reality and disintegrates. It hardly inspires.
Startlingly and suddenly, incompetence and corruption are now elbowing each other for first place.
It's unknowable of course, but I'd say that there was every realistic expectation to think that Brown, to the extent that his premiership will trouble historians at all, will emerge only as footnote, the not-very-funny joker in the political pack. In 50 years, who will know the name of the third-shortest serving prime minister?
It amounts to a political horror-show without precedent, an near instantaneous evaporation of 15 years of painstakingly accumulated electoral advantage by Tony Blair, a charlatan but, unlike Brown, a vote winner.
The transformation of Brown from sage father of the nation to sweaty victim of events has been complete.
Labour's apparently impregnable electoral edifice, elaborately built up since 1992, has disintegrated near over night.
Open-mouthed amazement is about the best I can do.
What the Bottler knew – and when
Since his press conference on Tuesday, the Bottler has been insistent that it was only on Saturday night that he knew that David Abrahams had been funnelling donations to Labour through third parties.
When he asserted this, first on Tuesday, then yesterday on PMQs, I took it as read that it must be true. He could not conceivably have made so unequivocal a statement knowing that, if it was later shown to be untrue (aka 'a lie'), he would have been out of No. 10 in about one second flat.
No one who had schemed so assiduously and so deviously for the throne for so long could possibly be prepared to risk it after just five months on a blatant lie. If nothing else, caution is his middle name. Put it another way, calculation is in his blood.
Yet I am seriously beginning to wonder.
It is a certain fact that four Labour big cheeses knew all about Abrahams. If Dale is to be believed, it may have been five. Common sense suggests it was a great deal more.
And none of these people thought to necessary to tell Brown, the same Brown whose campaign team had already turned down a donation from Janet Kidd on the grounds that she was 'not known to them' and who were by definition already suspicious of her?
It makes no sense.
Oh, Mr Bottler.
It looks worse than bad.
When he asserted this, first on Tuesday, then yesterday on PMQs, I took it as read that it must be true. He could not conceivably have made so unequivocal a statement knowing that, if it was later shown to be untrue (aka 'a lie'), he would have been out of No. 10 in about one second flat.
No one who had schemed so assiduously and so deviously for the throne for so long could possibly be prepared to risk it after just five months on a blatant lie. If nothing else, caution is his middle name. Put it another way, calculation is in his blood.
Yet I am seriously beginning to wonder.
It is a certain fact that four Labour big cheeses knew all about Abrahams. If Dale is to be believed, it may have been five. Common sense suggests it was a great deal more.
And none of these people thought to necessary to tell Brown, the same Brown whose campaign team had already turned down a donation from Janet Kidd on the grounds that she was 'not known to them' and who were by definition already suspicious of her?
It makes no sense.
Oh, Mr Bottler.
It looks worse than bad.
Tories 11 points ahead?
And then better and better and better.
Iain Dale reports that a YouGov poll in tomorrow's Telegraph has the Tories 11 points ahead of Labour, on 43 points to 32.
He highlights, too, how the Labour party seems suddenly to be fracturing, with briefings and counter-briefings rife.
Jesus, they are in the deepest of deep doo-doo.
Iain Dale reports that a YouGov poll in tomorrow's Telegraph has the Tories 11 points ahead of Labour, on 43 points to 32.
He highlights, too, how the Labour party seems suddenly to be fracturing, with briefings and counter-briefings rife.
Jesus, they are in the deepest of deep doo-doo.
Mendelsohn Mk. 2
This just gets better and better and better.
Here's the Mail reporting that in the spring Mendelsohn had suggested ways of funding candidates for the Labour leadership contest – not that there was one of course – using intermediates.
The pleasure of seeing someone as loathesomely smug and self-satisfied as Mendelsohn being properly exposed is almost more wonderful than I can say.
Here's the Mail reporting that in the spring Mendelsohn had suggested ways of funding candidates for the Labour leadership contest – not that there was one of course – using intermediates.
The pleasure of seeing someone as loathesomely smug and self-satisfied as Mendelsohn being properly exposed is almost more wonderful than I can say.
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
Footy to the rescue
As a dedicated footy fan, no doubt the Bottler will be distraught to learn that Harry Redknapp, the loveable manager of Portsmouth FC, has been hoovered up by the plods for ... er ... irregular transfer dealings, aka bungs.
On the other hand, seeing as this may well put a slightly different slant on Thursday's front pages, perhaps it's good news for Gordo after all.
At any rate, for a slice of Rednapp's limitless charm, take a look a this interview with him on the training pitch.
