Political effect
I angered some by focusing on the impact of Lord Levy's arrest on Tony Blair. It may interest you to know, therefore, that John McDonnell MP, the leader of the left-wing Campaign Group, looks set tomorrow to announce a campaign to be Labour's next leader.
Or so I'm told by one of those he's approached to support him.
Is it any surprise that McDonnell wants to topple Tony Blair? No. Can he do it? Almost certainly not. Could he win if there was already a vacancy? No. So, is it irrelevant? No - remember Sir Anthony Meyer, the stalking horse . Lord Levy's arrest has already had a political effect.
A day on from that arrest, I now know a great deal more about the progress of the police's investigation into cash for peerages, and into possible breaches of the law meant to ensure that all donations to parties are open and transparent.
The police told MPs this morning that Lord Levy's arrest was not "theatrical" as the former 91热爆 Secretary David Blunkett claimed. It was, they said, designed to enable them to seize documents they needed to pursue their enquiries. They did not, on the other hand, contradict the assertion made by Lord Levy's solicitor that Labour's chief fundraiser is not about to be charged and may never be.
Others close to the prime minister have either been questioned or expect to be soon. Those with knowledge of this investigation expect that Tony Blair himself will eventually face questions. He is ready to do so although, I'm told, no contact has been made by the police and no date is in his diary. This investigation should be complete by the autumn - by which time the police and then the Crown Prosecution Service will have to decide whether there is a reasonable prospect of convictions. At present those involved simply do not know. Like all investigations of this sort, I'm told by someone in the know, the police "might find a smoking gun or this could dissolve into nothing".
Many in the Labour Party are angry that they appear to have been singled out. They point to the Lib Dems' problems with the foreign donor Michael Brown - who now faces his own police investigation. They point to the Tory party's long history of giving peerages to those who've donated and lent money to the party. They can now also point to the fact that the police say that they have interviewed more people from the Conservative than the Labour Party.
Why then is the focus on Labour? Because the police previously said that their focus was on the comments made by Des Smith - a head teacher - to an undercover reporter which suggested that honours could be linked to sponsorship of Tony Blair's favourite schools - the City Academies. And because they also focussed on the nominations for peerages by those whose loans had not been declared to the committee which vets nominations to the Lords. Finally, because only Des Smith and Lord Levy have been arrested.
There is, no doubt, that the leaderships of all three UK parties are thinking "there but for the grace of God go I". That is why there now appears to be a growing consensus behind reform both of the party-funding laws and the House of Lords. There is, though, only one party's leadership which is waiting nervously to see what the police might reveal.
I'm 
Comments
Nick - if you are sufficiently confident in your information to publish this on this 91热爆-hosted blog, why is the news that Blair is to face a possible challenge not on the front page of the main site? Or on the Politics pages?
The attempt by Labour to play down the seriousness of Lord Levy's arrest is laughable.
The police do not go about arresting people merely to get their hands on "some documents." An arrest in such circumstances would almost certainly be unlawful and would not necessarily bring those documents, if they exist, into police hands anyway.
To arrest someone the police must have reasonable cause to do so. People are usually arrested on attendance at the police station so as they can be interviewed under caution. If they are not arrested then they could just walk away.
The decision to arrest someone of Lord Levy's standing and political position, would not have been taken by PC99. Neither can I imagine that the decision to arrest was taken on the grounds of it being good theatre. If it was then M'learned friends are about to have a field day.
Such suggestion shows the contempt that Blunkett and Co have for the intelligence of the public.
I don't agree with a word of McDonnell's politics (I'm a Lib Dem myself) but people whose opinion I trust and who have worked with or dealt with the man say he's a thoroughly decent sort who is considerably more substance than style.
So the best of British to him.
(On a side note, I think Meyer eventually joined the Lib Dems before the end of his career. Can't see McDonnell ever doing that, but I'll get the beers in ready just in case...)
