Why I take no joy from Tony Blair's shame

So far Liberal Democrat bloggers appear to have been remarkably quiet about the announcement today that the Prime Minister has been interviewed by police over the "cash-for-honours" scandal. Perhaps this is wise. Until we know the outcome of the investigation, it is too early to crow.

Actually, I doubt very much whether I will ever manage a sense of schadenfreude over this issue. The fact that a serving Prime Minister has been questioned by police fills me with a sense of great sadness and some degree of shame. Where even lesser-ranking Labour dignitaries to face trial, let alone be found guilty, it would be a lasting shame to our country and its political system.

One of the reasons why Britain has done so well economically over the past quarter of a century is that we are known internationally as a place where business is transacted honestly, free from the corruption that blights so many other jurisdictions. This is why another, unconnected story, fills me with equal concern. The Attorney General announced today that the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into corruption relating to BAE's Al Yamamah contract has been discontinued. The reason given was that it was in danger of harming Anglo-Saudi relations, and implicitly our chances of future arms sales.

I have never been one of those who believed that we should not sell arms internationally, or that the Saudi's were beyond the pale (I would happily sell them aircraft, but would draw the line at items that can be used for internal repression or torture). But the cancelling of this investigation also suggests that Britain is prepared to tolerate corruption if the price is right.

These two stories, coming as they do on the same day, can only harm our image internationally and (imperceptibly, because such damage is always harder to discern than the obvious quick-win) impact upon our economy. Perhaps more seriously, it damages a reputation for honesty and integrity of which we can be justifiably proud.

Faint praise from The Economist

The Economist gave faint praise to the Liberal Democrats in its article on party funding this week.

Describing the loans parties had taken out, it said "Labour owes £23.4m, a sum that exceeds... its spending... in last year's election campaign. The Conservatives have piled up even more debt, worth £35.3m... The Liberal Democrats are in the happier position of owing only £1.1m."

Sadly, the dire state of the two main parties' funding suggests that the chances are growing of their using their power to oblige the taxpayer to provide them with cash directly. They will argue that to save politics from the grubby world of donations and loans, and the influence they buy, parties should in future receive direct funding from taxpayers.

One cannot help but wonder, as our venal leaders feather their own nests, whether what the parties really need to save them from sleaze and corruption is a some honour - and not the kind that gets doled out in return for a loan.

Electoral Commission report on donations and loans to political parties casts a shadow over Labour and the Conservatives

The latest figures from the Electoral Commission on the loans and donations received by Britain's political parties provide fascinating reading. Sadly, reporting on them has been less enlightening.

Indeed, there is something rather disingenuous about the BBC’s claim that “the main political parties owe a total of £60m in loans”.

£58.7m of this is owed by just two parties, The Conservatives and Labour.

As Labour admits struggling to pay its loans, it’s claim that “political parties should live within their means” sounds hollow. Labour has been living well beyond its means for some time, with the 2005 general election a lesson in how to finance the present by borrowing from the future. While it may be an exaggeration to suggest that it would not have won the 2005 election without the tens of millions of pounds of debt it ran up, it is undoubtedly true that its majority would have been far more precarious had it not chosen to mortgage its future in an effort to win a third term.

The issue of loans raises serious questions about the credibility of the financial arrangements of political parties. The Conservatives appear not to have declared loans on the grounds that they were made “on commercial terms” despite those loans being at preferential rates, below bank lending rates. The Labour party’s “cash-for-honours” scandal continues to cast the shadow of sleaze over the Government. By comparison, the Liberal Democrat’s outstanding loans could be cleared by a £15 donation by each member; it is unlikely that Cowley Street will be on the market in the near future.

LOANS OUTSTANDING
Conservatives: £35.3m
Labour: £23.4m
Lib Dems: £1.1m
SNP: £525, 393
Plaid Cymru: £352,000
Respect: £34, 878
UKIP: £19,200
Source: BBC Online

Meanwhile, donations to the major parties seem to eerily reflect the parliamentary landscape, with the Labour Party receiving slightly more than the Conservatives while the Lib Dems received approximately a fifth as much as Labour. On the other hand, a couple of the minor parties have received significant donations that belie both their small size and their supposedly-socialist roots. Both the Green Party and the Co-Operative Party have received large donations that should help them pursue their radical socialist agendas.

DONATIONS
Conservatives: £2,867,019
Labour: £3,227,340
Lib Dems: £629,903
SNP: £52,430
Plaid: £12,250
Co-operative Party: £142,036
Ukip: £17,913
Green Party: £138,396
Scottish Greens: £31,373
Source: BBC Online