What a surprise

The BBC triumphantly report that:

"The Crown Prosecution Service has said there is "insufficient evidence" for any charges in connection with David Abrahams' donations to Labour.

Three former Labour Party officials - Lord Triesman, Matthew Carter and Peter Watt - had been considered in relation to possible charges.

But the CPS said it had told all those involved there would be no charges over the incorrectly declared donations. "

Yes it's the old "insufficient evidence" excuse as seen in numerous labour party sleaze cases.

This sentence caught my eye:

"The Labour Party said it was still making arrangements for the repayment of the Abrahams donations."

I seem to remember labour claiming that the monies had been repaid at the time the story broke. Indeed the Sky News report today contains two contradictory statements:

1. "The money was repaid in full when the true source of the cash was revealed."

and

2. "Labour said it was still making arrangements for the repayment of the donations.

"The Labour Party put aside the donations in question in 2007 and will now seek advice about the best way to repay these donations."

Has the money been repaid or not?

The return of David Abrahams

Michael Crick reports that he saw David Abrahams at the Irish Embassy's traditional Christmas bash last night and that David Abrahams

"claims that the police told his solicitor last March that he was "exonerated". And indeed when I rang his solicitor Louis Charalambous, this morning, he confirmed to me: "He will not face prosecution"."

No comment, no comment at all.

Donorgate update

I read that "Labour donors who were proxies for Abrahams due to be arrested 'imminently'

Two suspects are due to be arrested within days over the latest Labour donations scandal, it emerged last night.

Following discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service, police are ready to move on those linked to the so-called Donorgate affair.

The arrests will overshadow Gordon Brown's attempt to relaunch his premiership after a disastrous last quarter of 2007.

Prosecution lawyers believe there is "clear evidence" that criminal offences have been committed."


I wonder if this time Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner John Yates will be allowed to push for the prosecution of any of this country's ruling Labour (non-military) Junta this time?

Who would have thought it?

"The businessman at the centre of the "Donorgate" row received beneficial planning status from the Government just weeks after he gave the Labour Party more than £100,000 in concealed donations."

Read the rest at The Telegraph.

Could I despise these people any more?

Oh dear, oh dear

It all appears to be falling down around Gordon Brown's ears; he and his henchmen (and henchladies - or would it be more politically correct to just say "hench"?) seem to have more problems than they can deal with at any one time. The current sleaze problem is not disappearing and I don't think that launching internal Labour party enquiries is going to fool anyone. The paper is claiming that "Gordon Brown's chief fundraiser advocated the use of unlawful third parties for donations, it emerged today. In a potentially explosive revelation, it's been reported that Jon Mendelsohn suggested that at least one Labour deputy leadership campaign should use a "network" of people to cover up the real identities of donors."

Do read the rest of the story, if it is true then it is dynamite.


Also do take a wander over to Guido Fawkes's site, he is right on top of this story and all associated matters.

Just asking?

The Prime Minister's web site normally has full video coverage of his monthly press questioning, it's where I catch up on what new government enquiries have been announced in any week. This month is slightly different.

The page is here.

"The Prime Minister took questions from local, national and international journalists today in his regular press conference. Areas covered included the EU Africa summit, Iraq, capital gains tax and the Middle East.

Read the transcript (coming soon)

PM confirms Mugabe decision

Film versions of the press conference are usually posted on the PM's site but will not be included this month due to issues of content and the Civil Service Code. The transcript has been edited for the same reason.

Read more about editing and the Civil Service Code

The press conference session, broadcast live from inside Number 10, usually lasts an hour and Mr Brown has no prior notification of the questions."


How odd that no journalists mentioned the David Abrahams affair



I then thought I would look at "editing" and the "Civil Service Code"

From the links provided, this is the "Transcript editing policy" - "We provide transcripts of many of the Prime Minister's press conferences, speeches and interviews as soon as we can on our website.

Sometimes it is necessary to edit the transcripts. This is either because in accordance with long-standing practice under the Ministerial and Civil Service codes, government websites cannot carry party political content, or because the audio quality has made it impossible to transcribe."

When I clicked on the Civil Service Code link I got this message "Page not found Sorry the page you are looking for cannot be found. Sorry for the inconvenience. Please contact the webmaster."

How odd, what is occurring?