I don't think Blunkett claimed Levy's arrest was "theatrical"
That sounded more like Labour spin.
and who better to deliver it than an ex 91热爆 Secretary who'll say anything you want because he wants ministerial stauts again.
the quicker Mr Blair goes the better for us all
Don't you just love self fulfilling prophesies.
At least "John who" will be "John somebody" for 15 minutes; cause more embarrassment to his own party and help the opposition.
I just hope that he isn't in a safe seat.
It is unsurprising that the police were not impressed by the comments of Blunkett on the 91热爆 news last night. Coming from a man with his record, if he is the best MP they could find to question the police actions only serves to indicate the low standards and lack of integrity within the current Government.
"Why then is the focus on Labour?" you ask. Well, because Labour came to power on a platform of opposing sleaze, and declared they had to be "whiter than white". The electorate still don't trust the Tories after the sleaze stories of the 90s, and they couldn't care less about the Lib Dems, but now they can point the finger all the way to the top echelons of the Labour party and say "look, you're no better than the other lot". Hoist by your own petards, gentlemen.
Just before the last election, the 91热爆 reported that over 80% voters don't trust politicians. I wonder what a similar poll now would reveal?
What is the procedure if he announces this challenge? Does it automatically go to a vote of the Party MP's? Or must he gather a certain amount of support before running.
Either way, its certainly a wise idea to further unstabilise the Blair Regime.
The idea that former 91热爆 Secretary David Blunkett might be able to differentiate between what is or what is not theatrical stretches the imagination to the point of no return. Like a growing number of MPs, he is lost in the fantasy of life's theatre with little chance of retrieval.
I don't mind if they reform the laws relating to fund-raising, as long as they don't award themselves a pot of tax-payers' gold. That would make them even less in touch with the real world than they are now.
I think that another reason that the media are concentrating on the labour party over this is because of the big deal TB made about his new party being open, honest and accountable. I don't think all this will cause much damage to Blair if Lord Levy isn't charged but if he is, I don't see how TB can remain Prime Minister- of course this whole thing is going to be a political effect and I don't believe that this suspected leadership campaign launch by John McDonnel will have a big an effect as you seem to think Nick- we have been speculating for rather a long time now about how every thing that happens may spark a leadership contest- and every time we have been proved wrong so I dont see how this will be different
I'm confused, is McDonnell planning to run when Blair steps down - or is he planning to trigger an election imminently?
Nick - the idea that John McDonnell has decided to stand for the leadership because of Lord Levy is ridiculous! The 91热爆 is even reporting now that he spoke to his local party last week about making the announcement and he's made strong hints about it for weeks, it has only been a matter of time with him!
How typical that the discredited Blunkett should immediately take to the air waves to spin on behalf of New Labour. Contrast his accusation of Lord Levy's arrest as "theatrical" with his total lack of sympathy for the plight of the three former NatWest bankers about to be extradited to the USA, whom he merely described as wealthy men.
I don't remember hearing from him either regarding the police raid at Forest Gate.
The comments that jar with me are the descriptions of the arrest as "disproportionate" or "theatrical". It's not as if they turned up at his door with 250 policemen and shot him in the shoulder.
It seems the government believe its fine to lock someone up for 30 days - without charge. Or arrest people for carrying banners quoting George Orwell. But not arrest them if they might have actually broken the law but happen to be a wealthy influential members of the Labour Party.
come of it nick - the only people you 'angered' yesterday were your pals in number 10
despite the 91热爆's vast resources you've done your best to ignore this sory and been richly rewarded with exclusives from your fellow spin doctors
it really is time to consider if you are up to the job
Nick, be robust with your concerns about angering some people. These political types have chosen to put themselves into the public life. It is your duty while you are a journalist to shine the white light of investigation into all their dark, secret hidey-holes and tell us about what you see, or don't see for that matter! You are acting for us in a way which the politicals do not, cannot or will not...
Jonathan Binnington
The point is that Lord Levy has been arrested, nobody else from any other political party has at this moment.
