Mendelsohn should go - says Dianne Abbott

Dianne Abbott was on Channel 4 News this evening calling for Jon Mendelsohn to be fired or resign, and used the phrase "beggars belief" in response to the suggestion that Watt did not know that the arrangements with Abrahams were illegal.

Abbott also made the very sensible point (which had occurred to me earlier) that no new laws are needed, political parties just need to abide by the ones already in force. Indeed, how could politicians be expected to abide by new laws if they cannot manage the ones already in place. Some people will use this episode to argue for state funding. It would be like the Dangerous Dogs Act - tough cases make bad law.

Jon Mendelsohn - beggars belief

At PMQs today, Gordon Brown stated that Jon Mendelsohn has put out a statement (which I have not been able to confirm or get sight of) stating that on his appointment on 3rd September this year he was told by Peter Watts of the "arrangements" under which David Abrahams donated money to the Labour Party, but that, whilst irregular, these arrangements had been approved by the Electoral Commission. Mendelsohn, although apparently accepting the statement in respect of the Electoral Commission, decided he need to "regularise" the position and took steps to contact Abrahams (which he did by way of a letter delivered to Abrahams, just as the story was breaking).

This account raises the following questions:

1. Did Watts give the same explanation to anyone else re Electoral Commission approval?
2. Did Mendelsohn really believe this explanation - unlikely since (a) it flies in the face of the whole basis of transparency in political funding and (b) he sought to undo the arrangements.
3. Why did Mendelsohn not seek to verify Watt's explanation or mention it to anyone else? Or did he?

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

UPDATE: Mendelsohn's statement is now on the BBC website and he said in respect of the explanation offered to him by Watts: "He told me these donations fully complied with the law and I had no reason to doubt that information" - except you think as a senior fundraiser, he might know what the laws says and might have dug a bit deeper.

I have a feeling that the Watts/Abrahams defence to all this is going to be that the money was really given to Kidd and Ruddick (although it would be harder to say this with a straight face in the case of the other lady who signed a blank cheque) and they freely made the choice to donate to the Labour Party - except it wasn't and they didn't. As I commented on Iain Dale's Diary earlier this week, it was either a taxable gift or they were given the money as agents. I suspect that Mendelsohn knew that the reason Watts said it was all OK was that it was originally a "gift" from Abrahams to Kidd/Ruddick, but if he says that, he will look even more daft as on any proper legal analysis, they were clearly Abraham's agents.

David Abrahams, the Labour Party and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

It has widely been accepted (including by Gordon Brown) that it is illegal to disguise the source of donations made to a political party. Various people have raised the spectre of money laundering, so I thought it might be helpful to set out how a money laundering offence might have taken place, given the facts we know about David Abraham's donations to the Labour Party.

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA") it is an offence for a person to "become concerned in an arrangement which he knows or suspects facilitates (by whatever means) the acqusition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person" (section 328) and under section 329 "A person commits an offence if he: (a) acquires criminal property; (b) uses criminal property; (c) has possession of criminal property".

It seems to me that the donations became criminal property when they passed from Mr Abrahams to Mrs Kidd and Mr Ruddick with the intention that they be passed to the Labour Party as donations with the purpose of disguising their source, because under section 340 of POCA, criminal property is defined as any property that you "know or suspect" is or represents the benefit of "criminal conduct".

The penalty - up to 14 years in prison and an unlimited fine.

UPDATE (29-11-07): In response to this post, Head of Legal has responded in the comments of his own blog as follows: "I think talk of POCA is wild, too, Danvers. In what sense was the money the proceeds of crime? How did it represent the benefit of criminal conduct? If Janet Kidd told Labour the money came from Abrahams - and Peter Watt did know that - then she acted lawfully, and so did Abrahams. And so did Peter Watt in accepting it. Nobody gets the money by doing anything unlawful. What was unlawful was wrongly reporting the agent as the donor."

My response was: "I am not sure it is as simple as that. If Kidd/Abrahams donated the money to Labour and told Labour (i.e. Watt) that it was Abraham's money but that it should be reported as Kidd's money, they (all three of them) are setting out to breach the PPERA. My understanding of POCA is that just about any transfer of cash in furtherance of a crime constitutes an ML offence. It could be argued that the cash became tainted with criminality the moment it was transferred to Kidd for the purpose of disguising its true origins for the purposes of a declaration under the PPERA.It would be the same if an employer and employee were deliberately cheating on Income Tax and giving the difference to a political party - and the political party knew about the scheme. To be fair, I think to prosecute under POCA would be unfair, but the police love using it to stitch up the nearest and dearest of the real offenders, once they have touched the tainted cash."