It's getting closer to Gordon

It now appears that the Labour Party's chief fundraiser, Mr Jon Mendelsohn (Gordon Brown's selection) wrote personal thank you letter to David Abrahams and asking for a meeting; he is due to make a statement later today.

This is not over yet, not by a long chalk. Geoff Hoon is avoiding answering questions on the Toady programme this morning, even John Humphrys has cottoned on to this.

Geoff Hoon knows very little indeed, hardly worth having him on; he appears to have realised this as he has left the debate early.

Mr David Abrahams speaks on Newsnight

I said last night here that "I feel that there is more to come out of this story and it won't be good news for Gordon Brown". Did you see Newsnight last night? If not it should appear here later today.

However, thanks to the ever wonderful Guido Fawkes, there is already a transcript of Jeremy Paxman's telephone interview with David Abrahmas available, you can read the whole interview here, and I think you should, but here are a few key exchanges (I have corrected a couple of the attributions that Guido seems to have got wrong...:

"Paxman: How recently have you been in contact with Gordon Brown’s fundraiser, Jonathan Mendelson?

Abrahams: Well, I’ve just got a letter today through my door in Newcastle, it came at 1.30pm today and it’s a personal message from John Mendelson and I’ll just read you extracts of the letter, it’s in his own hand.

“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.

Paxman: And that letter arrived today

Paxman: And that is contrary to what Geoff Hoon just stated on the program

Abrahams: Absolutely."


"Abrahams: I can’t tell you for sure, because as far as I was concerned, I suggested to my associates that they made donations to the labour party and umm I did mention to the general secretary that I knew people who would support the labour party and I would be instrumental in insuring that donations were forthcoming and that was my role in that specific, for that specific purpose without wanting to get directly involved myself and at the same time until the weekend I didn’t know it was illegal for a person to hasn’t personally donated to declare his hand to the electoral commission otherwise I most certainly wouldn’t have contributed in this way"


What more is there to emerge on this story? How will Gordon Brown be able to defend his innocence at PMQs at noon today? Will Harriet Harman be sacrificed, will that be enough? Is it too late to put money on Jack Straw becoming the next PM?

Who knew what and when?

Curiouser and curiouser, ITV news are reporting that Janet Dunn, the wife of one of Mr Abrahams' employees, donated £25,000 to the Labour Party in January 2003 but didn't know about it, she and her husband are Conservative supporters. Mr Ruddick claims to only have made one donation of £80,000 not the figure that the Electoral Commission reporting of £196,850.

What of Margaret Jay's intervention? This is all really peculiar - from the Metro "Mr Benn said today they declined the cheque believing if Mr Abrahams wanted to make a donation he should do so in his own name. 'During the deputy leadership contest, Hilary Benn's campaign was sent a cheque by Janet Kidd for £5,000,' said a spokesman for Mr Benn. 'Margaret Jay, who was supporting the campaign, made us aware that this donation was on behalf of Mr David Abrahams. 'We didn't accept it because we felt that if Mr Abrahams wanted to make a donation, he could do so in his own name. We returned the cheque.' Subsequently, Mr Abrahams sent a cheque in his own name to Mr Benn's campaign, which was accepted and registered with the Electoral Commission." You can read more here.

I feel that there is more to come out of this story and it won't be good news for Gordon Brown; do you think he'll be having nice or nasty dreams tonight?

An interesting back story on Mr Abrahams and the Labour Party

Take a read of this article by Stephen Pollard in The Spectator. Some very interesting views put forward including:

"It is possible - just - that when they [Cabinet Ministers] say they have no idea who David Abrahams is, or cannot recall ever meeting him, they are telling the truth. It is, after all, possible that there are people in the country who have never heard of, say, Gordon Brown. Possible, yes; but very, very unlikely. Indeed, far from keeping himself to himself, as is being written, Abrahams was about the pushiest person I ever came across in my time at the Fabians - and in politics, that is saying something. He would ring up the office asking about meetings and contact; at those meetings, he would make a bee-line for the most senior politicians in the room. He was, in short, keen to be noticed."

"Everything about the current story smells. Abrahams' explanation of his behaviour makes little sense. Can he really have gone from being one of the pushiest and most self-aggrandising people I came across to being so afraid of publicity that he chanelled donations through other people? I don't think we have got remotely to the bottom of the Abrahams side of this story."