I think it is government spin about the number of tories compared to labour who have been interviewed. How do we know that they didn't do their investigations into the tories first? Their may still be a shed load of labour people to interview. I have seen this before where the governments spin takes precidents over independent journalism.
No tory or lib dem has been arrested, labour are in government and inplemented the PPERA 2000 and they have directly sought to find ways around it for their own advantage.
New Labour are a twisted hypocritical and nasty sect in what was once a principled and noble democratic party. They sought to replace the tories but have surpassed them only in incompetence, sleaze and impropriety - they are a government that "knows no shame" to use the words of the late robin cook.
Yes indeed. The perspicacious Mr Blunkett with his balanced opinions, judicious comment and carefully measured words.....
I am still struggling to understand why anyone is shocked by the thought that money buys honors.
Surely the moment you give politician the ability to bestow honors, impartiality and any concept of fairness is out of the question.
Maybe the knighthood should be subtitled "For services to the party's advertising budget"
With the benefit of hindsight this looks like more of an anti Brown move than an anti Blair move, perhaps Trident hugging inspired.
On cash for honours the only open way to clear this up would be for all peers created since 1980 to be made to declare all loans, gifts and any other type of transfer of a tangible asset or favour. I'm sure then we would see all three parties for the hypocrits they are. Sorry to any Thatcherites, Majorites (there must be some) or Blairites out there, they are all as bad as one another.
I must say it was a hoot that David Blunkett was the Labour stooge put up on the Ten last night to try and defend Levy/Blair in the cash-for-peerages row.
Do Labour really think we have all forgeotten that this was the minister forced to resign in disgrace TWICE?
Hardly someone likely to instill a scintilla of confidence or trust from viewers... mind you I guess anyone with a future (as opposed to a past like Blunkett) in Labour politics will be steering well clear of the smelly stuff right now.
Why is the Labour Party singled out? Because (doh!) money should not buy priviledge. They have lost the plot. Goodbye.
It's a bit of a cheek for Labour to try to compare Lib Dem donor Michael Brown to their current predicament.
There's never been any suggestion that Brown got a peerage (or anything else) out of his donation. Nor in fact have any of the major Lib Dem donors ended up in the Lords.
To be honest the Lib Dems don't get many large donations, just quite a few smaller ones. I reckon I myself must be in the top 50 - and shucks, I've never been offered a set in the House of Lords!
thank god someone is prepared to ensure there will be a debate within the Party about our values. John McDonnell will not win but will at least give some heart to socialists inside/outside the Labour Party. The longer Blair refuses to budge, the more votes he will get. Another nail in the coffin for New Labour
"But for the grace of God go I" You are right to point out that all the parties are probably culpable to an extent in their means of party funding and offers of honours for donations.
This whole issue is on the agenda because Tony Blair fails to acknowledge his culpability on various political misdeeds over they years. We wouldn't care much about this if he had been more open and truthful on Iraq and all that followed with the Hutton Inquiry.
Blair often asserted, "you are wrong you know" when he was challenged by members of the public on issues of the day. Now he faces the public who resoundingly assert he is wrong and we know it! So please push off Mr Blair, as soon as, and let us get on without you..
Yet another anti Labour weblog, this month we have had
4th - Preventing Extremism, difference between Blair and an MP
5th - Prescott for Dummies, enough said
6th - Mutual Dislike, Prescott again
10th - Sentence Review, devisions in government
12th - Lord Levy's Arrest, political bombshell for Blair
13th - Political Effect, Labour problems.
This list seems to be a bit unbalanced, when will we see a weblog about another party, say about Cameron splitting the Consevative party by not immediately leaving the EPP.
To all those Nick bashers:
The Nick and Guido are not in head-to-head competition with each other! There is always room for scurrilous rumour and it's great when it turns out to have its basis in fact, but if the Beeb (or any other "serious" news agency) started peddling rummour presented as fact, people would very quickly lose the ability to judge what was fact from fiction. Where would that leave us?
I for one don't read Nick's blog to see what the current Westminster rumour-mill is churning out, I read it to get a different insight into the political news of the day.
