Friday, January 18, 2008

Dale's Telegraph Column: Dog Bites Man Shock

Apparently all the Deputy Leadership candidates were warned routinely of the reporting rules for donations. Leadership Election expert Iain Dale tells us so.

Next week we can presumably expect Iain to explain the travesty of Osborne's failure to declare almost half a million to either the EC or RMI. His reply to a point about this made as comment 1 is either very disingenuous or rather ignorant.

Osborne didn't ask anyone anything. The office of the Tory Chief Whip asked the commissioner a question which apparently enquired which donations stuck on the RMI also needed putting on the register at EC. Not the other way round. The assumption in the commissioner's answer was that these were already on RMI.

Wrong generic question, wrong timing 11 months in, absolutely bang to rights concealling who was propping up Osborne's continuous mendacity and spin on treasury matters. Outrageous. Far worse than Hain. Much later. Much more money. Much more calculating.

What other questions were asked by the Chief Whip's Office? Or others among CCHQ or individual MPs' organisations? Let all the enquiries made in the last two years be put into the public domain.

Hain's position is that he didn't knowingly do anything to hide contributions. His team were just late in full disclosure.

The only thing his campaign really has in common with David Davis campaign - which Iain of course managed - is that Hain did remarkably badly as did Davis.

I'm not sure why Iain Dale wants to keep reminding people of his part in that debacle? And he must begin to deal with Osborne honestly. An outrageous and wilful avoidance of transparent reporting by the Buller boy. And by the look of it repeated by others in the Shadowy Tories - apart from David Willetts who apparently got it right first time.


Anonymous said...

The Osborne donations were registered with the Electoral Commission - the complaint made by your lot is that they weren't also registered with as a member's interest.

If the reality is the transparency of donations, since the donations were in a publicly accessible register, the complaint that they haven't been registered in another publicly accessible register is not one that I will treat seriously.

The reason for the questions 11 months after the donations is, I suspect, down to the fact that that time coincided with other quesitons being asked about donations and MPs wanting to check their own position - and the parties doing their own bit to assist (hence the chief whip).

As to the register of members' interests - not sure that the funding of a shadow minister's office (which is not held 'as a member of parliament' but as a result of party activity) is currently covered - lawyerly argument, but entertaining to throw in!

jailhouselawyer said...

How many times do I have to tell you, Rocky is innocent, ok?

BTW, watch out for my exclusive and blogsclusive on the prison law war and when ok is not ok. The Manchester Prison Law Practitioners Group is in the thick of it.

Anonymous said...

I believe you ... but does everyone else?

Chris Paul said...

There is no such thing as a naughty pet dog, it's always the owners .... short, sharp, shock is what they need.

Chris Paul said...

And enough people believed Rocky for him to get completely vindicated.

Chris Paul said...

Evan: Is it not the case that the Osborne donations were not registered as being for Osborne?

Meaning that the other two possible reportings to the EC on his getting the benefit, and to the RMI on his getting the benefit - incidentally from vested interests who seek to influence government policy - seem appropriate and at least the latter is legally required.

Do you agree with me that the question apparently asked to the Commissioner was the wrong one to get anyone off the hook?

It was : "Do we have to declare to EC as well as RMI" i.e. assuming RMI have been informed.

Bah! To the lawyerly bit.

jailhouselawyer said...

evan price: It's not everbody I am bothered about only those that matter. The jury, for example, if it gets that far.

Chris: I have heard that argument that there are no bad dogs only bad owners. I don't accept that. However, generally speaking, I agree. This morning I was talking to a man who's dog attacked Rocky (and Rocky defended himself), an incident that the Park Rangers logged as Rocky being the aggressor, and he said that he had heard they were out to get me. Sad bastards.

Wot no mention of my super scoop and I don't mean poopascoop...

Barnacle Bill said...

No ifs, no buts, plain and simple, Mr. Hain did not obey the law.
Or can I use the Hain excuse "I was too busy" when the DVLA try to prosecute me for not re-newing my road tax?

Chris Paul said...

Interesting example Barnacle and welcome back btw. If I don't renew my road tax in time but go in say three months later and do renew it there is NO ACTION! I have to pay for the three months of course.

Anyway, whatever Evan may say about breaking the law/rules in the first comment Osborne has failed to declare still - 12 months on - and his excuses are pitiful.

Hain got no advantage from the late donations - he had already lost, it was more like a begging bowl - meanwhile Osborne was secretly taking money from financiers and hedge funders and proposing to make law changes they want, Cameron and others were mis-declaring planes and helicopters, parliamentary catering was being used unlawfully for fundraising, and unincorporated associations of various kinds were acting as agents for mystery donors.

Acting as agents being the key thing. For whatever people say these put up jobs of UAs have been laundering foreign cash. Witney even got caught at it.

As Evan says there's lots of envelope pushing going on. Of all the cases that raise eyebrows Hain's actually seems to be the least complicated. He's bumbled. And what difference does it make to anything? Very little.

He might as well have stuck £200,000 to boards and burnt along the lines of the KLF Foundation million.