Ken launches manifesto, and is then accused of sleaze.

As the campaigns in London were formally launched, current incumbent Ken Livingstone launched into a verbal tirade about Boris. Instead of a "look at me i'm brilliant" speech, which I would have expected, all I heard was Boris thois, and Boris that. In fact, he mentioned Boris' name 13 times!

So basically, if yesterday's rant is anything to go by, his entire manifesto is to hurl abuse at Boris. Now, I freely admit that when Boris first put his name forward I was concerned. But his campaign has been a real eye opener about the man. He has gone through his Parliamentary life as this bumbling fool, but his campaign has shown that there is more to him. Boris has upped his game, and shown that he can act like a leader. So much so though, that I will be out campaigning for him over the next few weeks.

In contrast, Ken looks tired, sounds tired, and can only slate Boris instead of praising his achievements. Well, achievements that he thinks that he has had anyway.

But it doesn't stop that there. After months of accusations of sleaze surrounding on of lackies, Lee Jasper, Ken himself is finding himself subject to accusations, not even 24 hours into his re-election bid. Last night, as I was leaving a comment on another blog, I saw that Conservative Home were running a story about Ken concealing donations, and under investigation by the Electoral Commission. This story has also been reported by the Times, but that accuses Ken of not listing "a single donation on the Electoral Commission website since he became Mayor of London eight years ago".

Not the sort of thing you want at the start of a re-election bid, but par for the course when it comes to Ken. Obviously he knows and best, everybody else is a racist and a "sanctimonius hypocrit". His rants are starting to sound like Heather Mills', and Al Fayad's paranoid rants.

Ken has always professed to be different to the national Labour party, but by [allegedly] concealing donations, having at team of cronies, and failing to sack them despite a tonne of sleaze allegations against them, he has proved that really is no better.

If all Ken can offer is personal rant's about his opponents, and sleaze allegations, what benefit would that be to London? It rather contradicts his own arguements.

One rule for them, and another for the rest of us.

Government whitewashes seem to be the norm at the moment, and the decision by the Electoral Commission not to refer Wendy Alexander to the police is a perfect example of that. Now, I'm not trying to play party politics, at least not on this occasion, as I feel that this decision goes far beyond that. The fact is that the trust in politicians is at an all time low, and who could blame the electorate, and this decision will do nothing the help rebuild that trust.

It is already the belief of most people that there is one rule for them, and one rule for us. After all, Wendy Alexander "admitted" to "failing to comply with law", or in laymens terms she broke the law. No matter what gloss or spin that she places over this issue, she broke the law, and vis a vis should be charged as such. If I broke the law I'd expect to at least face a police investigation, and maybe even charged for the laws I'd have broken. Not so, as it seems if your are a politician. If you break the law, as a politician, all you have to do is blame someone else, "voluntarily" pay the money back (as if she had a choice -Ed) and everything is hunky dory. Is it any wonder nobody trusts them.

Her defence is that she never tried to conceal the donation, and we have to take her on her word for that. But electoral law states that certain checks on any donations have to be done. They weren't, and therefore she broke the law, and should be punished as such. If I make "accounting errors" on my tax returns then I fully expect to face punishment for my "mistakes".

However, the Electoral Commission yesterday said it was "not in the public interest" to report Wendy Alexander to the Crown Office or Procurator Fiscal Service on the issue of whether accepting the donation was an offence. I think the opposite, as I see it as being very much in the public interest to see ANY politican from ANY party, reported to the police if they break the law. After all, if you don't report them what is the point of having those laws. Besides, how can any of the parties hope to restore public confidence in politics if the electorate see policitians breaking law, and getting away with it if they simply apologise.

The net is cast wider

Just when you think that it is safe to open a newspaper again, and the stories about dodgy donations have gone, Labour go and shoot themseleves in the foot with all too much ease. This morning it was another failed deputy leadership campaigner, Health Secretary Alan Johnson.

He is being investigated for proxy donations by the Electoral Commission. This is starting to sound all too familiar, and yet again proves that Labour cannot be trusted. Not that I am saying that any wrong doing has taken place, well not yet anyway, but how can you trust anyone that cannot follow its own rules. Let us not forget, the electoral and fund raising rules and registration of donors were written by Labour, so you would naturally expect them to follow them. But, the deputy leadership campaign has highlighted that Labour is prepared to cut corners to get its way. So if candidates cut corners as a norm, the question should asked as to whether corners are cut with other legislation. But that is for another discussion.

This will not make pleasant reading for Gordon Brown, who I would bet had money on this being a quiet weekend for him.

Hain is history!

Works and Pensions Secreatry Peter Hain has finally done the only acceptable option open to him and resigned from the Cabinet. However, this is only becuase the Electoral Commission has referred the matter to the police for further investigation.

