Last month, Peter Hain, the former Work and Pensions Secretary who resigned from the Cabinet over his failure to declare over £100,000 in donations (hardly pocket change) to his Labour Deputy Leadership campaign, came out fighting saying that he was pleased that after "ten months in limbo" he has been "cleared" of late declarations to the Electoral Commission. He made it abundently clear that he felt vindicated and that he had been cleared in full and his reputation should be restored.
I wrote at the time of his so-called clearance that: "It's a farce because the CPS is essentially saying that as it cannot determine who handled the donations - whether Peter Hain or anybody else - nobody is to be charged. He may be 'cleared' in the sense that he won't be charged, but this is hardly a fulsome, wholesale clearance of Peter Hain and restoration of his reputation as Hain seems to be implying. It just means he has managed to exploit a loophole in the law whereby if you can keep prosecutors in the dark about who handles late donations who have nothing to worry about as they won't charge anybody!"
But now Hain has been served a bitter blow after the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee has just revealed it has found him guilty of a "serious and substantial" failure in not registering donations. Hain will now be forced to apologise to the House.
So much for being cleared, hey Hain? I think it is safe to say that his reputation will not be restored like he had hoped.
I wrote at the time of his so-called clearance that: "It's a farce because the CPS is essentially saying that as it cannot determine who handled the donations - whether Peter Hain or anybody else - nobody is to be charged. He may be 'cleared' in the sense that he won't be charged, but this is hardly a fulsome, wholesale clearance of Peter Hain and restoration of his reputation as Hain seems to be implying. It just means he has managed to exploit a loophole in the law whereby if you can keep prosecutors in the dark about who handles late donations who have nothing to worry about as they won't charge anybody!"
But now Hain has been served a bitter blow after the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee has just revealed it has found him guilty of a "serious and substantial" failure in not registering donations. Hain will now be forced to apologise to the House.
So much for being cleared, hey Hain? I think it is safe to say that his reputation will not be restored like he had hoped.
5 comments:
Conway was a bad egg, admittedly.
But Hain was not the only Labour politician to make an 'honest' mistake by failing to declare donations. Highly incompetent and also ironic as New Labour created the electoral law that their MPs/ministers are suffering under.
The key difference though is whether there was any personal gain. Conway isn't a 'bad egg' as you so quaintly put it. He wasn't playing cricket, or cheating in the university chess competition. He was effectively stealing public money for his own personal gain.
In the same way that Hamilton took bungs, Archer and Aitken lied under oath, the Tories don't make 'honest' mistakes, they steal money!
Conway was plain wrong. Absolutely no defence for him. Amazing that some tipped him to be the next Speaker (obviously before the scandal broke).
As for the difference between Hain and Conway, they are not about the same issue - Hain failed to declare donations (implication never being that he or anyone else would do so to pocket the money themselves) as opposed to Conway who effectively de-frauded the MP expense system by employing his family to do no work.
Sadly, Conway is not the only MP - from Tory, Labour or Lib Dem parties - that have scant regard to taxpayers money when they claim for expenses. Many milk the taxpayer within the rules - Conway went even further and broke them.
But let us not forget that when it comes to feathering one's nest, it was Labour MPs (inc. 33 ministers) who voted against ending the so-called John Lewis list las year. I remember reading about altercations at the time between a Labour whip and George Osborne where the whip said it was all right for him and other Tories (i.e. wealthy) but poor old Labour MPs needed these perks.
£60K+ salary as an MP must be such a hardship. Try telling that to someone who has just lost their job!
Hain failed to properly declare the donations within the timescales required. I would be careful, even the clumsy can be litigious.
My point was not whether he was a fool, or not, but that generally the Tories are putting it in their sky rocket, and the new labour ones are foolish. You seem determined to avoid that point, but I suppose as a Tory, you would. Why am I surprised about Tory hypocties?
Hain did declare the donations eventually. But initially he failed to declare £103,000 in donations.
As for Tories stealing money, it is a bit of a generalisation to suggest that this is what Conservatives are about.
Even i would not suggest all Labour MPs and ministers are incompetent. Most, but not all. ;)
I grant you that there have been some Tory MPs who have illegally used their position to add to their wealth. It's just that whether a few bad apples legitimately tars the whole party as thieves?
I would contend it applies to a relatively few bad individuals.
Mandelson's a bit like this. His love of the high life (beyond his salary) has got him in trouble before, i'm thinking his first resignation.
Post a Comment