Is the cash for peerages scandal seriously threatening Labour?

That Legislative and reform bill has been the talk of the blogs for about 6 weeks now and is finally becoming noticed by the print people. Democracy ending with a whimper etc...It's scary and horribly predictable as it's based on the fallacy that democracy must, when conflicting with 'inefficiency', give way to the remedies to salvage efficiency. The government's devolutionary tendencies have all comes from prior commitments from the Smith era, and the Downing Street apparatus just love the idea of avoiding parliament. Stupid fucks.

http://www.sundayherald.com/54468

Would have loved Gordo to strike last Wednesday for historical/literary flourish.

Their main ally so far has been the Tories' wariness on this subject. They have more loans than Labour, some, I would guess, from donors who are anxious to stay anonymous. And they may think getting rid of Blair isn't in their interests given that Brown is relatively untouched by the various sleaze scandals.

The problem the Labour grassroots/British public has with this is that yeah, all parties may be at it but Labour is meant to be held above that sort of thing, more collective, less 'private'.

Blair might not be so lucky. I think the cumulative wounds may cause him to go come May, whole number of years and that. Let Brown get his Budget out the way and give him the summer recess to limber up. He is no longer a lame duck, but a dead duck.

I think there will be a night of the long knives as well, it could get nasty. I can see John Reid leading a blairite awkward squad.

Hopefully the next general election will cause a hung parliament and the liberals will horse trade for at the bare minimum and elected house of Lords.

(gypsy, start here: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1733038,00.html)

Night of long knives HOW?

(Is anyone else seeing John Reid as the Karl ROve of the late Blairite years, I have an huge dislike of the man)

Would also place G. Brown in a Don't Mess category too. I have a kind of respect for him if he really is playing a long game and not just waiting there with his thumb stuck somewhere warm and moist. He would also be forgiven with such a spaz for a PM that his moment might have arrived sooner.

He seems like a typical ex-communist to me - forever trying to prove to someone how NOT a communist he is now.

Not convinced. The Tories won't be keen to name names if they have promised lenders anonymity, but if the names do come out (voluntary or otherwise) then the they will be freed up to really have a go at Blair. The Tories have been (relatively) honest: what they have said all along is, "yes, we got loans; under the rules as they exist, we don't have to disclose them; so we're not disclosing. For the future we agree they are unsatisfactory and we are willing to change them."

What Labour have done is much worse. Blair has been so desperate to conceal the existence of the loans that there has been a conspiracy to keep information from people who ARE entitled to it, including senior party figures and the people whose jobs it is to maintain the party's books and records. Weirdly the timing of the disclosures probably helps Blair - I strongly suspect that if the party's accounts had been finalised before news of this got out Blair would have been guilty of conspiracy to falsify the party's accounts. He'd probably have avoided prosecution but his reputation as a crook would have been set in stone.

Ned you have not come close to scratching the surface regarding Reid's dodgy friendships. It would not be wise to say more in a public forum.

A friend of mine's dad whose best friend used to be a Labour MP has confirmed this

The trip to Karadzic's villa is not a secret and I imagine all defence secretaries have had dealings with pretty dodgy characters. Rumour and innuendo is just not enough. Anyone can say anything about anyone and then say 'but we better not discuss it.' I want evidence.

Why am I'm defending this fellow I have no idea! I suppose I'm just getting a bit fed up with the way we use gossip to justify unfounded opinions about people. I'm not singling out anyone - I do it myself. I just think we can criticise these people without just resorting to name calling and gossip.

He always seems to me as a bit of a hard nut but frankly given his jobs I'm not surprised. Scottish TUC, Northern Ireland, Health, Defence, you can't fck about in those positions.

I don't agree with the man most of the time but I think he's very effective at what he does which is knock heads together for what he sees as the good of the country.

Very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals. votes, speeches
Very strongly for introducing student top-up fees. votes, speeches
Very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes, speeches
Very strongly for the Iraq war. votes, speeches
Very strongly for introducing ID cards. votes, speeches
Moderately for equal gay rights. votes, speeches
(from the very informative theyworkforyou.com)

You see he voted for gay rights!

ihttp://www.1914-18.co.uk/sassoon/Somme%20battlefield%20map%20full%20size.htm

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/upload/300603nconnery2.jpg

"Gie's a gobble, hen"

Ned, with respect, you are missing my point. Yes, the Tories are cynical and hypocritical. But Cameron hasn't just arranged to get loans and concealed them from senior members of his own party; his party treasurer hasn't found out about dubious loans by reading about them in the press; and he hasn't (as far as we know) concealed transactions from the people responsible for maintaining the party's books and records. If he had done these things I suspect he'd be finished.

As far as Reid goes, I can't think how I can point anyone in the right direction without saying more than it would be sensible to say here - I'm not talking about stuff that's likely to be written down anywhere. Talk to people who understand about how some of the murkier aspects of politics works in the Scottish central belt. Dadaismus's friend's father's friend sounds like he would be in the know.

Don't get me wrong I think this stinks for Labour, or for Blair anyway, and I don't understand how he has managed to survive. But it also stinks for the tories.

However, there is in addition a legal obligation to keep proper books and records. If the people whose responsibility it is to maintain those are deliberately kept in the dark about very significant transactions it would seem to me that proper books and records are not being kept. And if they are being kept in the dark by a conspiracy among a few individiduals, including Blair, then there is at least arguably a conspiracy to do something illegal, and one of the conspirators happens to be the Prime Minister.

Ned, we are talking about different types of stink. I saw William Hague being interviewed on this, and he looked extremely shifty and uncomfortable, as well he might. However, technically they have kept within the rules, and the whole party will be behind the leader on this: they will think the loans were morally dubious but pragmatically necessary. This is embarrassing for the Tories but not a serious problem. Obviously that would change if they had to name names and something unsavoury emerged but that's pure speculation at this point.

The difference with Labour is first, that there is strong evidence that the awarding of peerages, to some fairly questionable people, are connected to these loans; secondly, that they have been kept secret, not just from the public, but from officials in the organisation that was borrowing the money.