James Forsyth is former political editor of The Spectator.
The latest IPSOS-MORI poll has the Tories nine ahead, with Labour down three to 32. Although, the Tory lead is considerable this poll will not send Labour into a tailspin. As long as the party is above 30 and the Tory lead is less than 15, Labour MPs will not start thinking the unthinkable.
Over at that new daily must-read The Three Line Whip, Iain Martin has news of a letter that puts Wendy Alexander in a very difficult position. Alexander wrote to Paul Green, who as a tax exile is not entitled to make political contributions, to thank him for donating to her campaign. Wendy, sister of Douglas and protégé of Gordon, is now hanging onto her job by a thread.
If--and this is still phenomenally unlikely--this current sleaze scandal either topples Gordon Brown or brings about a challenge to him, Alan Johnson is being tipped as the man to watch. He is certainly the opposite of Brown—charming, comfortable in his own skin and English—and is, as Nick Boles wrote in The Spectator during the Blair era, the Labour figure the Cameroons fear most. But Johnson suffers from a self-inflicted wound that makes it very hard for him to consider running even if Gordon had been forced out. When Johnson appeared on Desert Island Discs, Kirsty Young asked him about why he didn’t rune for leader. Here’s what he said: "I don't think I would have been good enough, frankly. "I don't think I've got the capabilities.
There was a moment of unintentional humour during Jack Straw’s interview on the Today Programme when he was asked if Labour had changed the culture as well as the law around fundraising and replied, “We have changed the culture quite considerably”. You can say that again, Jack. The problem for Labour is that this scandal is now damaging more and more of the party. So The Guardian front-page headline this morning screams, “Harman implicates Brown”. While David Abrahams is clearly not going to go quietly; when the Telegraph asked him how many times he’d met Gordon Brown he responded, "You don't remember how many times you've eaten porridge for breakfast.
This evening, Peter Hain has announced that his campaign failed to register a £5,000 donation from Jon Mendelsohn, the chief fundraiser who was told by Peter Watt of how Abrahams was donating money back in the autumn. It is also been reported that it was Gordon Brown’s campaign manager, Chris Leslie, who put the Harman campaign in touch with Janet Kidd, one of the people who was donating money to Labour on Abraham’s behalf.
The new YouGov poll for the Telegraph puts the Tories 11 points ahead, which is the first time the pollsters have found the Tories to have a double digit advantage. Add to this the fact that Labour’s funding practises are now to be investigated by the police (again) and the worsening economic conditions and it is clear that Gordon Brown faces a long, hard winter. If there was a credible Labour challenger Westminster would be buzzing with leadership speculation right now—but there’s not, so it’s all quiet on that front. Meanwhile, Tony Blair carries on trying to solve the problems of the Middle East. How Labour MPs must miss him tonight.
Guido explains why.
Martin Bright has a typically excellent column in the New Statesman about this whole fundraising scandal. Here’s the key graf: “Claims that no one but Watt knew what was going on are already unravelling. As the story broke, one former Labour fundraiser told me: "It just doesn't wash. You make it your business to know your high-value donors in the same way a detective gets to know his suspects. It is inconceivable that people didn't know who David Abrahams was." And so it proved to be over the hours that followed: Baroness Jay knew enough to warn Hilary Benn not to touch the money from an Abrahams intermediary; Tony Blair's agent John Burton knew him, and now, it is revealed, so did Brown's chief fundraiser, Jon Mendelsohn.
Jackie Ashley, a commentator who is generally seen as on side with the Brown project, has written a piece on how the Prime Minister can begin to recover. She spends most of the article explaining why the green shoots of recovery were already popping up at PMQs but there is a real sting in the tale. After explaining the importance of Labour backbenchers getting behind the PM, she then says: "It doesn't help, if Brown wants loyalty from his MPs, that he's unwilling to give it back. Yesterday's shameful reluctance to support Harriet Harman was not Brown's finest hour. Harman's team insist she did nothing wrong, and unless it is proved otherwise, she deserves the prime minister's support. It won't be easy for Gordon Brown to dig himself out of the hole he has fallen into in recent weeks.
When Nick Robinson dropped the bombshell on the Today Programme that Jon Mendelsohn had known about how David Abrahams was funnelling money to the Labour party, I assumed that—if this was true—Mendelsohn would be gone by PMQs. But he’s still there tonight. Mendelsohn’s has stated that he was aware of what was going on, he was uncomfortable with it but that he was assured that it was legal. What you think now comes down to the question of whether or not you think that Mendelsohn had a duty to seek the opinion of a lawyer about whether this highly unusual arrangement was illegal, which it is. Gordon Brown has decided to tie himself to Mendelson; his continuing role with the Labour party is evidence that Brown tacitly endorses his behaviour.