Great guy. Loves his players. Swears by them.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zRZTna7tRHk
PS One day I'll be able to do proper links to youtube. In the meantime, apologies for the clunkiness.
A question for Mr Mendelsohn
This is the full text of the statement issued this morning by Jon Mendelsohn, the Bottler's Director of Labour Party General Election Resources. On the whole, I would say there was a very strong case it is bollocks more or less from start to finish.
When it was announced yesterday that Lord Whitty would be investigating the background to these donations to inform the work of Bishop Harries and Lord McCluskey, I immediately offered to provide all of the details I had.
I started in my role as Director of General Election Resources on the 3 September 2007, work I undertake in a voluntary capacity.
When I was researching previous gifts and plans I enquired into the names of individuals I did not know or otherwise recognise which included Janet Kidd, Raymond Ruddick and latterly John McCarthy.
I was informed by Peter Watt to whom I reported that this was an arrangement with David Abrahams which was long-standing and which was appropriately dealt with in relation to the Party's reporting requirements. He told me these donations fully complied with the law and I had no reason to doubt that information.
However I was unhappy with the arrangement whereby donations were taken through a third party and was determined it would not play a part in our future plans. I was very concerned that these arrangements did not meet the strict transparency test that I wished to see in place.
I did not discuss this with the officers of the National Executive Committee or party leadership but I decided to tell Mr Abrahams that his method of contribution was unacceptable. I had no intention of asking Mr Abrahams for donations and wanted to give him the courtesy of explaining this personally.
At the beginning of November I asked my assistant to try and fix a personal meeting with Mr Abrahams so that I could tell him this. He was only given the general reason for the meeting that I wanted to update him on our plans. He declined to have a meeting on this basis. He specifically asked if it was for asking for money and was given the reply that it was to update him on our plans.
I had considered it likely that given our personal history of past disagreements he would be reluctant to meet. I signed a typed letter on the 22nd November. The letter does not ask for funds, but is a polite and courteous request to organise a meeting at which I was planning to tell him of my decision.
I am submitting all this evidence to Lord Whitty.
A number of points, m'lud.
Though it is not clear precisely when Mendelsohn was told by baby-face Watt that Abrahams was the actual donor behind Kidd, Ruddick and McCarthy's apparent donations, it seems that it was some time last month. At that point, according to the statement, Mendelsohn had no reason to believe there was anything unlawful about the donations.
Nonetheless, on Saturday, ie once aware that the story was about to break, Mendelsohn wrote to Abrahams – a handwritten letter according to Abrahams, typed according to Mandelsohn (a discrepancy which only adds to the more-than-slightly surreal air hanging over the entire affair). Abrahams received the letter yesterday, Tuesday (well done the GPO!).
This is the text.
Dear David,
Thank you for your message which Oliver passed onto me. The party is of course very appreciative of all the support you have given over many years. At some point I would like to have the opportunity to talk with you personally about what we are doing and our plans for the time between now and the next general election. I know your diary is very busy but as one of the party’s strongest supporters it is only right that you are kept informed of what we are doing and the priorities that we are assigning to our resources. Any time that your diary allows, when you are next in London, I would very much like to meet to discuss this with you.
Warmest regards,
John
The Director of General Election Resources
Intriguingly, Labour party 'sources' are apparently claiming the letter was written on Thursday last week and only franked on Saturday, which, if true, wouldn't say much for the efficiency of the party's mail room even if it suggests a rare devotion to duty for staff to have been working over the weekend.
Not entirely unreasonably I'd say, Abrahams interpreted the letter as an invitation to donate more money to Labour. According to Mendelsohn, however, it was to arrange a meeting with Abrahams in which he, Mendelsohn, would tell Abrahams that the party didn't want any more of his money and he could in effect sod off.
And this because, despite Watt's assurances that Abrahams's donations 'fully complied with the law', Mendelsohn had become 'unhappy' about them, in fact so 'unhappy' he had decided further such donations 'would not play a part in our future plans' and that Abrahams's 'method of contribution was unacceptable'.
Crucially, he did this entirely off his own bat, telling no one. In a phrase that might almost have been dictated by the Bottler, he states: 'I did not discuss this with the officers of the National Executive Committee or party leadership'.
So, here is the third-biggest donor to the Labour party since the start of the Bottler's premierships and, entirely on his own initiative, despite the financial crisis facing the party, Mendelsohn decides the party will take no more of his money.
Here is a question for Mendelsohn. It is not hard. When did he write the letter? If it was on Thursday, then it is just about credible that his very pally handwritten/typed letter was
actually no more than the overture to telling Abrahams to bugger off and take his money with him. It is equally credible, however, that the letter was what Abrahams took it for: an invitation to set up a meeting in which more money would be asked for.