This will be highly embarrassing for the Prime Minister as he stuck by him, and "gave him his full support". So how many ministers and party officials is that now he is support that are being investigated by the police? The problem for Gordon Brown is that has backed every single one, and failed to sack any of them. He clearly is unable to lead this country, if he won't sack someone that is causing him embarrassment.

Pot and kettle

Well seven days in and he is still in the headlines, and still in a job. This morning the Daily Mail has reported that Peter Hain publicly praised the PR firm run by the man at the centre of the secret donors investigation. I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for Peter Hain, as if Blair was still in charge he would have sacked Peter Hain, and then he would be able to go into hiding until something else came along. But Brown's decision to keep him in post has simply put him on a pedestal for everyone to have a pop at, with the Government being made to look even more sleazy and incapable in the process. Not to mention what its done to the PM's leadership credibility.

Although, you can't knock the feeble attempts by a couple of backbenchers in their attempts to spin a smokescreen. The problem is that the two MPs. John Mann and Kevan Jones, don't seem to have done their homework very well.

The two have referred the names of eighty tory MPs to the electoral commission for funds that they received from unicorporated associations, such as patrons club. Their claim is that you cannot tell who the members are sho don't know whther their membership subscription counts as a permissable. Now, I think this is a load of crap, as it is another case of double declaration of a donation. The donation from the clubs has been declared to the electoral commission i'll add at this point.

Now, when George Osborne was accused of hypocrisy I made a big thing about the misuse of the word hypocrisy, because the case involving Hain and Osborne were completely different, so the use of hypocrisy was inappropriate. But with Jones and Mann's accusation the tories can quite legitimately accuse Labour of hypocrisy, as they too get funding from such associations and clubs. To the tune of £2million, according to the BBC, plus another £5000 to Harriet Harman's deputy leadership bid.

Perhaps Jones and Mann should have researched what their own party was doing before they attempted to sling mud.

Hain: day 6

A lovely little example of Gordon Brown's lack of leadership this morning. In an interview with ITV's news at ten he stated that Peter Hain was "guilty of an incompetence". But despite even the Prime Minister admitting that his minister has been incompetent, he still won't sack him.

It's nice to know that Gordon is so prepared to allow incompetent ministers to work in his government. Strong leadership my arse.

What do you think?

I have a feeling that Daily Mail readers dislike Peter Hain somewhat. In their online poll they asked the question "should he resign?"


A close result maybe?

Alaistair's words of wisdom

Love him or hate him former Blair spin chief, Alaistair Campbell, was very good a working the media, and knowing how the media worked. After all, it was he that made that said if you were "still in the news for more than three days then you were in trouble". Which brings me nicely back to Peter Hain, who is now spending day number five in the headlines, with the Daily Mail reporting that Labour MPs are turning against him, and the BBC reporting that he may even face a police investigation.

He must be praying for a major earthquake, incident, or terrorist attack to get him out of the papers. Not that Labour would ever bury bad news behind major headlines, would they?

Misuse of language

I'm in a little bit of a ranty mood at the moment, and it's because of the total misue of the word hypocrisy by some Labour backbenchers. The spent yesterday accusing the tories of it, because George Osborne hadn't correctly accounted for donations to his office. Donations that HAD been declared to the Electoral Commission, unlike Peter Hain's, and from an office that does come up up with policies and has staff, unlike the donations from Hain's think tank.

With George Osborne's case the money to CCHQ was declared, but the tories didn't know if then had to be re-declared on the register of members interest. So they were really corrupt and asked the Electoral Commission advice on what they should do (note the sarcasm in that last sentence). The advice was about as useful, clear and about as helpful as the "how to fill in your tax credits form" notes, something even the biased BBC has had to admit. Hence the confusion, and the incorrect declaration of the funds.

Now, "IF" George Osborne had set up a think tank that did no work and had no staff, and then channelled money away from it for personal use, without a single penny being declared to anybody, then yes you can make the accusation of hypocrisy. But he didn't, which just makes the whole march of the backbenchers actually look like the smoke screen that they are trying to create.

The fact is there in no hypocrisy, as the cases are completely different.

As for Peter Hain, he is now on borrowed time, as he awaits the verdict of the Electoral Commission, as his future is now out of his and Gordon Brown's hands. But, I'm not holding my breath. Hain's conduct in this whole issue stinks, as none of the other deputy leadership candidates financed their campaigns from think tank funds, and made sure that donations to their camps were accounted for. As John Cruddas put it, the first thing he did was hire a lawyer and an accountant. Which would seem the most sensible thing to do. Although, Harman's donations are a different matter, these may be deemed to be illegal at some point in the future (or not) but at least she declared them.

Hain, however, has got any honour about him, so he won't quit, and Brown hasn't got the bottle to sack him. Something else that will damage Brown in the polls.

Donorgate returns with a vengence

This Evening Standard are currently reporting that arrests are imminent in the proxy donors investigation. That should make things a little uncomfortable for Gordon Brown.