To Mr/Ms Jaynes, I would point out that it is Labour who are in office at the moment, so is it surprising that they are attracting most of the comment? Pre-1997 the Tories attracted the most attention for the same reason. As it turned out, Tory "sleaze" turned out to be a whole lot less worrying than the allegations we hear today about the Labour party...
Bring on John McDonnell and let's see Labour bomb itself back to the stone age (again)
AMJaynes - when the Conservatives are running the country.
AMJaynes
When Cameron's MPs start publicly criticising the EPP delay I'm sure Nick will report it. I presume the usual suspects have been approached and if they are unhappy about the arrangement they will say so and you'll get your Tory EU splits story. Until then, there isn't a story.
As a young Tory activist I salute John McDonnell in his attempt at challenging the 鈥漜oronation鈥 of Brown as the next PM after Blair鈥檚 planned resignation. McDonnell is determined that he can hold 鈥渁 serious challenge for the leadership鈥 鈥 while this remains a questionable claim, I certainly commend the attempt he is making to move his ailing party back to the 鈥渟ystematically alienated鈥 supporters who have lost heart. The triangulation that Blair used to win in 1997 is starting to hurt - Labour Party membership fell last year by 10%, and is on course to hit the all-time low of 260 000 hit in 1992. Labour supporters are sick of a Prime Minister that is, essentially, a Conservative - and McDonnell is trying to change that. Of course, this change may move Labour right out of the patch that the Tories are trying to triangulate into, leaving the popular vote free for a Tory landslide 鈥 but can you put a price on sticking to your principals? 鈥 place in Government? Well, that鈥檚 the price tag for us.
AMJaynes - that's pretty selective reading of the blog.
It's only a few days ago the Nu Labour apologists were heeding Nick's calls for suggested Cameron related slogans.
Does anyone else find it galling that the clamour for reform grows relative to the chance of a jail term? Its the political equivalent of heretics converting as the Inquistion rolls into town. Frankly I think this whole debacle reflects badly on politics not just a particular party and I mourn the inevitable impact on voter apathy in the UK.
If this is a 'newslog' and not a weblog...should it not be a 'slog' instead of a blog?
I am a little bit delighted and a bigger bit depressed by John McDonnell's announcement today. It seems to me hugely important that there is a proper contest to decide Blair's successor and at least McDonnell's prpared to have a go. Yet The World At One reported that even some MPs in the Socialist Campaign Group, which McDonnell chairs, had said they wouldn't support him, making it even less likely that he'll even get his name on the ballot paper. Meanwhile, where is there a genuinely fresh and innovative left-of-centre vision to take Labour forward from wherever it has ended up? No sign of it that I can see, either within the parliamentary party or in the party generally (Compass? A big yawn from what I've seen). Is politics dying in this country, or is that just wishful thinking on my part?
NICK, I bet you will not be going on
holiday, things are moving to fast
and you will not want to be out of
the picture, when the bubble bursts
as I fear that it may, I am personally sad, as a Pensioner and
old soldier, Tony Blair did a great
deal for us, and Istill don't trust
the Tories or the other lot, I shall
still support Tony Blair, in spite
of any smears. BE HAPPY IN YOUR WORK.
AMJaynes - dear oh dear oh dear. Is that the best you can do? As far as I can see, and as has already been said, no leading Tory or Lib Dem has had their collar felt by the long arm of the law.
No Tory (recently) has admitted having an affair with their diary secretary or been involved in suspect meetings where areas (s)he may have an influence over may have been discussed. The Lib Dems have had their own problems and there was enough coverage on these pages about those.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe it was a Tory government that admitted the 91热爆 Office was not fit for purpose despite having been in power since '97 and, presumably, having been in a position to do something about it.
Nor is it a Tory PM that deigns to answer questions from loyal backbenchers, dismiss questions from rebel backbenchers and fail to answer questions properly from the opposition.
During the 80's and early 90's Auntie was accused of being biased towards the left, now, poor old girl, she is being accused of being biased against the left, what can she do?