But if it was written on Saturday – and if it was typed then presumably there is a date on the letter itself rather than just on the envelope – then no one other than the congenitally simple-minded could conceivably believe that it was anything other than a panicked response to the news that the Mail story was about to break, almost certainly taking the Director of Labour Party General Election Resources with it.
So, Thursday or Saturday?
It would be interesting to know.
When it was announced yesterday that Lord Whitty would be investigating the background to these donations to inform the work of Bishop Harries and Lord McCluskey, I immediately offered to provide all of the details I had.
I started in my role as Director of General Election Resources on the 3 September 2007, work I undertake in a voluntary capacity.
When I was researching previous gifts and plans I enquired into the names of individuals I did not know or otherwise recognise which included Janet Kidd, Raymond Ruddick and latterly John McCarthy.
I was informed by Peter Watt to whom I reported that this was an arrangement with David Abrahams which was long-standing and which was appropriately dealt with in relation to the Party's reporting requirements. He told me these donations fully complied with the law and I had no reason to doubt that information.
However I was unhappy with the arrangement whereby donations were taken through a third party and was determined it would not play a part in our future plans. I was very concerned that these arrangements did not meet the strict transparency test that I wished to see in place.
I did not discuss this with the officers of the National Executive Committee or party leadership but I decided to tell Mr Abrahams that his method of contribution was unacceptable. I had no intention of asking Mr Abrahams for donations and wanted to give him the courtesy of explaining this personally.
At the beginning of November I asked my assistant to try and fix a personal meeting with Mr Abrahams so that I could tell him this. He was only given the general reason for the meeting that I wanted to update him on our plans. He declined to have a meeting on this basis. He specifically asked if it was for asking for money and was given the reply that it was to update him on our plans.
I had considered it likely that given our personal history of past disagreements he would be reluctant to meet. I signed a typed letter on the 22nd November. The letter does not ask for funds, but is a polite and courteous request to organise a meeting at which I was planning to tell him of my decision.
I am submitting all this evidence to Lord Whitty.
A number of points, m'lud.
Though it is not clear precisely when Mendelsohn was told by baby-face Watt that Abrahams was the actual donor behind Kidd, Ruddick and McCarthy's apparent donations, it seems that it was some time last month. At that point, according to the statement, Mendelsohn had no reason to believe there was anything unlawful about the donations.
Nonetheless, on Saturday, ie once aware that the story was about to break, Mendelsohn wrote to Abrahams – a handwritten letter according to Abrahams, typed according to Mandelsohn (a discrepancy which only adds to the more-than-slightly surreal air hanging over the entire affair). Abrahams received the letter yesterday, Tuesday (well done the GPO!).
This is the text.
Dear David,
Thank you for your message which Oliver passed onto me. The party is of course very appreciative of all the support you have given over many years. At some point I would like to have the opportunity to talk with you personally about what we are doing and our plans for the time between now and the next general election. I know your diary is very busy but as one of the party’s strongest supporters it is only right that you are kept informed of what we are doing and the priorities that we are assigning to our resources. Any time that your diary allows, when you are next in London, I would very much like to meet to discuss this with you.
Warmest regards,
John
The Director of General Election Resources
Intriguingly, Labour party 'sources' are apparently claiming the letter was written on Thursday last week and only franked on Saturday, which, if true, wouldn't say much for the efficiency of the party's mail room even if it suggests a rare devotion to duty for staff to have been working over the weekend.
Not entirely unreasonably I'd say, Abrahams interpreted the letter as an invitation to donate more money to Labour. According to Mendelsohn, however, it was to arrange a meeting with Abrahams in which he, Mendelsohn, would tell Abrahams that the party didn't want any more of his money and he could in effect sod off.
And this because, despite Watt's assurances that Abrahams's donations 'fully complied with the law', Mendelsohn had become 'unhappy' about them, in fact so 'unhappy' he had decided further such donations 'would not play a part in our future plans' and that Abrahams's 'method of contribution was unacceptable'.
Crucially, he did this entirely off his own bat, telling no one. In a phrase that might almost have been dictated by the Bottler, he states: 'I did not discuss this with the officers of the National Executive Committee or party leadership'.
So, here is the third-biggest donor to the Labour party since the start of the Bottler's premierships and, entirely on his own initiative, despite the financial crisis facing the party, Mendelsohn decides the party will take no more of his money.
Here is a question for Mendelsohn. It is not hard. When did he write the letter? If it was on Thursday, then it is just about credible that his very pally handwritten/typed letter was
actually no more than the overture to telling Abrahams to bugger off and take his money with him. It is equally credible, however, that the letter was what Abrahams took it for: an invitation to set up a meeting in which more money would be asked for.
