The David Abrahams illegal donation scandal ( and I do not apologise for calling it that. Proxy donating IS illegal, as anyone but a small child or a Labour fundraiser would know.) seems to have quietened down a little for now, as various investigations begin into it. The Prime Minister’s own enquiry is likely to be a whitewash, but the Metropolitan Police enquiry is somewhat more hopeful.
Harriet Harman has managed, somehow, to keep her job. Hereafter known as the Umbrella Thief. Simon Heffer reports in the Telegraph:
It was a Labour Party conference in Brighton a few years ago. It was pouring with rain. I was leaving a restaurant and asked for my coat and umbrella.
The latter was a shockingly expensive, black wooden-handled model, bought deliberately so I would remember not to lose it. Instead, I was given the sort of floral collapsible one sold by Italian street vendors for a quid. I then saw a woman leaving the same restaurant with my umbrella. She protested it was hers. I protested it wasn’t.
I pointed out that a brass collar on the shaft bore my initials. At that moment, a waiter said, “Madam, here is your umbrella”, and handed her the Italian floral job. Flustered, Harriet Harman (for it was she) said that she thought she had borrowed the gamp from her sister who, being called Sarah Jane Harman, had the same initials as me.
Looking at the two brollies, I said I could see how easily she might have confused the two. She failed to appreciate the joke. Am I surprised that she is up to her neck in effluent about dodgy donations? Am I hell.
Clearly she has a taste for the finer things in life, be they Deputy Leaderships, or finely carved umbrellas. Given the closeness of her husband, the Labour Party treasurer Jack Dromey, to the current scandal, she is in danger from two directions. As they say, when it rains, it pours. Jack has been less than forthcoming about his involvement. I suppose he’s only the treasurer, not the finder-outer, or question-asker. Treasure your job while you can, Jack.
Mr Abrahams, showing cunning if not decisiveness or integrity, donated to both Harman and Hilary Benn for the Deputy Leadership campaign, though Mr Benn insisted that Abrahams donate in his own name for a change. Thus Benn has come out of this cleanly. He’s probably practising his Deputy Leader speeches in front of his bathroom mirror as I write. Dad would be proud.
Jon Mendelsohn is certainly doomed. Apart from Greg Palast’s revelations about his appallingly unethical lobbying company before he became Chief Fundraiser for Labour, Abrahams has now revealed that he has thankyou notes for all his various donations via various proxies. The thankyou notes being addressed to Abrahams rather gives the game away. Really thoughtful of him to have saved them all, don’t you think? David Abrahams assures us that he knew it was all above board because nice Mr Mendelsohn knew all about it.
Gordon Brown prides himself on the number of people from outside the Labour party that he’s brought into his Government. That’s lucky, as at the rate they’re going he’s going to need to replace half his cabinet by Christmas. Well done, Mr Abrahams! You’ve destroyed what little credibility New Labour had left. That was, ah, your intention, I assume?
Given that he first came to light trying to trick the Labour party into letting it stand as one of its MPs by hiring a fake family to accompany him, and was found out and cast into ignomy, it is not hard to imagine that he resolved to take his fiendish revenge upon them. Imagining things is fun!
I know, let’s have a poll! They’re always fun too. If you think I’ve missed anyone from the choices you ought to be there, post in comments and I’ll add them in.
[poll=3]
Janet Dunn, who yesterday claimed to know nothing about having been used as an intermediary for one of David Abrahams’ Labour Party donations, has had a flash of insight, and now remembers the event. I suppose she doesn’t consider it “disgusting” any more, either.
I know I’m always forgetting about having £25,000 put into my bank account, and then passing it along. You can’t be expected to recall such minor financial details. Luckily, she kept records, and checked her bank balance last night, and it all came back to her. Fortunate indeed, considering that the Labour party had obvious proof that she’d paid them with a personal cheque.
I wonder if she is related to Alberto Gonzales?
Vince Cable, acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, has made a formal request for the Metropolitan Police (who have jurisdiction over all matters involving Westminster) to investigate the matter.
David Abrahams, alias David Martin was unknown to me at the beginning of this week, and yet it appears that he has been a busy little bee indeed. At least where deception is concerned. A bee of lies.
It turns out that when David Abrahams was trying to become Labour MP for Richmond in 1992, he made a point of introducing the selection committee to his wife and son.
A divorcee, Anthea Bailey, told a local newspaper she and her 11-year old son had posed as Mr Abrahams’ family. This was done, she said, as a “business arrangement” so he could create “the right impression”.
