Why didn't Brown sack Hain two weeks ago
It didn't have to happen this way. When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister he asked Sir Philip Mawer, then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to be his ministerial watchdog. Sir Philip's job was
to investigate any sleaze allegation as they surface and report to the Prime Minister, who would back or sack. Yet when questions over Peter Hain's failure to declare donations were first aired, Brown failed to refer the issue to him. Why? Could this become tricky for Brown?
Of course, a Cabinet Minister suddenly facing a police investigation and the possibility of a criminal conviction is unlikely to be a Cabinet minister for long, even if he denies the allegations. But what - actually - has changed in the last couple of hours? There are no new revelations. Did Gordon Brown not know the facts already? Why did he have to wait for one quango (the Electoral Commission) to send a report to a public body (the Met)? An intriguing News of the World article two weeks ago (no link... so reproduced below the fold) suggested Brown considered but then backed down from sacking Hain, with officials telling him to "consider his position" but Hain refusing to walk. Did Brown bottle it?
Update: David Cameron appears to be gunning for Brown on these lines... (see below the fold)
Cash row minister is defiant
GORDON Brown backed out of sacking donations row minister Peter Hain this week-hoping he would take a hint and resign.
Officials at No10 told the Work and Pensions Secretary he should "consider his position" after it emerged he failed to declare Pounds 103,000 in donations to his deputy leadership campaign.
But the defiant Cabinet member refused to walk -leaving the PM with no choice but to back him.
A source close to Mr Hain said: "Peter wanted to battle it out, but the advice he was getting from Downing Street was that it may have been sensible to go on Thursday. But he was never told explicitly to go so the Prime Minister had to back him."
The revelation could lead to further 'bottler' taunts aimed at Mr Brown by Tories, who gave him the tag after he cancelled plans for a general election. As Downing Street declared again that they had "full confidence" in him last night, Mr Hain predicted he would be cleared by the two inquiries into his finances.
He said: "I am more than happy for the inquiries by the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to take their course and meanwhile I will get on with my Cabinet jobs." He added: "I apologise for the embarrassment caused by poor administration and lack of early and clear disclosure."
Questions have also been raised over the decision to keep raising funds when his deputy leadership contest had finished.
Mr Hain is expected to have to hand over Pounds 17,000 to the Labour Party in 'administration fees' because of the row.
He also has to find Pounds 25,000 to repay an interest-free loan, paid through the Progressive Policies Forum (PPF).
Six donations totalling Pounds 26,000 were also paid through the PPF-a 'think-tank' that employs no staff and has not published any work since its inception in December 2006.
Its boss John Underwood admitted: "PPF has not been involved in the publication of pamphlets or the development of new policy initiativesbecause its resources were put behind Peter Hain's deputy leadership campaign. We propose to seek further support and to engage in these activities in the future."
OUR VIEW: Page 6
Comments