When the Tories are back in power and when they begin to abuse their position no doubt Spitting Image will return lambasting the government and Nick will do his job tearing them to shreds as well - and no doubt Tories will complain that Auntie is biased against them - it's a circular thing and long may it last.
I don't have any particular loyalty to any political party, the behaviour of the Tories during their last two terms gave me cause for concern. The behaviour of this government since the very beginning has also given me cause for concern. The probity of those we elect to government is very important to the electorate and I believe these pages reflect those concerns.
Just for the record the Police inquiry into Michael Brown is completely unrelated to his donation to the Liberal Democrats. That donation will appear in the Party's accounts for last year and is accepted by the Electoral Commission as perfectly legal and in order.
It is indeed a case of there but for the grace of G-d go I. Things do look tricky for Blair's government, but the Tory's should remember not to throw stones, because they are in the proverbial glass house. Lord Levy may be the New Labour paymaster, but the Conservatives have his counterpart in Lord Michael Ashcroft.
AMjaynes who cares about a party that has no power and isn't likely to get any for several years. What is happening to labour is important and will affect they way the country is run.
Nick: strange isnt it Gordon Brown
has done it again..vanished from the scene..Downing Street says its a Labour Party matter re Levy isnt Gordon a Labour Party memeber !!!
He may soon be PM. He is like Paul Daniels a master of illusion one minute he is there taking our dosh next he is gone...latest reson his second child is due. No Brown wants to say nothing to do with me Guvnor.
Course not Gord....Mr Innocent of
all bad news.
Susan
One day when you grow up you will understand that political parties do not have values or principles or morals.
These are things that individual human beings have or not. In New Labours individual MPs cases in particular,they seem sadly laking, of any of the above.
Political parties only have policies that are either good for YOU or not. Whether they carry them out or have the desired affect YOU wanted, is the important thing.
In my opinion New Labour has failed on all fronts except one. That is that they have got elected 3 times. Old Labour would not have managed it even 2 times, maybe not even once.
Tony Blair may be a crook and a lier, I could not possibly comment. I will leave that to the police to deside.
However he did delay the Labour movements compleat meltdown, for 10 or so years. A matter that he clearly thinks, Labour party members should be eternaly greatfull for.
> Why then is the focus on Labour?
It also helps that Labour is in power, runs the country, and so on.
Edward Clark
I agree with what you say about the 91热爆 reporting scurrilous rumour as fact. However this is exactly what the 91热爆 does all the time. REF Neil Hamilton for just one example from thousands. There is normally about about 50 a day posted on the Bias 91热爆 weblog every day.
I dont expect this to be published, but you never know.
Today is the 17th July and you have written nothing since the 13th. Is this a weblog?
Nice to see the 91热爆 continuing to bring the government to account.
Keep up the great work, Nick.
Nick further to my post re Browns vanishing act ..from now on
Blair will call him YO BROWN
Brown will call him YO GOING SOON BLAIR
Next time Nick your at the PMs side show ( sorry Press Conference)
I am sure Blair will invite your question with a loud YO NICK !!!!
Yo, Blair - time to go....
The most 'harrowing' thing about this cash-for-peerages scam is the suggestion by Jack Straw (amongst others) that political parties should be financed by central government. No way, under no circumstances, not ever!
The way forward is for funding by membership only. No donations, no loans. This will make the parties directly accountable to the people. If people aren't interested in them then they will (quite deservedly) wither and die.
Funding this way means that they will have to not only listen to the people but more importantly do what the people want. A political party that will not do what the people want is worse than useless - it's dangerous.
Definitions of 'Levy' - to raise or collect (a tax for example) Sum of money raised. Had not thought about the name really but there it is.
For many members of the Labour party the idea of John McDonnell as leader of the party is an exciting and refreshing idea. Why not? He only needs 40 MPs to support this. Is this possible? And then the members of the party and unions to back him.
If his pre-campaign takes off will Blair and Brown speed up their attempt at passing the baton.
For Blair read Brown. There is little difference