"As for the politicians, I simply do not believe those ministers and Labour officials who have been round the block for all these years who say they do not know Abrahams. It is inconceivable that they have forgotten him: he has a manner one simply does not forget.

If his status as a donor was anonymous and no one knew who he was, how come he was in the front row of Tony Blair's farewell speech?

Make up your own minds whether you call that deceit or forgetfulness. I've made up mine. They know who he is all right; they must do if they have been at party functions. They just don't want to admit it."

An odd Labour funding story (continued again)

Events are moving apace, the BBC are now reporting that:

"Labour general secretary Peter Watt has resigned following the revelation that a property developer made donations to the party via two colleagues.
David Abrahams gave more than £400,000 through associates, claiming he wanted to avoid publicity.

Mr Watt told a meeting of officers of Labour's National Executive Committee that he had known about the arrangement but not that it might be illegal.

He added that he had always "prided myself on having complete integrity"."


Further to my earlier post today, I really want to make sure what Mr Abrahams said on the Today programme this morning before I comment on this part of the story...

UPDATE: I think I may have misheard, so no great expose I am afraid.


The BBC report also tells us that "Mr Watt said that, as general secretary, he was legally responsible for the reporting obligations for the party. He added: "I was aware of arrangements whereby David Abrahams gave gifts to business associates and a solicitor who were permissible donors and who in turn passed them on to the Labour Party and I believed at the time my reporting obligations had been appropriately complied with. "As a result of press coverage over the weekend, I sought legal advice on behalf of the Labour Party. I was advised that, unbeknown to me, there were additional reporting requirements. "Once I discovered this error, I immediately notified the officers of the National Executive Committee. "I take full responsibility for the Labour Party's reporting obligations. Consistent with my own and the party's commitment to the highest standards in public life, it is with great sadness I have decided to resign my position as general secretary with immediate effect.""


Mr Abrahms' conduit, Mr Ruddick, apparently said "I can't stand Labour. I can't stand any politicians."
Sounds like a sensible chap.


Unless it is proved otherwise to me I will have to assume that New Labour have been caught out trying another way to circumvent the legislation obliging political parties to declare the source of all donations above a certain figure. First it was loans in place of donations and now having a friend or business acquaintance donate the money on the donor's behalf. Whiter than white?

An odd Labour funding story (continued)

The David Abrahams donations story has taken a new and not altogether unsurprising twist. According to Sky's Jon Craig on Adam Boulton's comments section stories are emerging...

An odd Labour funding story

This is a very odd story from today's Mail on Sunday. " builder who lives in a former council house in Newcastle and "can't stand" Labour has been named as one of Gordon Brown's biggest donors "– prompting fresh questions over the party's finances. Ray Ruddick, who drives a battered Transit van, is officially listed as having contributed more than £104,000 to the national party's coffers since Mr Brown became Prime Minister less than five months ago. His contributions, combined with those of a woman he is linked to, make him Labour's third biggest donor under Mr Brown, behind Lord Sainsbury who gave £2million and Anglo-Iranian businessman Mahmoud Khayami, whose latest donation in September was £320,000. Since 2003, Mr Ruddick's total contributions to Labour are listed as £196,000. But standing outside the semi he bought for just £12,000 and wearing a paint-splattered fleece top, the 55-year-old initially told The Mail on Sunday he had no recollection of ever giving to the party."

How odd, how could this be?


Well it appears that "Mr Ruddick works closely with David Abrahams, a wealthy property developer who is a prominent figure in the North East Labour Party."
David Abrahams "was in the front row when Tony Blair made a speech to activists in his Sedgefield constituency in May announcing his decision to quit as Prime Minister. Last night, 53-year-old Mr Abrahams, the son of a former Lord Mayor of Newcastle, refused to say whether it was, in fact, him who funded the donations."

Things may be becoming clearer.


"The Labour Party refused to discuss what checks they made before accepting Mr Ruddick's donations, saying: "We are totally satisfied that these donations are in line with the rules.""

"Whiter than white"?

I wonder what "deals" have been done in the North East between Labour councils or development bodies and Mr Abrahams and his friends' companies? I think we will find out very soon...

I heard David Abrahams on the radio this morning and his wording was odd, I can't remember the exact wording but it intimated that he had been asked to give the money in this way. I will check the listen again feature and update this later. If this is the case then the Labour party are as expected up to their necks in this one.

UPDATE: I must have misheard as listening back there was no great hidden secret...