Hain donor asked to keep his name secret - report

Willie Nagel, a diamond dealer, is one of the 17 figures who both donated and lent money to Peter Hain. According to the Financial Times, the pair encountered each other when Hain was in the Foreign Office, when they worked together on developing a certificate system to stem the flow of conflict diamonds.

The FT has also been told that when Nagel was approached to donate to Hain's campaign, he wanted to keep his identity secret.

"Last year, Mr Nagel, who is 83, was approached by John Underwood, a former Labour communications director, to give money to Mr Hain’s campaign. Mr Nagel declined because he did not wish his name to be made public. Mr Underwood later asked Mr Nagel to donate to Progressive Policies Forum, a think-tank pursuing worthwhile policy causes. He gave £5,000 and made a three-month loan of £25,000. He was not told the money was going to Mr Hain."

Progressive Policies Forum, incidentally, was set up in December 2006, has no website and lists a solicitor as its only named director and last night nobody in Westminster seemed to have heard of it. Nagel is understood to have requested that Hain repay a £25,000 interest-free loan this weekend. Hain's bad week is not over yet.

Update This is a good summary of what happened next from the broganblog

Comments

[john problem]

It seems that Hain et al were quite capable of organising donations, but overlooked declaring them because of pressure of work in, um, Northern Ireland. One knows how difficult it is to keep up with paperwork these days, and nobody on an expense account likes filling in his expense reports. However, Hain should have tried harder - the experience would have served him in good stead for the exacting and complicated role of looking after Wales and that maelstrom of complexity, Work and Pensions. Let us hope he finds some good assistants with more experience of management in the real world than he has.

[amanfromMars]

"Last year, Mr Nagel, who is 83, was approached by John Underwood, a former Labour communications director, to give money to Mr Hain’s campaign. Mr Nagel declined because he did not wish his name to be made public. Mr Underwood later asked Mr Nagel to donate to Progressive Policies Forum, a think-tank pursuing worthwhile policy causes. He gave £5,000 and made a three-month loan of £25,000. He was not told the money was going to Mr Hain."

That is a pretty damning statement of facts. And not only for Peter Hain as Mr Underwood appears to have been less than duly diligent with Mr Nagel's express wishes and possibly even much worse should "Progressive Policies Forum, a think-tank pursuing worthwhile policy causes" be nothing more than a piggy bank of the slush fund kind.

And it is inexcusably despicable that, even in the light of that which is known, let alone what else will be uncovered, that Mr Hain has not done the Honourable Member thing and taken his walk of Shame like a man. And it is an affront and a disgrace, perpetrated upon each and every one of us, that the Labour Party failed to immediately ensure that Mr Hain made the walk.

The Labour Government, Fit for the Purpose of Transparent Democratic Governance and Administration of Public Assets and Funds? ....... I don't think so whenever at every turn there are such hidden deceptions/half truths/"oversights".

It all smacks far too much like a gang milking the System behind the scenes thinking that State Security is their Privilege to Abuse at Will as Members of Parliament rather than Serve as Lead Exemplars. Some would immediately think to not unreasonably conclude that that would make them no more than just common criminals rather than aspirant leaders and it would impossible to fault them for that.

The words "sub-prime" springs to mind with Mr Hain and Labour selling themselves as being a valuable asset and pocketing the cash and then the buyer discovering that the spiel is toxic and unsellable.

And all of that would make their Position Untenable. And quite why Parliamentary Honourable Members of whatever Political Persuasion would tolerate such Abuse of Government Control and Power is a Question which they would do well to Ask themselves as it directly questions their own perceived values in a Fitness for Parliamentary Purpose, let alone Government.

I have No Confidence in the Government, and would question the rationale [if not the sanity] of a polar opposite view........ for it may be founded upon gravy train funding rather than ethical practice.

A Change would be .....nice. And that is another Promise/Sub-Prime Boast/Boost which is not/cannot be delivered by the present Gang and its Sub Prime Minister.

I trust you realise that the whole Parliamentary System of Governance and Administrative Privilege is on Trial ...as would be all those Intelligence Services which would profess to Support it with Secret Intelligence and its Oversight and Mentoring. Or are we to conclude that that Facility is also not available? If Brains are not running the Show, what is?

Seems like there should be some Beta IntelAIgency providing much better joined-up and transparent Intelligence. Would you expect that to be provided Privately or built Publicly because Intelligence works for the Greater Good and is not bounded by Third Party Systems as its Brief in the Management of Perception must be Inclusive of All Systems Input.

And yes, you can conclude that such All Inclusive Management of Perception Systems exist and they work Virtually in CyberSpace for ITs Immediate Global Transparent Reach.

But the Government/Cabinet Office have known that for a number of years too and have studiously avoided any mention of it.

I wonder why?

[David Boothroyd]

If, as is suggested by Ben Brogan, the reason why money intended for Peter Hain's campaign was given to the Progressive Policies Forum was to disguise its source, then that means that the campaign must have fully intended to declare that it got money from the PPF. (Non-declaration of money from Willie Nagel and non-declaration of money from the Progressive Policies Forum is still the same mistake)

In other words, it's impossible to accuse Peter Hain of disguising the source of his campaign funds both through (a) failing to declare them, and (b) channeling them through the Progressive Policies Forum. At the most, it must have been one or the other.

The most likely explanation is that he intended neither, and that Hain intended to establish the PPF and publicly launch it after his deputy leadership bid, having identified sources of funds and political allies.

[amanfromMars]

"The most likely explanation is that he intended neither, and that Hain intended to establish the PPF and publicly launch it after his deputy leadership bid, having identified sources of funds and political allies."

David,

This statement from the horse's mouth would suggest no such intention.

"He said: "I was not involved in establishing the Progressive Policies Forum but it was prepared and able to assist in making donations to the campaign and did so." .... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7185087.stm

[Richard]

Hain has just announced that the failure to declare these donations was ''caused by poor administration and lack of early and clear disclosure.” He also declared that ''he is getting on with the job''.

Here is a list of Labour ministers who, in the past, have tried to shut down the debate and state they are now ''getting on with the job'' .

1.John Prescott after being caught playing croquet whilst pretending to be deputy prime minister.
2.Harriet Harman after being caught up in the funding controversy in the battle to be deputy Labour leader.
3. Alistair Darling after the catastrophic run on Northern Rock
4. Alistair Darling ( again ) after HMRC had lost the personal details of 25 million benefit claimants.

Is nt this old line becoming a little worn ??

Gordon Brown clearly does not have the courage to hold his own ministers to account. Pathetic.