Vince Cable’s new nickname for the Prime Minister looks like sticking and so we now have to work out who can claim credit for it. As Stephen points out, Leo McKinistry used it in his Express column on November 19th. Can anyone find an earlier usage? Leo concluded his column by saying, “Brown shows all the signs of becoming a unique creation: the gruff, unbalanced mediocrity of “Tricky Dicky” Nixon mixed with the comic absurdity of Mr Bean.” A few months ago such a judgement would have seemed absurd, yet it is now on the verge of becoming the conventional wisdom. Mr Brown needs to find his inner Blair if he is to get out of this one.
Three Line Whip, the new Telegraph politics blog, points out that because Harriet Harman was elected by the Labour party membership she serves at their pleasure not Gordon Brown’s. This means that Ms Harman is safe unless this scandal meta-sizes again. Also worth checking out at the Three Line Whip, which promises to become a daily must read, is Iain Martin’s assessment of PMQs. Iain is surely right that Brown needed a clear win today to restore his authority and he didn’t get it. But judging by how many people are quoting him, it was Vince Cable who landed the most telling blow on the Prime Minister.
Vince Cable’s contribution at PMQ’s today was a classic: “This House has noted the Prime Minister’s remarkable transformation from Stalin to Mr Bean in the past few weeks.
Nick Robinson sets out what he believes Jon Mendelson knew and when he knew it in this blog entry. The series of events as laid out raises serious questions about Mendelson's judgement Mendelson is a Brown appointee and if he remains in post, and Sky is reporting that the Brown camp are inclined to protect him, then Brown is effectively endorsing the way that he handled this business. If Brown wants to avoid having to defend Mendelson, then he’ll have to dismiss him before noon.
Nick Robinson has just reported on the Today Programme that Jon Mendelsohn had been told by Peter Watt, the Labour Secretary General who has already resigned over this scandal, how David Abrahams was making these donations to the Labour party. Mendelsohn was unhappy with the arrangement but reportedly did not inform the relevant people at the electoral commission of it but instead sought to resolve it himself which is apparently why Abrahams received a handwritten letter from him on Monday. Now, Mendelsohn has not yet confirmed this or spoken to Robinson but if true it transforms the story. George Osborne has already demanded Mendelsohn’s resignation. Realistically a decision has to be made on this before Prime Minister’s Questions at noon.
The mysterious David Abrahams called into Newsnight this evening and his exchange with Jeremy Paxman makes things even murkier but does seem to bring the scandal closer to Downing Street. Just to add to the list of questions that now need answering, the Dunns have now remembered being given money by Abrahams and in exchange giving him a signed but blank cheque. If the Brownites are into gallows humour, they’ll love this Daniel Finkelstein column. If you are not a Brownite, you’ll laugh out loud at it.
I’d urge you to read Stephen Pollard on how well known David Abrahams was on the Labour circuit in the 1990s and this post from Boulton and co by Joey Jones, the two posts taken together suggest that this story will run and run, . Jones spoke to Baroness Jay this morning about why the Benn camp turned down the money and reports back as follows: The number of questions that need to be answered just keeps increasing. This could end up being as politically harmful as the last fundraising scandal to engulf Labour. “Essentially she backed Hilary Benn's version of events. She told me how David Abrahams approached her at a party do, and said he wanted to make a donation to Benn "discreetly".
Gordon Brown’s press conference was, unsurprisingly, dominated by the Labour fundraising scandal. Notably, Brown described Peter Watt’s resignation as a “necessary first step.” He also expressed his confidence in Harriet Harman’s explanation of how she ended up accepting an improper donation. Although, Nick Robinson thinks that Harriet Harman should be "Worry. Very worried" by what Brown said or, more accurately, didn't say. For a contrarian take on this issue see Michael White’s Guardian Unlimited Diary. White writes, “Don't fall for the latest ''sleaze'' campaign now being run by the media and the opposition about David Abrahams, the Geordie developer who smuggled £600,000 into Labour's coffers through intermediaries.
Daniel Finkelstein flags up the key questions that Labour must answer about this whole fundraising affair. Do read the whole thing.
The morning papers are dominated by the Labour fundraising scandal and the resignation of the Labour Secretary-General Peter Watt. The Daily Telegraph reports that, “David Abrahams, the millionaire property developer at the centre of the furore, won planning permission for a controversial development after the Highways Agency, under the department run by the then Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander, one of the Prime Minister's closest allies, removed its objections to the scheme. The decision was made after Mr Abrahams bankrolled the party via two of his employees. • Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, received financial backing for her campaign from Mr Abrahams, which was registered as coming from one of his employees.