swat's almanack says: peter hain is innocent

swatantra Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:26:04 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Poor Peter Hain, he is being hounded for failing to declare donations to his DL election campaign. Its something that can be easily overlooked in the heat of an election campaign. Its wasn't his fault unless he was made directly aware of it himself. Surely he would have had his Agent take care of all those legal technicalities. If any heads should roll then its that of those Agents. He's done the right thing and apologised and it should be left at that.





tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
swat's almanack says: peter hain is innocent | 12 comments (12 topical)

Re: swat's almanack says: peter hain is innocent (#1)

by rwendland on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:57:13 PM GMT

Channel 4 News reports the undeclared donations are about £100,000 - but worse that how this has been spent cannot easily be explained. These donations are about double that of other Deputy Leader candidates.

Unlike parliamentary elections when an Agent handles donations, Peter Hain is personally responsible for declaring these.

C4 News reports No 10 says it "does have full confidence in Peter hain" ...


Re: swat's almanack says: peter hain is innocent (#3)

by swatantra on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:32:20 PM GMT

...well that means that he could be gone by next week! Pity his Cabinet career should end on a low. It would be no point in brazening it out and further embarassing the Party.


[ Parent ]

Re: swat's almanack says: peter hain is innocent (#4)

by swatantra on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:27:10 PM GMT

What Gordon could do is reshuffle his Cabinet now and read the riot act to any wayward Ministers. Labour cannot afford any lengthy embarassments at this moment in time.


[ Parent ]

Deputy Leadership spending (#2)

by rwendland on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:30:32 PM GMT

Noticed The Guardian had a nifty summary of candidate donations/spending that might be of interest:

  • Hilary Benn: £4,000
  • Hazel Blears: £73,000
  • Jon Cruddas: £143,000
  • Peter Hain: £180,000-£200,000
  • Harriet Harman: £46,000, plus £50,000 of her own loans
  • Alan Johnson: £54,000


Re: Deputy Leadership spending (#7)

by TimSwift on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:23:03 PM GMT

Over half a million pounds of donations spent on an uninspiring campaign for a job of relatively little significance. That's money that could have made a huge difference if it was spread over a few marginal constituencies over the next couple of years.

That seems to me to be the real issue, and the real shame, of this story for the Labour Party. Okay, you cannot have a democractic election without allowing people to campaign, but was spending on this level really ever justifiable?

It would be good to hear some of the candidates defend what they have spent.


[ Parent ]

Re: Deputy Leadership spending (#8)

by swatantra on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:29:39 PM GMT

There's no answer to that Tim; that's why you won't here a peep from them.


[ Parent ]

Re: Deputy Leadership spending (#9)

by rwendland on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:18:21 PM GMT

Have to remember a second class stamp to 180,000 members costs £43,200. Really the party ought to create a better cooperative method of candidates getting their info to members. The members did need a leadership election of some kind after all these years, if we hadn't had that I bet a lot more members would be leaving.


[ Parent ]

Re: Deputy Leadership spending (#10)

by swatantra on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:53:16 PM GMT

How come H Benn only managed to spend £4000. Good for him. Sending out a letter to each member 2nd class was a complete waste of time. I put Harriet's and the others straight in my junk mail bin. Why? because I'd followed  each candidtes campaign in the newspapers, in their interviews in the media on radio and TV and watched the debates, etc. I didn't want their CV as well coming through my letter box as well thank you. What a complete waste of time and money. If Harriet mortgaged her house and Hain channelled money allegedly through PPF, then it didn't make a blind bit of difference to their campaigns. Harriet was elected because we wanted a woman in a balanced leadership. That's why she was my 2nd preference.


[ Parent ]

Re: Deputy Leadership spending (#11)

by rwendland on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:17:33 PM GMT

I think the Guardian has made a mistake on Benn's donations.  The Electoral Commission has £33,925 down as donations to Benn at about the time of the deputy leadership election.

Makes you wonder if The Guardian has made other mistakes in this list. Hain also had a £25,000 interest-free loan from Progressive Policies Forum on top of his donations, which he has been asked to repay this week-end.


[ Parent ]

Re: swat's almanack says: peter hain is innocent (#5)

by treborc on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:58:11 AM GMT

He is busy, thats why he forgot, even after the £5,000 he was so busy to do the book work, £5,000 ok one chance, well £100,000 is a bit more serious.


Re: swat's almanack says: peter hain is innocent (#6)

by Red Dead on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:48:09 AM GMT

Peter Hain is personally responsible for making sure that all donations to his DL campaign are registered with the Electoral Commission and Register of Members Interests.  He has to sign the forms before they were submitted.  He should have noticed that he stopped having to sign forms after the end of May.  Being busy being a Minister and ignorance are no excuses.  He has been woefully incompetent in this manner.  Is this the standard we expect from Labour Ministers?  Would we be so accommodating to similar mistakes by a Tory?  I am embarased by the antics of Peter Hain and Harriet Harman seeking to get elected DL.  You have to wonder what all the money - 4 times most other campaigns - was spent on.  That would be an interesting decleration to see.  Also you have to wonder how the donors felt giving so much money to wind up a poor fifth.


Re: swat's almanack says: peter hain is innocent (#12)

by Just Labour on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:54:06 AM GMT

Hain's DWP have a tought campaign against benefit fraud. It is not an acceptable reason to say you were to busy to report a change in circumstances, or that you left it to someone else, or you didn't know you had to report it. Unwitting benefit fraud is still treated by his department as benefit fraud.  

He should go; no if, no buts.


swat's almanack says: peter hain is innocent | 12 comments (12 topical)