About me
About me

Ignore the media: Labour Party NOT cleared


Hold up! Before you read on, please read this...

This post was published more than 12 years ago

I keep old posts on the site because I often enjoy reading old content on other people's sites. It can be interesting to see how views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have, to put it mildly, mellowed.

I'm not a believer in brushing the past under the carpet. I've written some offensive rubbish on here in the past: deleting it and pretending it never happened doesn't change that. I hope that stumbling across something that's 12 years old won't offend anyone anew, because I hope that people can understand that what I thought and felt and wrote about then is probably very different to what I think and feel and wrote about now. It's a relic of an (albeit recent) bygone era.

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

  • My views may well have changed in the last 12 years. I have written some very silly things over the years, many of which I find utterly cringeworthy today.
  • This post might use words or language in ways which I would now consider highly inappropriate, offensive, embarrassing, or all three.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken, and embedded material might not appear properly.

Okay. Consider yourself duly warned. Read on...

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 1,187th post was filed under: News and Comment, Politics.

Some recently published posts

What I’ve been reading this month / October 2019, 3 minutes long

What I’ve been reading this month / September 2019, 6 minutes long

What I’ve been reading this month / August 2019, 7 minutes long

A flying visit to Copenhagen / July 2019, 9 minutes long

What I’ve been reading this month / June 2019, 6 minutes long

Some random old posts

Summer Books: Moab is my Washpot by Stephen Fry / August 2008, 3 minutes long

All about the hits? / January 2007, 6 minutes long

More crazy frogs on TV… / May 2005, 3 minutes long

‘Lives were lost that did not need to be lost’ / September 2005, 1 minute long

Charles and Camilla to marry / February 2005, Less than a minute long

Around the web / June 2005, 2 minutes long

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


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.