Hain quits

Peter Hain has quit the cabinet after his funding mess was referred to the police. He has been naive in not making sure his papers were in order, if not malicious and has paid a heavy price. For something rather avoidable and pointless I think this was inevitable but also a bit of a waste of a long career.

Hain and party funding

All along my thoughts are that Peter Hain has been a very silly man in letting himself get embroiled in a funding "scandal" at a time when political funding was high on the agenda. Surely this is the time to be super careful? After the whole cash for honours or not fiasco, following years of corruption claims against the Tories, surely a seemingly able politician should have been aware that he needed to be water-tight?

On Sunday Andrew Rawnsley had it right: "the political classes even now don't get it. After all the sleaze eruptions of the Major and the Blair years, you would have thought that any politician with a care for his or her reputation would be careful to the point of paranoia about funding. If only for reasons of self-preservation, they ought to have the rules lasered on to their eyeballs and those of everyone who works for them."

I just don't get why leading politicians don't employ decent lawyers to work with the electoral commission to make sure everything is above board. What is even more absurd is that many of these problems are arising from laws that Labour put in place only recently. So we should know better.

It appears the Tories are still frightened about Michael Ashcroft and would rather not make themselves targets by attacking Labour on funding when there are so many questions about their own banker.

By refusing to look at state funding for political parties and allowing these pointless "scandals" to repeat themselves, leading politicians are damaging faith in politics when it really isn't necessary.

Party donations

Thinking more about Peter Hain's "mistakes" and that he this is now to be officially investigated is it worth speculating more on what happened? For me, he made quite a large oversight at a time when political donations were high on the political agenda. There really was no need for this. It shows incompetance at the very least. I don't think it was malicious, but this affair has heaped negative publicity when the Party needed it least.

If Hain survives he deserves a severe ticking off at the minimum. I still can't understand what he needed all that money for. Having had it, he didn't spend it very wisely. I suppose I feel slightly sorry for him that he let himself get in this situation. For the Party, I'm just fed up with this series of administration blunders diverting attention from trying to govern and setting the political agenda.

My previous posts on this matter were linked by "Guy Fawkes" under the banner "Labour rank and file disown Hain." This is turn led to attention from BBC Radio 4's World at One asking for my views.

Clegg makes first keynote speech

Unfortunately for Nick Clegg and Peter Hain, Clegg's first keynote speech as leader of the Lib Dems isn't the top story anywhere. Hain is. A quick glance around the news sites shows Hain firmly perched in pole position. BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, The Times, even the Indie (well it is a magazine really and they probably can't afford to update their website at the weekends). People obviously don't care. What is clear is that nobody is remotely interested in the Lib Dems and that Hain has been in the headlines for too long and will be off shortly.

Poor administration, what about your department?

So as Peter Hain continues to blame "poor administration" for the funding mess surrounding his Deputy Leadership campaign, some rather large questions need to be answered. Some already have. If he is unable to run his own small office effectively, how can one expect him to properly manage the Department for Work and Pensions?

One question I do have, is why did he need £200000 to run a campaign he was never likely to win for a post that is totally pointless?

Donations, paperwork...

Now that Peter Hain has got in on the act and "forgotten" to declare over £100k of donations that he himself solicited, I'm feeling a little tired of all this. He has said he "takes responsibility" for this. So what does that mean? Saying sorry and taking the heat and carrying on in Cabinet?

Normally I feel quite tolerant of genuine mistakes, however, even if Hain didn't personally have to fill out the forms for the Electoral Commission himself, surely he is responsible for ensuring that it got done. Political parties need to be more savvy and ensure they appoint good lawyers and get everything checked to be absolutely certain everything is above board.

I have come across people who have worked (or do work) for Hain in the past and I sincerely hope that he hasn't filled his office with political zealots who have never worked outside politics. With that amount of money coming in I'm sure he could afford some proper staff.

If there is nothing illegal about the money itself (there has been no suggestion that there is), then why get embroiled in a row over poor administration? Totally avoidable.

Deputy Leader Hustings

Last night's Fabian - Progress Deputy Leadership hustings certainly helped me decide between the six candidates. When the carousel started I didn't see much between the candidates, though I thought that a Brown premiership should be balanced by a female deputy. My favoured female candidate was Harriet Harman, though I felt her performance was woeful.

When Harman spoke I switched off, she didn't show any passion, rambled and didn't grab my attention.

Blears = passion.
Hain = polished though not engaging.
Johnson = relaxed.
Benn = kept talking about international development. Not enough Party talk for me.
Cruddas = looked out of his depth.

You could tell it was a Fabian audience, I felt there was too much talk about education, though there was an interesting discussion about the 11+. Peter Hain said selection is not a socialist issue, Alan Johnson thought it electoral suicide to scrap the existing grammar schools and I agree. I'd like to see an end to selection, however Labour's electoral position makes that impossible at the moment.

Michael Crick thought Hazel Blears the winner of the night. I agree. She showed passion, desire and enthusiasm, exactly what the Labour Party needs to reinvigorate itself and campaign to win. At university I used to go to Salford Labour Party to phone canvass every week and she was infectious one on one as she was last ngiht in front of an audience.

Peter Hain came across as slick and polished, every bit the professional politician. However I didn't get the feeling from him that he was "one of us" - a party member in cabinet. I feel he wants the job for status, not for what Blears would do, to motivate the Party.

Alan Johnson, up to now, my choice, came across as relaxed and natural. I think he would make a very strong Deputy Leader. He had all the best quips and reminded those present that Labour needs to win elections to do anything, which is why some compromises have to be made.

I'm now undecided between Blears and Johnson, though I'm tipping in favour of Johnson. I do so because I think he comes across better in public. Blears can often come across as "media trained" and like a bit of a Blairite robot. That is harsh I know and she really isn't like that, but on TV it sometimes looks like it.