Comment moderation

Until I figure out how to delete or overwrite offensive or downright weird posts, comment moderation will be on.


Sorry for that, but if you look at the comments on the post two below, you might understand why.


If anyone can help, please leave a comment....

UPDATE: That was quick. Now have figured it out, so comment moderation is back off. I will also experiment with removing the word recognition stuff as well.

Behaving like the next Prime Minister

I watched the entire interview given yesterday afternoon by David Cameron, presumably outside his home in Witney. According to Iain Dale, he was "statesmanlike". I disagree. I have no complaint with the substance of what he had to say, but I did not feel that Cameron looked like a Prime Minister in waiting as a result of the way the interview was given. Here are my tips to DC on making statements/giving interviews on television:

1. Be sparing. Stick to the important stuff. Let your team/spokesmen deal with the nitty gritty issues and low politics and show that you are above the crap.

2. Be even more sparing on exclusives. if you do them, make the broadcaster work hard. Only speak to a "name" and preferably someone who will be a least a little sympathetic. Gordon Brown got Andrew Marr in Downing Street. Who did Cameron have yesterday? Some unknown journo with an Irish accent who showed little respect (asked Cameron "what your Tories are going to do next" in the same way as hemight have asked Lord Sutch (RIP) about "his" Monster Raving Loony Party). If you have something to say, it must be worth getting a crowd along and having an impromptu press conference.

3. Choose your ground. The Oxfordshire garden is not a good look. If you can't easily get to a TV studio get somewhere set up near your constituency base where you can give a press conference in dignified and professional surroundings - this might just involve upgrading the local village hall. Menzies Campbell gave his interview yesterday via video link from Edinburgh direct to the presenter in London and this just looked more dignified.

4. Deep breath. There was no need for Cameron to react so quickly yesterday - lots of people were piling in and if Cameron had to comment personally (see 1, above) it could have waited at least until this morning - and Cameron's interview with Andrew Marr this morning, ticks all the above boxes.

Mercer leaves Gordon's Big Top

The news on Iain Dale's Diary that Patrick Mercer has ceased to be a government advisor came as scant surprise as he had been in the news earlier last week criticising Brown's trip to Iraq. Like many Conservatives, I had speculated to myself about a suitable punishment for the disloyal Tory MPs who have taken Brown's 30 pieces of silver but I wonder if I was, in the words of David Cameron, applying the old politics.

The "0ld" theory of the political big tent is that it is better to have your enemies pissing out of the tent than standing outside, pissing in. But what happens when your latest circus pony decides to lift its tail and crap on the floor of your big top?

Perhaps I am crediting Cameron and Mercer with too much tactical nouse, but perhaps the reason Cameron was so relaxed about Mercer going over to "assist" Labour was that (a) it helps further "detoxify" the Tory brand (how can Labour make their favourite ad hominen attacks on MPs such as Mercer - as they did when he resigned from the front bench, if they are taking his advice) and (b) it gives the Conservatives a more potent weapon - an opposition back bench MP carries no weight when he attacks the Prime Minister - a government advisor does.

So maybe it will emerge that the gallant Member of Parliament for Newark - Lieutenant Colonel Mercer - was on a mission behind enemy lines. Bercow has said that rumours of his defection to Labour are entirely false, so we just need him to lift his tail and come running back to the Tory tent.

Death duties - another idea

The raising of the threshold for the payment of inheritance tax is very welcome but I would advocate a further reform which would make the system fairer and, in my view, cleverer.

At the moment, if a person's estate is above the inheritance tax threshold, gifts given during that person's lifetime can be counted as part of his estate and taxed accordingly if he dies within 7 years.

A 7 year window concentrates the mind - even a fit 70 year old can see the benefit of starting to plan to reduce inheritance tax. If this window was reduced to 5, 3 or even 1 year, there would be less of an incentive for people to plan to mitigate the inheritance tax payable by their estates. Furthermore, if the window were reduced to one year, this would be a financial bonus for many of those who have terminal illnesses - which often strike before old age, frequently at a time when a person's heirs are still financially dependant on that person - although admittedly the exemption for gifts to a spouse are consistent with this goal, not everyone has a spouse. In fact, I would extend the spousal exemption to children under 18.

