Who stood in the election to become the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party last year?

• Harriet Harman [the eventual winner]
• Peter Hain
• Alan Johnson
• Hilary Benn
• Hazel Blears
• Jon Cruddas

Two of these have already been in big problems over donations to their campaigns - Harriet Harman accepting £5,000 from a proxy donor, and Peter Hain failing to declare £103,000 to the Electoral Commission, culminating in him having to quit his job over it.

And now yet another of the candidates is being accused of having donation problems over his campaign - Alan Johnson.
It does seem like the deputy leadership campaign has been marked more by donation scandals after it's completion than by the result itself, since now half of the candidates have been accused of scandal or corruption - especially since Harriet Harman will be interviewed by police over her illegal proxy donation.

It does seem however, that the Guardian has forgotten all about Harman's donation problems, since they start their article on Alan Johnson's problems today with:
And then go on only to mention Hain as the other person with donation issues.

Maybe the best thing for the rest of the deputy leader candidates would be for them to frantically double-check all of their donations, just in case they have amde a mistake as badly as the other three we have seen so far...

Sources: The Times, BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian

A Labour policy I agree with!

Excellent. This is what should happen. I blogged about my support for this idea when it was first suggested by the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, and even before that, when the issue was raised by the controversial kidney game show in the Netherlands.

Of course this is subject the various caveats, such as that the opt-out system is very easy and openly available and that the family of the deceased have the right to prevent organs being used unless that person has explicitly expressed the wish that their organs be re-used. That way, anyone who explicitly doesn't want their organs to be used to save another person's life can ensure that they are not.

The proposal makes complete sense - it will save lives and should reduce the cost to the NHS of supporting those who need organ transplants, and then enable them to be productive members of society again. It's a win-win situation.

Source: The Telegraph

"A smoke-free country will improve the health of thousands of people, reduce the temptation to smoke and encourage smokers to quit."
- Alan Johnson, Health Secretary

A plethora of "No Smoking" signs have now gone up across England, outside all "enclosed public spaces". But England is not going to be "smoke-free," like Alan Johnson claims, unless somehow smoking was made illegal without any of us noticing. The ban, now in place [since 6am this morning], only exists in enclosed public spaces. There is no provision or legal standing for the prevention of smoking in other places. However, this hasn't of course stopped some councils, who have unilaterally decided to extend the ban to playgrounds and parks. This is, however, not legally enforceable. Councils do not have the ability or right to prevent people smoking there.

Smoking is only illegal inside - not outside. Thus England certainly won't be "smoke-free" - the smokers will simply all move outside. What it will mean is that doorways and beer gardens become pretty much the preserve of smokers. Whilst some smokers will kick the habit due to the law and a disgusting attempt to get children to morally blackmail their parents, I very much doubt that the vast majority will.

This sort of authoritarian ban will not make England "smoke-free" at all. Instead, it will simply persecute a minority for having a legitimate habit - quite disgusting, yes, but legitimate. And that is simply wrong. If you want a "smoke-free country" then make smoking illegal, Alan Johnson. Actually bite the bullet. We all know that that is what you and Labour want to do.

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph