One cannot defend the indefensible and the most that can be said for the Prime Minister at his trial by news conference yesterday was that he did not even try. Instead, in relation to the proxy donations from property developer David Abrahams, he adopted a near identical strategy to the one he used for the child benefit data debacle last week: he acted swiftly, announced an inquiry, promised changes, then sought to distance himself from the crisis. If he thinks that his government will avoid further flak from this latest scandal, he is mistaken.
One cannot defend the indefensible and the most that can be said for the Prime Minister at his trial by news conference yesterday was that he did not even try. Instead, in relation to the proxy donations from property developer David Abrahams, he adopted a near identical strategy to the one he used for the child benefit data debacle last week: he acted swiftly, announced an inquiry, promised changes, then sought to distance himself from the crisis. If he thinks that his government will avoid further flak from this latest scandal, he is mistaken.
It has now emerged that not only did Labour receive more than £600,000 in unlawful donations, but that the same donor offered money through a third party to three separate candidates in the party's leadership contest. Only Gordon Brown's team refused the offer outright. Harriet Harman accepted £5000 "in good faith" and Hilary Benn turned down a proxy donation but later accepted a cheque made in Mr Abrahams's name. Both could be vulnerable: Mr Benn because his response suggests that knowledge of the irregular proxy arrangement extended beyond Peter Watt, Labour's general secretary, who fell on his sword on Monday, and Ms Harman because she failed to question why a stranger - Mr Abrahams's secretary - was offering her such a donation.
Despite the Prime Minister's prolonged grilling from journalists on the subject yesterday, there are still more questions than answers in the Abrahams affair. The most important is whether deceit or incompetence lies at the heart of this business. Lord Whitty's report on what happened must establish who, beyond Mr Watt, knew of this arrangement and how long proxy donations had been slipping into Labour Party coffers. And, though there is no suggestion at this stage that this donor received favourable treatment as a result of his largesse, his property dealings should be subject to scrutiny. It is essential that the public has trust in the integrity of the planning system.
As David Cameron suggested yesterday, this story raises the whole question of the arrogance of power. However, in the "arms race" for party funding of recent years, none of the main parties emerges as whiter than white. The Tories have yet to resolve the issue over accepting donations from the Belize-based businessman Michael Ashcroft and the LibDems have been criticised for accepting £2.4m from overseas tycoon Michael Brown, who was subsequently jailed for perjury. Placing caps on individual donations is easier said than done, as the Americans have discovered.
One result of the cash-for-honours inquiry is that the idea of giving large donations to political parties looks increasingly like a recipe for trouble. How will the gap be filled except by public funding for parties? That may be unpopular but the issue of restoring confidence in political life is becoming increasingly urgent. Mr Brown has acted promptly and with propriety in this matter. In addition to the measures outlined yesterday, he should move to give teeth to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. If transparency in these matters is not volunteered, it must be imposed. Whether the government has been damaged irreparably or merely badly bruised is as yet unclear.
