Why the cash for honours inquiry is a success

The cash for honours fiasco? A triumph.

The purpose of raising money is to advance a party's political cause. But if you handle donors and donations carelessly you risk damaging the party's cause more than the money secured advances it. In a competitive political system, you won't do this too often. That's why democracy works.

The CPS was not able to find enough evidence of lawbreaking to feel confident of securing a conviction. But the decision to offer posts as Labour working peers to a number of recent donors with very little in the way of Labour links was still a poor one. And something that should be discouraged.

As a result of the investigation, Labour won't do it again. Nor will anyone else. The money will be judged not worth the potential political costs.

No one goes to jail. We can move on from the whole boring issue. And it won't happen again. See what I mean? A triumph.   

Comments

[Mandarin Orange]

Yes ... but ... doesn't it also make it less likely that the police will in future be prepared to commit resources to investigating wrong-doing in the corridors of power?

And doesn't it also create the risk that if concerns are raised in the future, those doing the raising will be accused of 'crying wolf'?

It was clear from Yates of the Yard's press conference today that he felt there was sufficient evidence to proceed. The fact that there haven't been any prosecutions means that none of the evidence that the investigation did unearth, will now see the light of day.
I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with that.

You can imagine some snivelling loyalist (for some reason a nasty mutant hybrid of Gerald Kaufman and Denis MacShane is now manifesting itself to my mind's eye) popping up on Newsnight to respond to such a story, crowing about how there were similar allegations in 2006-7 but no evidence was produced etc.

At the very least, it stops some way short of being a 'triumph'. And it leaves a very heavy cloud of suspicion still hanging over the 'body politic'.

[Simon Stephenson]

"As a result of the investigation, Labour won't do it again. Nor will anyone else. The money will be judged not worth the potential political costs.

No one goes to jail. We can move on from the whole boring issue. And it won't happen again. See what I mean? A triumph."

It will never be a triumph. It will be an acceptable resolution if the establishment accept the need for proper self-regulation, in order to create an ambience in which integrity of character is an absolute and irreducible expectation.

Not just backing off for fear of getting caught, which is all you seem to think will be the result of all this.

I, for one, am not happy to have shysters running the country.

[jailhouselawyer]

The flaw in your argument is paragraph 30 of the CPS statement: "30. In relation to possible breaches of the 2000 Act, we are satisfied that we cannot exclude the possibility that any loans made – all of which were made following receipt by the Labour Party of legal advice - can properly be characterised as commercial".

[Ali Gledhill]

Really? Surely if a crime is committed, some punishment should be given? Maybe not prison, but I value democracy higher than a simple shrug of the shoulders.

[adam]

I agree with Daniel on this. The CPS have to have a sufficiently strong case to proceed with a prosecution and they've decided they don't. That doesn't mean there's no case to answer, just not a strong enough one.

Maybe this will make the government change its mind about its plans to detain people indefinitely on a mere suspicion of wrongdoing...