A press statement was apparently also issued at the time of his selection, reportedly stating how he lived with his wife and son – but he had never been married.
That business arrangement involved Mr Abrahams paying off Mrs Bailey’s overdraft, and paying her son’s private school fees. He also failed to mention that he was going through the courts at the time, under the name David Martin, though he was eventually found innocent of the charge of illegally evicting a tenant.
He even seems to be lying about how old he is. He claims to have been born in 1954, but records suggest that he was in fact born in 1944.
His duplicitous behaviour seems to be contagious. It is remarkable how many Labour politicians seem to have no idea who he is, as if he came down in the last shower. A shower… of money.
Stephen Pollard in the Spectator remarks:From 1992-95 I worked for the Fabian Society. Our meetings were attended by a variety of people: students and academics, hacks and Labour Party members, politicos and wannabe politicos. The presence of someone such as Gordon Brown at one of these meetings was not in the least bit unusual, nor that of any other senior party figure. As an affiliated part of the Labour Party, our job in opposition was to provoke thought about the party’s policies.
One of the regular – indeed, one of the most assiduous – attendees at those meetings was David Abrahams. He would mix, as would everyone in that milieu, with backbenchers, front benchers, NEC members and Shadow Cabinet members.
Many of those people are now ministers. Others are Cabinet members, some very senior. It is possible – just – that when they say they have no idea who David Abrahams is, or cannot recall ever meeting him, they are telling the truth. It is, after all, possible that there are people in the country who have never heard of, say, Gordon Brown. Possible, yes; but very, very unlikely.
The obvious question is WHY? Why did Mr Abrahams go to such lengths to conceal his identity?
What was he trying to gain? Forgiveness for another run at Parliament, perhaps, or an honour, or maybe he is one of those people who likes to believe that he has influence with important people. Maybe some sort of property dodge, or lenient planning oversight? I doubt he did it just to get a plum seat at Blair’s leaving speech. Whatever the reason, it is clear that his insidious roots have spread throughout the upper echelons of the Labour party, and it’s going to take some digging to shift them.
It’s coming out tonight that some of the people, in whose name Mr Abrahams donated money, had no idea that this was being done. Janet Dunn, a lifelong Tory, had £25,000 sent in her name. She is the wife of Anthony Dunn, who has done land consultancy for Mr Abrahams in the past, and knew absolutely nothing about the matter until this week. She is not best pleased, calling the situation “disgusting”.
The Crown Prosecution Service seems to be taking an interest.
Labour general secretary Peter Watt has resigned following the revelation that a property developer made donations to the party via two colleagues.
David Abrahams, who gave more than £400,000 through associates, said Mr Watt’s resignation was “sad”.
Mr Watt told a meeting of officers of Labour’s National Executive Committee he had known about the arrangement.
Under the law, those making donations on behalf of others must give details of who is providing the money.
Mr Abrahams and Mr Watt thought it was perfectly legal to channel donation through third partys. How utterly naive can you get? If that was allowed, then any foreign power that felt like it could buy our whole political system.
Then later he said this:
Mr Abrahams insisted that Mr Ruddick and Mrs Kidd were fully aware of the destination of the cheques they signed. He said he objected to the requirements for major donors’ identities to be made public, introduced by Tony Blair in 2000 as part of his campaign to “clean up politics”.
“If you make donations to a political party, you are hounded in a way that you are not if you make them to other worthwhile causes.”
Oh, you object to THAT law. Why didn’t you say so? It’s quite alright to break the law if you object to it.
I, for instance, object to the law that prevents me from throwing you out of this window.
So you chose to break the law, because you objected to a requirement brought in by the person you were giving the money to. You knowingly committed a serious crime. Not liking the law is not a very good defense, as thousands of cannabis smokers find out every year, but then again, you’re probably a whole lot richer than they are.
Send him to the Tower.
There’s a bit more coming in from Associated Press on the Lebanese situation:
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) — President Emile Lahoud said Friday that Lebanon is in a “state of emergency” and ordered the army to take over security powers, hours before he was stepping down without a successor and leaving the divided country in a political vacuum. The government rejected the move, raising tensions.
Lahoud’s announcement immediately raised further confusion amid Lebanon’s political turmoil, which many fear could explode into violence between supporters of the government and the opposition.
The president cannot declare a state of emergency without approval from the government, but Lahoud’s spokesman said the Western-backed government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora is considered unconstitutional.
