So will the police be called in to investigate this David Abrahams affair?

[LittleBella]

It just beggars belief. This man, with gobsmacking cheek, says that the reason he made secret donations to the Labour Party was because he wanted to protect his privacy - er, hello, that's why the law was set up, so that major donors couldn't be secret, so that the electorate could see who is bankrolling our political system. Everyone in the affair is all wide-eyed innocence, not realising that they were doing anything wrong. Because they didn't have access to high level financial advisors? Or any decent legal advice? And were completely unaware of the implications, even though the Labour Party brought in this law as a response to Tory sleaze? And even though Cash for Honours had led to high level figures in the Labour party being questioned by the police? No-one had idea that what they were doing might just be wrong?

Do they just have a different moral compass to the rest of us, or are they just all a bunch of bloody crooks? Or is there another possibility that I'm overlooking?

Are this shower going to be subjected to the law, or was the law just passed as a PR exercise, with no-one actually expecting it to be used?

Thank you, I needed a rant.

What's even more amazing is that at least two of the hapless 'donors' were Conservative voters!

And remember the Ecclestone affair? For one million pounds you can change government policy ...

Shameful. They're just as sleazy, if not more, than any government that went before them.

Is everyone outraged at this? I'm interested.

I think Abrahams was at best naive, at worst deluded and yes not following rules.

I'm less clear about the Labour Party, esp those that gave the cheques back.

Why d'you think Abrahams was naieve?

You mean he was hopelessly stupid? Is there any evidence that he's incompetently thick in any other area of his life?

Am going to google him and find out

I don't think you accumulate that much wealth by being naive.

I don't understand why the police have to be asked to investigate at all? I'm pretty sure if I had publicly admitted to any crime, the coppers would begin investigating without waiting for an invitation from me.

Here's the BBC take on him

They're awaiting an invite from their paymasters.

Place your bets?

LOL, actually maybe he is a bit of an eejit

Yes the wife bit is mad.

Naive in the sense that he thought he wouldn't get rumbled and that he could hide his identity......

Well at the risk of sounding shallow, he does look like he's away with the fairies

Bizarre. And so stupid of the Labour govt. after the whole cash for honours thing. Worst thing about New Lab is the uncritical love-in with business - all anyone has to say is "I'm in business' and suddenly they are beyond reproach and Tony's best mate. I knew one character/donor put up for a peerage who had a very dodgy history - couldn't believe they weren't bothered about his business practices. Clearly the trend continues under Gordon.

And charming the way GB hung Harriet Harman out to dry, as though it's all her fault, somehow. I wonder if there are some sour grapes after her husband (Lab party treasurer) complained about no-one telling him about dodgy donors during the cash for honours inquiry?

Yes, Harriet's involvement in all of this is decidedly fishy.

And whether Gordon knows anything about this or not, his press conference yesterday was poor. His mouth was dry, he was evasive, he looked nervous.

The first rule of leadership: never appear weak. The sharks are circling, I (don't) fear ...

Someone I know saw him a while after the press conference yesterday and said his hands were still shaking. Apparently he doesn't talk to anyone outside a very narrow circle of buddies - he's appointed all these advisers but never responds to their emails, let alone actually meet them. They don't even know if he reads the messages.

All those years in the shadows seem to have left him ill-prepared for the top job...

oh good the police have been brought in

I find the whole thing totally amazing and think it clearly demonstrates that the higher echelons of the Labour Party think that the electorate is thick.

All this, oooh, we didn't know we couldn't do that and oooh, well we'll return the money if it's not right. The ones who have returned the money have only done so because it's all come to the attention of the media.

These are supposedly intelligent people with legal and other advisers guiding their every move. It is incredulous to expect the electorate to believe that they are all totally innocent and unaware of the rules which they themselves put in place.

Bet Tony's pissing himself (with laughter now he's out of it - but he has a huge amount of responsibility as this all began when he became leader of the party).

The thing that has really stood out for me is that Hillary Benn (who I believe is widely regarded as a man of great integrity) turned down the donation offered to him because it was from a third party. If he knew it was dodgy, why didn't Harriet Harman?

She says Gordon's office suggested she approach abrahams' stooge for a donation, so she assumed it was OK.

I know this sounds terrible, especially given how much news I hear about politics, but I am just so not interested in this story at all. It just feels like more of the same.

I think this sort of story will always be around unless the whole system of the way parties are funded is changed.

yes i know it's probably very un PC but I did think fondly "ah, he is his father's son after all".

Some integrity is still in that party.