But if it was written on Saturday – and if it was typed then presumably there is a date on the letter itself rather than just on the envelope – then no one other than the congenitally simple-minded could conceivably believe that it was anything other than a panicked response to the news that the Mail story was about to break, almost certainly taking the Director of Labour Party General Election Resources with it.
So, Thursday or Saturday?
It would be interesting to know.
In denial?
Being sort of curious as to how the Labour party itself might be covering the Donorgate lark, I thought I would have a look at its website.
There is Watt's resignation statement, undated, a reply from Dianne Hayter (ususal guff:
We would like to thank Peter Watt for his long service, commitment and dedication to the Labour Party) and ... er ... that's it.
There is Watt's resignation statement, undated, a reply from Dianne Hayter (ususal guff:
We would like to thank Peter Watt for his long service, commitment and dedication to the Labour Party) and ... er ... that's it.
Institutionalised stupidity
I am beginning to think that Donorgate, to coin no phrase at all, may be evidence less of institutionalised corruption in the Labour party so much as of institutionalised stupidity.
David Abrahams is self-evidently a card-carrying nutter. This is a man – 'a confirmed bachelor who enjoys musical theatre,' as the Mail felicitously puts it – who in 1990 presented himself for selection as the Labour candidate for Richmond in Yorkshire claiming to be married and with an 11-year-old son.
This turned out to be untrue, the woman in question and her son having effectively been hired by Abrahams. When the story broke, as inevitably such a childish attempt at deception would, Abrahams asserted that claims he was unmarried were 'totally false.'
(As an intriguing sidelight on Labour's apparently inbred stupidity, once the deception was exposed Abrahams was nonetheless re-confirmed as the candidate for Richmond, reluctantly stepping down only the following year, not that this deterred him from standing, unsuccessfully this time, for selection for another parliamentary seat).
Self-evidently then, Labour knew they were dealing with a lunatic, a known fantasit and liar.
Would you think it prudent to accept money from someone with this kind of track record?
Just how stupid do you have to be to become general secretary of the Labour party?
David Abrahams is self-evidently a card-carrying nutter. This is a man – 'a confirmed bachelor who enjoys musical theatre,' as the Mail felicitously puts it – who in 1990 presented himself for selection as the Labour candidate for Richmond in Yorkshire claiming to be married and with an 11-year-old son.
This turned out to be untrue, the woman in question and her son having effectively been hired by Abrahams. When the story broke, as inevitably such a childish attempt at deception would, Abrahams asserted that claims he was unmarried were 'totally false.'
(As an intriguing sidelight on Labour's apparently inbred stupidity, once the deception was exposed Abrahams was nonetheless re-confirmed as the candidate for Richmond, reluctantly stepping down only the following year, not that this deterred him from standing, unsuccessfully this time, for selection for another parliamentary seat).
Self-evidently then, Labour knew they were dealing with a lunatic, a known fantasit and liar.
Would you think it prudent to accept money from someone with this kind of track record?
Just how stupid do you have to be to become general secretary of the Labour party?
Odd, no?
As the whole bizarre business of the Labour donors fiasco unfolds, there is one point I am not sure I have seen addressed.
How did the Mail get the story in the first place?
It would seem unlikely they dug it up for themselves.
In which case, presumably they were tipped off.
If so, by who and why? And why now?
It would seem reasonable to assume it was someone inside the Labour party.
In which case, things may be even nastier for the Bottler than they look.
With friends like this ...
How did the Mail get the story in the first place?
It would seem unlikely they dug it up for themselves.
In which case, presumably they were tipped off.
If so, by who and why? And why now?
It would seem reasonable to assume it was someone inside the Labour party.
In which case, things may be even nastier for the Bottler than they look.
With friends like this ...
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
When is 'known' not 'known'?
The Bottler has told us that when he was offered money by David Abrahams's go-between, Janet Kidd, it was turned down because: 'It was not the practice of my campaign team to accept money from people not known to them'.
At the same time, Harriet Harman has said that her campaign team accepted money from Janet Kidd because Kidd was a 'known' Labour party donor.
As she was. Between May 2003 and December 2005 the 'unknown' Janet Kidd donated £67,000 to the Labour party (all of course actually paid by David Abrahams). By any measure, that made her pretty well 'known'.
However, leave aside that, as a result, Janet Kidd was 'known' only to the Labour party but not to the Bottler and consider this.
