About me
Archive
About me

Ignore the media: Labour Party NOT cleared

close

Warning: This post was published more than 9 years ago.

I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!

But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views might have changed in the 9 years since I wrote this post.
  • This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.

Many thanks for your understanding.

Rubbish from other sourcesYesterday, you may have seen in the mainstream media that the Labour Party has been cleared of wrongdoing in the Cash for Honours affair. It’s just not true.

The CPS didn’t clear the Labour Party. They didn’t even come close. This is just lazy reporting of something close to the truth that’s easier to understand, but fundamentally wrong. Allow me to explain.

Let’s revisit the two bare, startling, facts of the case:

  1. Every single person who has ever given the Labour Party over £1,000,000 has received a knighthood or peerage.
  2. Three-quarters of those giving over £50,000 in the last six years have received an honour.

It is therefore undeniable that there is a connection between party funding and peerages. The case hinged on whether the peerages were ‘sold’ as according to the letter of the law – it’s perfectly legal to grant honours as a recognition of a large donation, but not in return for a large donation, which is a quite a subtle difference.

From my perspective (and that of more intelligent people), the fact that such a huge proportion of big donors received honours clearly demonstrates that an ‘incentive’ scheme was there – donate over £1m, and you’ll get a knighthood or peerage – which would mean that the awards were in return for donations, expected by the donors, and hence criminal.

The important thing to note is this: The CPS absolutely did not say that crimes hadn’t been committed. They are not clearing the Labour Party of selling peerages. To me, as I’ve explained, it’s quite clear that peerages were sold. If you read the full text of the CPS decision (I’ve uploaded it here), they are quite clear:

Today’s decision indicates unequivocally that there is insufficient evidence to support proceedings against any individual

The fact is that a series of crimes may very well have been committed here. The CPS just doesn’t have enough evidence to pin it on one particular person. To draw from this that no criminal acts took place is as absurd as saying that Nicole Simpson wasn’t murdered because OJ was cleared.

Whether or not there’s enough evidence to convict, someone – OJ or otherwise – murdered Nicole. Just because no one individual can be prosecuted for an offence does not indicate that a crime didn’t take place – and the CPS aren’t trying to argue that it does. The Labour Party has certainly not been cleared of selling peerages.

For what it’s worth, I actually think that the investigation has served it’s purpose as it is. Had prosecutions followed, they would have been those of scapegoats and lackeys, rather than the key players in the story. But the investigation will demand reform of the honours system, which is badly needed, and so perhaps some good will come out of it in the end.

This 1,188th post was filed under: News and Comment, Politics.






More posts worth reading

What I’ve been reading this month (published 4th March 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 6th February 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 31st December 2016)

The professor and the bikini model (published 6th September 2013)

2 + 1 ≠ 3 in the world of ITV (published 13th March 2007)

HIV: A justifiable cause du jour? (published 18th June 2007)

Another embarrassing Windows failure on live TV (published 31st July 2006)


Comments and responses

Comment from Tim McLoughlin


by Tim McLoughlin

Comment posted at 10:36 on 21st July 2007.

This has been going on for years across all parties. It isn’t right but I think the only way to stop it is to have central state funding of political parties.


Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)


by sjhoward

Comment posted at 15:57 on 21st July 2007.

I disagree. The problem is that electioneering has become massively expensive, while politicians’ connection with the constituents they claim to represent has all but disappeared, with party membership and election turn-out at the lowest level in recent history.

We’ve moved from the days of MPs campaigning to their constituents on a truly engaging local level to the era of slick (expensive) media campaigns.

It would be a massive change, but if politicians were forced back into getting their election funding from the people they purport to represent, they’d need less of it and it would make for a better, more representative Parliament, with fewer career politicians and better representation of the people’s views.

Even in the face of the glitz of celebrity politics, 1 in 20 MPs are now from smaller parties (or are independents), the highest level since 1945, which suggests that people respond to candidates who talk to them on a local level about local issues.

But I guess I’m a bit of a dreamer, and in reality, that’s too big a change to make.


Comment from Coire


by Coire

Comment posted at 21:51 on 21st July 2007.

Have you seen the shoplifting seagull on BBC? 🙂


Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)


by sjhoward

Comment posted at 02:40 on 24th July 2007.

Compose a new comment



Comment

You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.



The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.