However, by reducing the window in which gifts are at risk would be a popular and fair move and would allow money which is passed on to be spent rather than saved (to avoid the risk of a large tax bill) which is also positive for the economy.

It is time to get creative about tax, to make it simpler and fairer.

Osborne does well

When I finally made it out of bed just after 8am this morning, I was just in time to hear George Osborne on the Today programme announce the most original and intelligent new policy of any political party in decades. A flat levy of £25,000 on non-domiciled tax payers is a creative way of raising money from a completely new source without the tax payers seriously resenting (or in many cases even being effected by) the new tax. Anyone earning more than about £70,000 per year offshore will be paying a lower effective rate of tax on this income than if they brought the money onshore and in many cases (e.g. US citizens) will be able to off-set the £25,000 from their other tax bills under double tax treaties.

It is very unlikely that there are many non-domiciled tax payers who are low earners - a nurse from overseas is hardly likely to have a private income arising in her home country which makes it worth claiming non-dom status, or whether she would have registered as such - she would pay tax on her UK income via PAYE and that would be that. This means that very few of the non-dom tax payers included in the statistics will not contribute more under this proposal.

The criticism that it would not raise "enough" money is a red herring - it will raise new money - that's the point.

On the other hand IHT will be abolished for the majority of people. The criticism that this is a re-distribution from the very rich to the quite rich and therefore irrelevant to the majority of people is again misplaced. The idea that policies should only be developed that help the poorest - or the majority - is foolish. For one thing, a government needs to look at all aspects of the tax system. Secondly, in an aspirational society, people look at the taxes which will effect them if they get rich. Historically, tax cuts for the rich have stimulated growth and lead to an increase in tax revenues. The Conservatives have always prospered when they have pandered to the aspirational nature of the British people. The policies announced today are creative and sensible and are, I hope, the first of several good ideas which will mean that the Conservative Party forms the next government.

A Worthy Cause

A friend of mine has just contacted me on Facebook with the following message:

"A good friend of mine is helping a good friend of his, Ian Purchase, raise £1m for Kidney research. Ian is about to have his third kidney transplant and is in quarantine. With time on his hands, he has set himself the challenge of raising £1m for Kidney Research. The plan goes like this... give £2 and ask 10 good friends to give £2 too... in five steps Ian should hit his target.You can donate here: http://www.justgiving.com/amillionthanks. To hear more about Ian and his treatment, visit his blog at: http://beforeyouaskiamfine.blogspot.com. I've deliberately tried to send this to 10 friends who don't know each other to spread the net as wide as possible.Thanks for your time in reading this message. I hope you choose to participate."

Normally I tend to ignore what look like dodgy chain email type things, but this is certainly not one of them and is surely the future of fund raising in a Web 2.0 world. I have given £2 and will forward the email to 10 friends as well - I have also have a good friend who suddenly developed kidney failure (in his mid-30s) and had a transplant about 18 months ago. I am pleased to report in that case, we are looking forward to his wedding in a couple of months which is being combined with the christening of his son. It just goes to show that this is a cause which can be effected by generosity.



and here is the widget from Ian's Justgiving page so I (and any readers out there) can keep track of his progress - but as at today, he has only raised just over £700 so has a long way to go before he reaches £1m!! - (there is a problem with the widget which will sort itself out, I hope, but if you want to see how Ian is doing, then just go to his blog - and here is a link to his latest post)

Andrew Pelling - Result

Either this blog is a lot more influential than I had previously thought (and given I have not made it into a single one of Iain Dale's lists, this is unlikely) or someone over at Conservative Central Office has finally grown a backbone.

Not that I would like to be accused of kicking a man when he is down, but at least that is better than assaulting your pregnant wife....

In the meantime, I am keeping my fingers crossed that Iain is preparing a list of top blogs not mentioned in other lists of blogs, as I might just stand a chance.

Craig Murray's blog taken down

It seems I have stirred up a few commentators over on Iain Dale's Diary.

Shock and horror expressed at the discovery that free speech does not equate to a carte blanche to say whatever you like about whomever you like. But at least in the UK you can't get locked up for defamation, unlike in Russia.

Still, if Usamov takes this further (which he would be mad to do - he has made his point) and sues Murray, it should make for quite a spectacle.