If a politician is offered a donation by someone 'not known to them' then all logic suggests that it is in the interests of said politician to find out just who this person is, in other words to make them 'known to them'. If they have already given your party £67,000, this would hardly seem to require the services of Sherlock Holmes.
Consider, too, that Hillary Benn, also offered money by Janet Kidd, was warned off it by Margaret Jay, by any measure a pretty big cheese in Labour circles, on the basis that she, Jay, knew the money was actually being paid by Abrahams and was, as such, suspect.
In other words, we are expected to believe that Jay knew who Abrahams was but the Bottler's team didn't.
The real answer seems much simpler.
That of course the Bottler knew about Abrahams and was more than happy for the party to accept his money provided it was the party rather than him personally who would be blamed if the subterfuge was subsequently discovered. Shades of Lord Levy? It seems reasonable, too, to assume that he had already prepared a get-out route, by which I mean that he had identified a sacrificial victim, in this case Peter Watt, who could be relied on to offer himself up if the deal was rumbled. I say this, too, on the basis that no one with claims to sentient thought believes that Watt could ever have not known that Abrahams's donations were illegal.
Which leaves only Harman. What really was her role? A different kind of patsy, I'd say. It seems credible to believe she and her team weren't in the loop, saw the money, make perfunctory checks, were reassured that Kidd was a previous 'known' Labour donor and simply thought, 'Goody. More money.'
I suspect it will prove an expensive, possibly terminal mistake for her.
But the question still needs to be followed up. Why was a 'known' Labour party donor not 'known' to the Bottler?
At the same time, Harriet Harman has said that her campaign team accepted money from Janet Kidd because Kidd was a 'known' Labour party donor.
As she was. Between May 2003 and December 2005 the 'unknown' Janet Kidd donated £67,000 to the Labour party (all of course actually paid by David Abrahams). By any measure, that made her pretty well 'known'.
However, leave aside that, as a result, Janet Kidd was 'known' only to the Labour party but not to the Bottler and consider this.
If a politician is offered a donation by someone 'not known to them' then all logic suggests that it is in the interests of said politician to find out just who this person is, in other words to make them 'known to them'. If they have already given your party £67,000, this would hardly seem to require the services of Sherlock Holmes.
Consider, too, that Hillary Benn, also offered money by Janet Kidd, was warned off it by Margaret Jay, by any measure a pretty big cheese in Labour circles, on the basis that she, Jay, knew the money was actually being paid by Abrahams and was, as such, suspect.
In other words, we are expected to believe that Jay knew who Abrahams was but the Bottler's team didn't.
The real answer seems much simpler.
That of course the Bottler knew about Abrahams and was more than happy for the party to accept his money provided it was the party rather than him personally who would be blamed if the subterfuge was subsequently discovered. Shades of Lord Levy? It seems reasonable, too, to assume that he had already prepared a get-out route, by which I mean that he had identified a sacrificial victim, in this case Peter Watt, who could be relied on to offer himself up if the deal was rumbled. I say this, too, on the basis that no one with claims to sentient thought believes that Watt could ever have not known that Abrahams's donations were illegal.
Which leaves only Harman. What really was her role? A different kind of patsy, I'd say. It seems credible to believe she and her team weren't in the loop, saw the money, make perfunctory checks, were reassured that Kidd was a previous 'known' Labour donor and simply thought, 'Goody. More money.'
I suspect it will prove an expensive, possibly terminal mistake for her.
But the question still needs to be followed up. Why was a 'known' Labour party donor not 'known' to the Bottler?
How to get under the Bottler's skin
Interesting moment in the Bottler's press conference.
On the whole, he seemed almost relaxed, stern when needed, even able once or twice to force a joke. Yet toward the end, asked yet again if he had full confidence in Harriet Harman, he suddenly twitched. He started stuttering and frowning, whanged the desk once or twice, before forcing out that 'of course' he had full confidence in Harman.
I hope Cameron took note. There is no question the Bottler is at his most vulnerable in public when he becomes angry. It may work with his toadies. It sure as hell doesn't when he is on public view.
On the whole, he seemed almost relaxed, stern when needed, even able once or twice to force a joke. Yet toward the end, asked yet again if he had full confidence in Harriet Harman, he suddenly twitched. He started stuttering and frowning, whanged the desk once or twice, before forcing out that 'of course' he had full confidence in Harman.
I hope Cameron took note. There is no question the Bottler is at his most vulnerable in public when he becomes angry. It may work with his toadies. It sure as hell doesn't when he is on public view.
Why socialists are stupid Pt. 5
Lying on my bed of pain yesterday, I was unable to decide which of two articles in the Independent could legitimately be thought the stupider. It was a tough choice. How to decide between two versions of the 'progressive' point of view at its most fatuous?