A Happy New Year?

Here is the opening paragraph from a report in today's Daily Telegraph: "The scandal over the Labour Party's £670,000 illegal donations will return to haunt Gordon Brown in the New Year as criminal charges may be imminent, according to an authoritative Whitehall source."

Happy New Year Gordon?

Clutching at straws

Labour are cock a hoop this evening as they think that they've got hold of a tory scandal. Unfortunately, as usual, it is just a case of trying to make a mountain out of mole hill.

It has been reported on the BBC, and in the Evening Standard, that David Cameron's own constituancy party forfeited an unpermissable donation to the Electoral Commission. one Labour MP was harking the double standards line, but this is a real nothing story.

The fact is that the party accepted a donation, and recorded it correctly. However when it was later discovered that the donations were from non-domiciles, and that they shouldn't have been accepted it, the money was therefore immediately forfeited to the Electoral Commission. No questions.

Yes, it was a mistake to accept it, but at no point was there any deliberate ploy to circumvent the law, unlike Labour's donations from David Abrahams. There is a world of difference between the two cases. It really is a case of Labour clutching at straws to try and divert attention elsewhere.

Just how many are involved?

Another day and another development in the donations scandal that is dogging this government. Yesterday it was Peter Hain's turn to admit that he accepted a proxied donation from Mr Abrahams. The list of people that knew about this is getting bigger, and they are all key members of Gordon Brown's inner circle.

However, old clunking fist is still claiming that he did not know anything about it. Now, considering that Gordon is even more of control freak that Tony Blair was, I find that very hard to believe. But what I find even more inconceivable is the lengths that he is going to to keep his cabinet together.

Gordon has issued a "don't you dare resign" order to Scottish Labour Leader Wendy Alexander, who has admitted to receiving an unrelated illegal donation, and if other blogs are to be believed he has done the same to key members involved in the investigation into proxy donors. Personally I believe that Gordon is trying to keep on to the right to fire them from their posts, in order to spin the line, "look at me i'm taking action". Admittedly that last bit is pure speculation on my part.

But it does beg the question how come Gordon Brown is able to to deny all knowledge, unless of course his team are too afraid to tell him any bad news. It sounds like the old line the John Reid used to use when he was at the Home Office, and we all remember how many disasters he faced.

Gordon's Vision?

Gordon Brown one had one dream when he became Prime Minister, and that was to do better then Tony Blair. Well, he has finally achieved that. It took nine years in power before the police started investigating improprieties in the Labour party, but under Brown it has taken just a few months.

Gordon's record since September truely has been shocking.

Imcompetence or cover up?

I feel that some of these posts are getting a tad repetitive, but when you have a government that is so intent at covering its own arse all the time you start to see why. Yesterday Jack Dromey, the treasurer of the Labour party claimed not to know anything about the donations to his party.

That poses a question, what exactly does he know? After all he is the treasurer, he sees the money, he has to account for it. That's what treasurers do! Its not the first time that he's used this defence, after he claimed that he knew nothing about the loans that prompted the cash for peerages investigation.

So if a treasurer doesn't know what money is coming into his party that leads to a range of scenarios. They could be that he is simply incompetent and cannot account for anything. Or, he is telling the truth and someone in the party is deliberatly keeping the treasurer in the dark. Or, he knows all about it and is turning a blind eye.

Either way something very murky is going on with Labour's finances and an "internal" enquiry will only come up with one of two results. The first is "nothing to see here move along", or "a junior member of staff was responsible and they will be sacked". Can you see where I'm going with this!

Dragging Politics into the gutter.

Before May this year, the electorate already had a mistrust about politics. The sleaze and the scandals, and the goverment cover ups is all that your average person perceives going on in Whitehall. This vision wasn't helped by the cash for honours enquiry.

But recent events have shown that the current incumbents of number 10 simply have no control over the rest of the party, which is dragging the name politics as a whole into the gutter.

Now i'm not suggesting for one minute that Gordon Brown is doing all these bad things himself, but he is the party leader, he appoints people to their positions, and as leader has to carry the can. His General Secretary has broken the law, a law that Gordon helped to implement, and no amount of posturing and tough talk about returning donations will make that right.

My predicition is that an MP (much like in the cash for honours inquiry) from a smaller party will make a complaint to the police, Yates of the yard will be dragged back to investigate, and a serving PM may well have to face questions again. Admittedly this scenario is pruely hypothetical, but it is a distinct possibility based on recent history.

Labour's General Secretary quits

As we now all know Peter Watt, the General Secretary of the Labour Party, quit yesterday over illegal donations made to the party. However I find myself this morning asking what is more worrying, having a party in government that has successfully tarnished the whole party donation system, and dragged it into the gutter, or the fact that they're own party General Secretary didn't know the law that his party set up?

Labour are not just having a "Black Wednesday" moment, but a "Black November".