Out of the blue
Just when you thought you'd never hear the words "cash for honours" again, out pops a mysterious press notice from the Crown Prosecution Service stating that they've just advised the Met that "there is insufficient evidence to charge any individuals after an investigation into allegations under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 in relation to the Conservative Party." That's right, the Tories.
The CPS says that the file of evidence centred on two separate matters - the nomination of a donor as a working peer and an approach made to the Conservative Party by a party donor. Who are these people? I don't yet know but I'm keen to find out!
As the champagne flowed at the recent Tory treasurers’ reception at the Conservative Party conference, one Tory moneybags confessed his relief that "cash for honours" had not tainted them. Clearly, it got closer than any of us realised.
I'm 
Comments
Well well, the Tories must be smirking inside. The Cash For Honours scandal has been hugely damaging to Labour, because it has been so widely reported. The fact that a just-as-scandalous investigation has been happening to the Tories means that they are very lucky that it has all been under the media-radar.
Wow. Darling must have some really bad news today.
The story will be true. But how very convenient that an impartial, independent entity (whose staff are subject to Govt appointment and career progression) should release this story right now
Honours OUT.
I take it that was why they never once used their position as opposition to make the Government's life a misery through all of the Cash for Honours inquiry.
Careful Nick. This could end up being a great day for Mr Darling to bury bad news !
Call me cynical ! But big donors and the Tories go together like Labour and spin !
Told you you can't trust the Tories.
Just a simple thought but for as long we as a nation want "cheap" politics then we are going to have these "embarassments" for all the parties.
We want to be wooed, cajoled and impressed by politicians of all parties but it must not cost. I'm sorry but it does not work. We need to be honest and say OK no private sponsorship/gifts/loans but here's some public money. Otherwise we have to run the risk of scandals which may well be more imagined than real but scandals none the less.
Politics does cost money so it is no supprise that these errors of judgement are made by all the parties.
I agree with Chris Cheetham (3.18pm) that perhaps sponsorship/gifts/loans should be banned and replaced by public money, so long as that money is also given to candidates like myself who belong to no party and end up paying ALL their own campaign expenses out of their own pocket.
As mention by previous posters, what a surprise that a press notice is released the day that Mr Darling has to tell us that the Government has messed up the economy.
The cynical and outrageous behaviour of this Government never fails to amaze me, what you should be doing Nick is concentrating on why this Government is allowed to spin, spin, spin and yet you and the rest of the media allow it.
Politics does cost money so it is no supprise that these errors of judgement are made by all the parties.
I agree with Chris Cheetham (3.18pm) that perhaps sponsorship/gifts/loans should be banned and replaced by public money, so long as that money is also given to candidates like myself who belong to no party and end up paying ALL their own campaign expenses out of their own pocket.
Was I just too occupied with floods? I don't recall the similar CPS announcement re Labour being mentioned in Newslog.
(It's on their website dated July 8th.)
Nick, let's not equate insufficient evidence with 'guilty but we can't prove it', eh? Otherwise many on the Government side would be in deepest manure - as you (should) very well know.
Can't help but wonder who organised the timing of this... wasn't an election due to be announced tomorrow?
The best, cleanest cash raised by political parties comes from the efforts of the ordinary members - jumble sales, beer & skittles evenings, supper clubs - it builds strong sense of belonging and a bond that makes it harder for undeserving or inattentive members of parliament to get away with being lazy or bolshie for the sake of it.
If your party cannot attract the support of ordinary folk in this way then it's barking up the wrong tree.
The idea of readily available state funding for political parties appals me - it's the stuff of self perpetuating one party states.
"One Tory moneybags confessed his relief that 'cash for honours' had not tainted them. Clearly, it got closer than any of us realised."
Or could it be the case that the media became so obsessed with 'cash for honours' 'casting a shadow' over the final days of Tony Blair's premiership, and got so carried away with that narrative, that they neglected to notice that every political party was in the same position, and focused exclusively on the governing party instead?
The CPS said the Tory-related inquiry had covered "the nomination of a donor as a working peer and an approach made to the Conservative Party by a party donor".
"In relation to both of these matters the CPS has decided that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction of any individuals for any offence under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 or for any other offence," it said in a statement.
Isn't the above the same worded-verdict as that of the Labour enquiry Nick?
Does that mean that the Tories are just as slimy and slippery as Labour? One would have thought that the 91Èȱ¬ was impartial ha ha!
Interesting that you & many of the commenters seem to be viewing "insufficient evidence" as "sufficient to assume some measure of guilt", whereas I wonder if it's not "throw enough mud and some might stick".
Nick,
It is interesting how the 'impartial' CPS rushed to 'clear' Levy et al but have taken months to clear the Tories, and only in a 'we don't have enough evidence' way.
It's a shame that Gordon didn't mention the on the Downing Street website!