The first was by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and was hilariously headlined: How did the BBC fall into the hands of right-wingers?
What she was essentially saying is that if BBC does not adhere to her pure notion of 'progressive politics'– ie her laughably loopy lefty view of the world – if, for example, it has the nerve to make a programme about the 'besieged' white working classes, code for nasty racist thugs – it has given in to 'right-wing ranters'. In the process, it has shamefully abandoned its former commitment to 'free speech and journalistic ethics'. No less shamefully, this amounts to the BBC's writing off the 'progressive' left as 'passé, irrelevant, annoying, elitist and soft'. (Personally, adjectives such as cretinous, pestilent, hypocritical, self-serving and, above all, wrong seem closer to the mark. But I'll settle for 'passé, irrelevant, annoying, elitist and soft' if pushed.)
It is worthy example of the left's warped view of the world that anyone who disagrees with it is by definition a 'right-wing ranter' who should, indeed must, be silenced instantly in the interests of free speech.
The second was by our old pal Johann Hari and appeared under the headline: Thatcher's baleful influence lives on.
This of course immediately wins bonus points by dragging in St Margaret, still 17 years almost to the day since her fall the totemic hate figure for the left, the devil incarnate.
Brilliantly, Hari argues that Thatcher herself is responsible for the current travails and miseries of the Bottler's government. Forget that NuLab have been in power for ten and-a-half years. It is all still Thatcher's fault.
Impressively, he therefore holds her responsible not just for America's sub-prime mortgage crisis, not just for the Northern Rock fiasco, but, piece de resistance with a vengeance – Bravo, Johann! Bravo! – HMRC's losing the two CDs.
Hari's piece was written before the more grisly details of David Abraham's donations to the Labour party had emerged. But I feel sure he could have found a way to blame these on Thatcher, too, had he been writing 24 hours later.
On the whole, I think Hari shades it. But is is a close-run thing.
The first was by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and was hilariously headlined: How did the BBC fall into the hands of right-wingers?
What she was essentially saying is that if BBC does not adhere to her pure notion of 'progressive politics'– ie her laughably loopy lefty view of the world – if, for example, it has the nerve to make a programme about the 'besieged' white working classes, code for nasty racist thugs – it has given in to 'right-wing ranters'. In the process, it has shamefully abandoned its former commitment to 'free speech and journalistic ethics'. No less shamefully, this amounts to the BBC's writing off the 'progressive' left as 'passé, irrelevant, annoying, elitist and soft'. (Personally, adjectives such as cretinous, pestilent, hypocritical, self-serving and, above all, wrong seem closer to the mark. But I'll settle for 'passé, irrelevant, annoying, elitist and soft' if pushed.)
It is worthy example of the left's warped view of the world that anyone who disagrees with it is by definition a 'right-wing ranter' who should, indeed must, be silenced instantly in the interests of free speech.
The second was by our old pal Johann Hari and appeared under the headline: Thatcher's baleful influence lives on.
This of course immediately wins bonus points by dragging in St Margaret, still 17 years almost to the day since her fall the totemic hate figure for the left, the devil incarnate.
Brilliantly, Hari argues that Thatcher herself is responsible for the current travails and miseries of the Bottler's government. Forget that NuLab have been in power for ten and-a-half years. It is all still Thatcher's fault.
Impressively, he therefore holds her responsible not just for America's sub-prime mortgage crisis, not just for the Northern Rock fiasco, but, piece de resistance with a vengeance – Bravo, Johann! Bravo! – HMRC's losing the two CDs.
Hari's piece was written before the more grisly details of David Abraham's donations to the Labour party had emerged. But I feel sure he could have found a way to blame these on Thatcher, too, had he been writing 24 hours later.
On the whole, I think Hari shades it. But is is a close-run thing.
Watt's it all about?
Easily the most interesting aspect of the whole bizarre Abrahams affair, the apparently reclusive property developer in the Northeast and the £550,000 he seem to have illegally donated to the Labour party via his hapless associates, one of them a solicitor note, is the assertion that baby-faced Peter Watt, the party's now ex-general secretary, was the 'only' person in the party who knew the source of the donations.
If it defies credulity well beyond breaking point to believe that Watt was unaware that there was a legal requirement for the name of the actual donor to be made clear, then you can only assume the party takes us all for straw-haired village idiots if it assumes it can pretend that no one else was aware who this was.
That said, it seems clear that Watt's near instant resignation is an attempt to persuade us that the exclusive fault lies with him. Equally, it begs the question, easily answered I'd say, as to whether he jumped in the full knowledge that if he didn't he would be pushed.