Royal Prerogative part 2

Now I read that Brown is considering calling an election in the middle of the Conservative Party conference. Clearly he is not at all worried about using the powers he does not think he should have, when it suits him.

Andrew Pelling

If there was ever a case for an MP to be de-selected on grounds of his conduct, this is it.

Time for Cameron to show some mettle.

Royal Prerogative

I have been meaning to ask for a while, what has happened to Gordon Brown's promise to bring in constitution reforms - in particular, curbing the royal prerogative in a number of areas. Over the last few weeks the rumours of an early election have prompted the Conservative Party to spend some of its war chest on advertising. The Labour Party, however, being led by the man who exercises the royal prerogative does not have to guess when the election will be called.

So rather than saying that he is going to bring forward this reform and give up the in built advantage which comes with deciding when an election and he is not attempting to benefit from it in the meantime, Gordon Brown, when asked if he will call an election, smiles like the Cheshire Cat.

Something tells me as we get to know Il Gordo, more of his low politicking will come out and will not be confused the high principles he wishes people thought he had...

In case I forget

I have been invited on to Donal Blaney's show on 18 Doughty Street on Friday night - 7pm sharp. Don't forget to tune in - or whatever one does to get internet telly.

I don't want a referendum

Whilst the tube strike seems like the obvious subject for blogging tonight, there is nothing I can say which hasn't been muttered under the breath of millions of commuters tonight - such as why the hell does it take all day to get the District line working properly? Or why hasn't the RMT been banned? Thus, in a reactionary mood, I should be ripe for recruitment by anyone of the burgeoning number of campaigns to hold a referendum on the latest EU treaty, which everyone, except Gordon Brown, Mrs Brown and all the little Brownies, accepts is a lazy rehash of the old defunct constitution.

However, getting back to first principles I am quite a fan of the current British electoral system of first past the post, winner takes all, ner ner ner ner etc etc. It makes for strong government and allows the country to take a clear direction, albeit, occassionally the wrong one. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is the best of a bad lot and is a whole lot better than constantly having the Libdems in government.

I do not believe that referendums (or -a, if you are being correct) play any part in this process as they undermine the supremacy of Parliament and therefore the will of the people as expressed in a general election.

Added to this overarching point are the smaller but important issues, such as the home advantage given to the question setter on the basis that people prefer to be pro rather than anti something - viz pro-choice and pro-life in the US abortion debate - the difficulty of encapsulating a difficult issue in one question - which results in a blanket "yes" or "no" - particularly unsuitable for a massive document rather than a clear expression of principle.

I am also irritated by the lack of sincerity amongst those calling for a referendum on the EU treaty - they don't want a vote so it can be approved, they want it, so that the treaty can be scuppered. I do not understand why that is not the policy of the Eurosceptics. It is a bit like Labour giving its MP a "free vote" on hunting as they were too cowardly to come out and say they wanted to ban it, they just did everything possible to get a vote passed and allowed 6 billion hours of Parliamentary time.

It is for this reason I despised Goldsmith's Referendum Party (great political antennae in that family for sure) and I laugh at the idea of UKIP being behind a referendum now.

It is time to stand up and be counted on the issue itself -- not a ridiculous diversion. It would be widely popular for the Conservatives to declare that if elected they would withdraw from the treaty and start reviewing all damaging legislation emanating from the EU. Sure, we need to do business with Europe and we need to meet European standards, but the reverse is also true for them, and we manage perfectly well to trade with the US and the rest of the world without being part of a trade block. I do not advocate complete withdrawal but Britain needs to make up its own mind how far it goes.


So forget a referendum, let's just work on getting a government which will protect British interests in Europe.

Home Information Packs

Just in case I am not giving enough of my hard earned money away to the government the process of moving house has just got more expensive - and I am not referring to the £50 parking fine I picked up this morning in Wandsworth, having assumed that whole borough has no parking restrictions on a Saturday. No, I am referring to the £550 I have had to shell out to pay for a Home Information Pack, or HIP as they are jauntily referred to.

Since HIPs are currently only mandatory if you are selling a 4 bedroom house (soon to include 3 bedrooms) it has been suggested that a lot of people will be describing their 4th bedroom as a study or storeroom, which is a bit daft. On the basis that most people looking for new houses these days go online and search using criteria, one of the most important being number of bedrooms, why would you want to market your house as having one less? In our case, we have ensured that the 4th bedroom is actually presented as a bedroom and not as the junk room that it was a few weeks ago...