“The president of the republic declares that because a state of emergency exists all over the land as of Nov. 24, 2007, the army is instructed to preserve security all over the Lebanese territory and places all the armed forces at its disposal,” presidential spokesman Rafik Shalala said.
The statement instructed the army “to submit the measures it takes to the Cabinet once there is one that is constitutional,” he said.
Saniora’s government, which has been meeting in Beirut as the announcement was made at the presidential palace in suburban Baabda, rejected the announcement.
“It has no value and is unconstitutional and consequently it is considered as if it was not issued,” said a government spokesman, who asked not to be identified because an official announcement has not yet been made by the prime minister.
The spokesman said the constitution stipulates that the Cabinet – not the president – has the authority to declare a state or emergency and to give the army the authority to take over security.
“Any decision not issued by the Cabinet has no constitutional value,” the spokesman told The Associated Press.
With the Prime Minister and his cabinet declaring this emergency rule unconstitional, this could get pretty bad, pretty fast. Lebanon is a cultural melting pot, still recovering from a long and unpleasant civil war. I’ll keep looking for info.
7:35 GMT update. It’s made it to the BBC.
Under Lebanon’s unwritten constitutional agreement the presidency is earmarked for a Maronite Catholic, the prime minister’s post is reserved for a Sunni Muslim and the parliament speaker’s post for a Shiite Muslim. The civil war that stretched from 1975 to 1990 was primarily fought on ethnic and religious lines, which is the reason for such a power sharing agreement.
That the Middle East’s only christian leader has declared emergency law over the objections of his islamic Prime Minister does not look good. Hezbollah have yet to respond, so far as I can tell, but they are unlikely to take this well.
8:51 pm GMT: I am slightly chastened by Mustapha of Beirut Spring
An important clarification for outside observers who are overstating Mr. Lahhoud’s statement.
The outgoing Lebanese President did NOT declare a state of Emergency or Martial law. The statement that caused the confusion was this: “the threats that require a state of emergency prevail over Lebanonâ€.
What Mr. Lahhoud effectively did was assign the Army to take care of the security on the ground. A redundant procedure given that the Seniora government had already done that.
If anything, the statement by the soon-to-be ex-President reveals his incapacity to do anything more serious. All comparisons with Pakistan, Jordan, or Egypt, where the Army heavy-handedly represses the people, should immediately be removed from your heads.
I don’t know much about Mustapha, or his general angle on things, but even though he no longer lives in Lebanon he certainly understand the dynamics better than I, so I’d better pay some attention to what he says. It could be we’re getting all wound up over nothing, though I think perhaps the President could use a refresher course in using temperate language, if that be the case.
I thought having the military in charge of internal security was an important part of what martial law is. I wonder if a curfew has been enacted. I guess the only way to find out whether this is a nothing story, or something critical for Lebanon, is to wait and see. I still have a very bad feeling about it all.
Just a heads up. There’s a lot of chatter in the last few minutes about an AP newswire received by actual news organisations. ie, not me.
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud declared a state of emergency and ordered the army to take control less than four hours before his terms ended. (AP)
I’m trying to find something a bit more concrete, but if it’s true it is absolutely dreadful news. Why was emergency rule needed? Will Israel or Syria use it as a pretext for invasion?
Theres nothing on the news sites or TV yet, other than a few just quoting that wire. Lets hope it’s just a hoax or mistake.
7:10 pm GMT. A bit more information coming in.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
BEIRUT
President Emile Lahoud has ordered the army today to take over security powers in Lebanon, saying the country is in a state of emergency.
That came hours before Lahoud was stepping down without a successor and leaving the divided country in a political vacuum.
The announcement immediately raised further questions amid Lebanon’s political turmoil.
The president cannot declare a state of emergency without approval from the government, but Lahoud’s spokesman said the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora is considered unconstitutional.
Presidential spokesman Rafik Shalala says the army is instructed to preserve security all over the Lebanese territory and places all the armed forces at its disposal.
There was no immediate reaction from the Saniora government, which has been meeting at government house in Beirut as the announcement was made at the presidential palace in suburban Baabda.
I wonder how the White House will respond, given their generally forgiving response to Musharraf’s emergency rule. Of course, Lebanon isn’t a close ally in the War on Terror, so we can expect some stern words. I’m still looking for a bit more info on why martial law has been seen to be necessary. Has there been an attempted coup?
He’s still very angry.
I should warn the sensitive and/or youthful amongst us, this video is riddled with obscenity and immature language. Hurrah! Er, I mean, Booo!
|
|