Then again, it's as well to bear in mind that when we are assured that the Bottler knew nothing of the real source of the money – "Ah good, PM, I see that nice builder Ray Ruddick has given us another £80,000. That makes £104,000 is less than a fortnight. Extraordinary what you can make installing kitchens in Newcastle." – it is only fair to point out that the same Bottler, the man who as Charlie Whelan reminded us last week 'masterminded' three Labour election victories, apparently also knew nothing of the source of the £15m that paid for the Labour campaign in 2005. And this our 'greatest-ever chancellor'.
Oh dear, Bottler. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
From cash for honours to cash for kitchens.
UPDATE: Now the CPS has been called in. Read it here.
If it defies credulity well beyond breaking point to believe that Watt was unaware that there was a legal requirement for the name of the actual donor to be made clear, then you can only assume the party takes us all for straw-haired village idiots if it assumes it can pretend that no one else was aware who this was.
That said, it seems clear that Watt's near instant resignation is an attempt to persuade us that the exclusive fault lies with him. Equally, it begs the question, easily answered I'd say, as to whether he jumped in the full knowledge that if he didn't he would be pushed.
Then again, it's as well to bear in mind that when we are assured that the Bottler knew nothing of the real source of the money – "Ah good, PM, I see that nice builder Ray Ruddick has given us another £80,000. That makes £104,000 is less than a fortnight. Extraordinary what you can make installing kitchens in Newcastle." – it is only fair to point out that the same Bottler, the man who as Charlie Whelan reminded us last week 'masterminded' three Labour election victories, apparently also knew nothing of the source of the £15m that paid for the Labour campaign in 2005. And this our 'greatest-ever chancellor'.
Oh dear, Bottler. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
From cash for honours to cash for kitchens.
UPDATE: Now the CPS has been called in. Read it here.
Monday, 26 November 2007
Got the flu
Damn and blast. Not on tip-top fighting form today. So blogging temporarily suspended.
Back tomorrow with a little luck.
PS Anyone know why I can't get into Sitemeter?
Back tomorrow with a little luck.
PS Anyone know why I can't get into Sitemeter?
Sunday, 25 November 2007
No more narratives
Cliches are very odd things. They crop up without warning and then for months, sometimes years, torment and irritate us to distraction and beyond.
Recent candidates are 'minded' as in 'The minister is minded to approve the scheme'; 'tipping point' as in 'Could this be Labour's tipping point?'; and John Reid's infamous 'not fit for purpose.' There are plenty of others of course. NuLab is particularly wowed by its use of 'world-class', as in 'world-class services', which is their way of saying utterly useless; and 'delivering excellence', which is another way of saying utterly useless.
But the newest candidate, and in some ways the most irritatingly vacuous of all, deemed by its users to bestow a cool authority when in reality it is merely intensely tiresome, is 'narrative'.
God, I can scarcely begin to say how much I HATE IT!
Here are four examples. And now I am going to go away and be sick.
Brown needs a story, a narrative, a red thread to embroider a picture of the society he wants.
Polly Toynbee, Guardian
Labour's best narrative is the story of its family revolution, with Sure Start for babies, universal childcare, after-school and breakfast clubs, domestic-violence laws, tax credits and the children's trust fund.
Polly Toynbee Guardian
What makes it additionally damaging is that it fits into a pattern, it can be located in a narrative of government failure.
Andrew Rawnsley, Independent on Sunday
John Major was unable to come up with a narrative of his own, not that it would have done him much good if he had.
Bruce Anderson, Independent
Recent candidates are 'minded' as in 'The minister is minded to approve the scheme'; 'tipping point' as in 'Could this be Labour's tipping point?'; and John Reid's infamous 'not fit for purpose.' There are plenty of others of course. NuLab is particularly wowed by its use of 'world-class', as in 'world-class services', which is their way of saying utterly useless; and 'delivering excellence', which is another way of saying utterly useless.
But the newest candidate, and in some ways the most irritatingly vacuous of all, deemed by its users to bestow a cool authority when in reality it is merely intensely tiresome, is 'narrative'.
God, I can scarcely begin to say how much I HATE IT!
Here are four examples. And now I am going to go away and be sick.
Brown needs a story, a narrative, a red thread to embroider a picture of the society he wants.
Polly Toynbee, Guardian
Labour's best narrative is the story of its family revolution, with Sure Start for babies, universal childcare, after-school and breakfast clubs, domestic-violence laws, tax credits and the children's trust fund.
Polly Toynbee Guardian
What makes it additionally damaging is that it fits into a pattern, it can be located in a narrative of government failure.