So yesterday, we had the energy efficiency inspector over to do his work - which includes measuring all the rooms - something which will be done next week again by the people who draw up the little plans that go on the estate agent's particulars. No doubt the energy efficiency report will note that we have no double glazing, no cavity wall insulation and that our windows release a lot of heat. I will be very surprised if it notes that it is far more energy efficient to live in a house which has been standing since around 1880 rather than to live in a new one, that is centrally located meaning a shorter commute (by public transport) and less of a need to use the car for simple errands (some weeks our car barely moves).

Of course, no one buying our house will give a monkey's about the energy efficiency rating since the cost of heating etc is relatively very low in comparison to the value of the house. Double glazing would also be almost impossible given planning restrictions. If anyone says they do care, then tough, they are not getting a price reduction - in fact I might just charge them extra for being a tosser.

Spectator Double Standards

Having spent about 10 minutes trying to find where my wife had hidden the post in her drive to tidy up the house now that we are putting it on the market, I was relieved to find that my copy of the Spectator had indeed arrived safely, especially since delivery has been a bit erratic of late. Turning, as I usually do, to the lighter and shorter articles (saving the heavier and longer articles for bedtime, when I am lucky to make it half way before dropping off - not a great way of staying informed), I read David Tang's tribute to Mark Birley.

Tang makes no bones about Birley being "spoilt" - "If he had been at the feeding of the 5,000 he would have complained that there was no lemon for the fish" and goes on to record "his distain for the hoi polloi" and recounts an incident when Birley lit up his cigar in his room at the Brompton Hospital. What a character...

However, the lead feature in this week's edition is all about the state of Britain's youth and how it has come to pass that an 11 year old was shot dead a week or so ago in Liverpool. Our politicians talk of a "respect" agenda - themselves using the very word - respect - which forms such a crucial part of the gang culture now terrorising our cities. Gang members want respect and are likely to assualt those who "dis" them - short for disrespect.

Of course, "dis" could also be short for distain, as in Birley's attitude to the hoi polloi - which presumably in his eyes included 98% of the population, or at least those who could not afford to patronise one of his establishments.

It cannot be right that we celebrate the rule breakers and the non-conformists who happen to have money and status whilst simultaneously preach about the breakdown of morals and decent society. It has been ever thus, and the standards of the upper classes in Britain have only been acceptable insofar as they cannot be mimiced by the poor and dispossessed. The same goes for the celebrity drug takers who get handled with kid gloves by the authorities. I accept that those with more money than sense are going to behave badly, perhaps as badly as those with no money and no sense, but can't we just ignore them?

Cash for honours -- told you so.

Nearly six months ago, when Ruth Turner was arrested, I predicted that the police had nothing hard to go on in their cash for honours enquiry - and tonight, listening to the World Tonight, I gather an announcement is being made tomorrow that no one will be prosecuted in relation to this affair. The report says that "friends of" Tony Blair (=Tony Blair/Alistair Campbell) think Blair's authority was seriously undermined by the police conducting the investigation.

Not being the most sympathetic to Blair, I can fairly say that for once he has a valid complaint, although had the same investigation been ongoing in 1995/1996, I am sure Blair would have attempted to score every available political point as he did over the arms to Iraq affair (itself now rather ironic).

Sadly, a government on the receiving end of such police incompetence sees no issue in allowing police to lock people up for three months without charge....

I'm backing Boris because...

...he is undoubtedly one of the more intelligent people in politics today. I believe that he has the courage of his convictions. More importantly, I believe he is capable of cutting through the turgid political consensus that has grown up around a number of issues, especially in local government. When Boris says that he can do without the 50 or so press officers employed by Livingstone, I believe he can, and he will - and do away with the endless self promotion at the taxpayer's expense. I have no doubt that Boris will terrify the vested interests who depend on City Hall to fund their jobs and pet projects. London is ripe for a pragmatic right wing mayor who will implement rational and simple policies to improve core services and basic functions without putting an ever increasing burden on the London council tax payer. I hope that Boris will be to London what Rudi was to New York.

The fact that Boris is Boris and cultivates an image makes him stand out amongst modern politicians. However, if he can translate his image into political success, he will prove that blandness and cowardliness are not necessary prequisites for politician.