Andrew Rawnsley, Independent on Sunday
John Major was unable to come up with a narrative of his own, not that it would have done him much good if he had.
Bruce Anderson, Independent
Saturday, 24 November 2007
ID cards – and why the government is so wrong
I am no computer expert, so why I am so completely sure that the government's faith in technology is wholly misplaced?
First, because its track record is utterly dismal. Put it another way, the bigger the IT project, the more certain the eventual screw-up – and the more serious the consequences.
Second, because I have always instinctively felt that, at heart, no government has ever had the foggiest idea of what IT systems are, instead being seduced by the virility and modernity of the technology.
And now, courtesy of CiF, I think a seriously coherent explanation has been produced. I make no apologies for quoting it verbatim. It is a comment on an article by Andrew Brown from a man called Robert Stanfield and should be required reading for all members of the government. In fact, they should learn it by heart.
You can read the original here. Scroll down the page to find Stanfield's contribution.
And now for Mr Stanfield:
The problem is not so much technology as the misplaced faith in it by people who have little or no understanding or experience of how data entry and storage works. Time and again IT projects are commissioned or given the nod by people who can barely turn on a computer and probably have underlings to do that.
It makes them ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous IT consultants. It also makes them ill-equipped to work effectively even with scrupulous ones, as it almost always entails altering specifications as the thing goes along, nixing capabilities that will prove useful and being mesmerised by useless bauble features. I've experienced this myself in database development.
But above and beyond that it is about time the likes of Blunkett, Brown, Darling etc, stopped using words like 'biometric' as if they were talismans and actually listened to some fo the many voices of warning raised by people who know rather more than them about how IT, biometrics etc actually work, what they do best and how they can actually fail or be bypassed. It is our privacy and security they are blithely playing around with.
The managerial class as a whole is fundamentally not qualified to talk sanely or informedly about IT, databases etc. I know a good deal more than average about it and it's not because of ludditism or hostility to computers that I have great reservations about the increasing reliance of government on IT systems. In theory it's all wonderful and logical and failsafe. In practice it's not.
The first truth an IT person learns about computers is that the answer in about 50% of problems is to switch the machine off and on again. That's not a theoretical truth, nor a logical one. In fact it could be said to be a logical nonsense. But it's a practical fact. Brown et al need to learn the difference between what should theoretically be and what actually is. They are often different. That may sound arrogant, but then I'm not the one advocating more IT systems and biometrics in order to protect people's private data. It's the people who manifestly understand less who are doing just that.
First, because its track record is utterly dismal. Put it another way, the bigger the IT project, the more certain the eventual screw-up – and the more serious the consequences.
Second, because I have always instinctively felt that, at heart, no government has ever had the foggiest idea of what IT systems are, instead being seduced by the virility and modernity of the technology.
And now, courtesy of CiF, I think a seriously coherent explanation has been produced. I make no apologies for quoting it verbatim. It is a comment on an article by Andrew Brown from a man called Robert Stanfield and should be required reading for all members of the government. In fact, they should learn it by heart.
You can read the original here. Scroll down the page to find Stanfield's contribution.
And now for Mr Stanfield:
The problem is not so much technology as the misplaced faith in it by people who have little or no understanding or experience of how data entry and storage works. Time and again IT projects are commissioned or given the nod by people who can barely turn on a computer and probably have underlings to do that.
It makes them ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous IT consultants. It also makes them ill-equipped to work effectively even with scrupulous ones, as it almost always entails altering specifications as the thing goes along, nixing capabilities that will prove useful and being mesmerised by useless bauble features. I've experienced this myself in database development.
But above and beyond that it is about time the likes of Blunkett, Brown, Darling etc, stopped using words like 'biometric' as if they were talismans and actually listened to some fo the many voices of warning raised by people who know rather more than them about how IT, biometrics etc actually work, what they do best and how they can actually fail or be bypassed. It is our privacy and security they are blithely playing around with.
The managerial class as a whole is fundamentally not qualified to talk sanely or informedly about IT, databases etc. I know a good deal more than average about it and it's not because of ludditism or hostility to computers that I have great reservations about the increasing reliance of government on IT systems. In theory it's all wonderful and logical and failsafe. In practice it's not.
The first truth an IT person learns about computers is that the answer in about 50% of problems is to switch the machine off and on again. That's not a theoretical truth, nor a logical one. In fact it could be said to be a logical nonsense. But it's a practical fact. Brown et al need to learn the difference between what should theoretically be and what actually is. They are often different. That may sound arrogant, but then I'm not the one advocating more IT systems and biometrics in order to protect people's private data. It's the people who manifestly understand less who are doing just that.
Friday, 23 November 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
