Nick Clegg proposes such a plan. Now the flippant answer to this is simple "remove the Lib Dems, then". But this doesn't answer the question. And besides, there never will be 150 Lib Dem MPs to remove.

On a serious note, Clegg's justification doesn't work. He wants to remove 150 MPs from the Commons - taking it to around 500 - to save money. Well, primarily to save political parties from having to raise money from big donors. Let's have a little pop quiz:

So why do political parties raise money?
a) To pay MPs
b) To run the rest of the party
c) So they can swan off on holiday

So Clegg's idea that fewer MPs equal less need for party fund-raising just doesn't make sense... especially since he also wants more state money to go to political parties. Which would eat up the £30m savings he said would be generated by cutting the number of MPs. There is, of course, another way of saving money - cutting MPs salaries or expense allowances.


The idea of cutting the number of MPs also raises other questions - such as the potential impact on democracy. Is fewer MPs a goof thing? Not in and of itself. If anything, actually, more of a bad thing as MPs become more and more distant from their constituents. Any reduction in the numebr of MPs would have to be matched in devolution of powers to local councils, or as part of a proper devolution system - equal English, Scottish, and Welsh parliaments.

The plan to reduce the number of MPs sounds good in a press release or a speech, but in reality it isn't much cop. The downsides of the loss of representatives simply isn't worth the tiny amount of money that is [supposedly] to be saved.

Peter Hain failed to declare £103,000 that he raised to pay for his failed deputy leadership bid to the Electoral Commission. Similar to Harriet Harman, yet with a far far far larger amount - but at least they are [or so he claims] made by people legally entitled to donate. A bit of a side-swipe at Harman?

Yet what is Hain's reaction? Of course it isn't to resign from the Cabinet. No New Labour politician would ever consider resigning on principle! Perish the thought. Hain, like the other NuLab ministers, would far rather make a weak apology, express his "regrets", but then blithely declare that it is his duty to remain in the government.

Rather than actually take the flack for their big big mistakes, New Labour minister very much seem to prefer to just mouth the word "sorry" and then feeling that now that they have "apologised" then they can just continue. And then they wonder why no-on trusts them any more.

Sources: BBC, The Guardian, The Times

Labour have had a few. The Conservatives too. But now it's the Lib Dems turn to have another* donation 'scandal'.

The Lib Dems always claim to be less corrupt than anyone else, yet this just proves what is more likely is that because no-one really cares, they just get caught less. And now for them to get a little of their own medicine, with calls for an inquiry.

They are at least as bad as everyone else.

British politics may not be whiter than white, but it is at least better than most others. Of course we want - and should want - it to be whiter than white, but that will only be achieved through a requirement for as good as complete transparency over party funding and diligent journalists keeping a tab on politicians of all parties.

What will be interesting about this is how new leader Nick Clegg reacts to and deals with it.

* Remember Michael Brown's £2.4m, anyone?

If what the Conservatives are claiming is true, then yes:

If this is indeed what is happening - that trade unions are not advertising the fact that members can opt out of paying the political levy - then there can be no doubt that it is illegal and that the trade unions [and indirectly the Labour party] are in breach of the law.

The paying of a political levy should really be an opt in rather than opt out system anyway, since it costs them extra money and is going to finance a political party which may or may not represent the beliefs of the individual involved. Since the trade unions have a vested interest in getting their members to pay the levy in order to give them power over the Labour party, they are unlikely to make any opt out system as clear or easy as it should be - as is evidenced by this Tory claim - but the opposite would be true with an opt in system.

What is interesting is that the Times also has an article on the completely legal donations made to the Conservatives by a "Vegas casino billionaire" who both resides in London and made his £70,000 worth of donations over three years - a minuscule amount compared to the millions of pounds a year that the trade unions bankroll Labour - through his UK limited companies.

David Cameron now has a party donation scandal all his very own.

Ouch, that's gotta hurt. Cameron's own constituency association taking illegal donations.

However, there is no denying that it is not as bad as Labour's scandal with Abrahams. To start with, the amount of money is tiny in comparison - more than £600,000 compared to about £7,000. There is also the fact that these donations were received on 21 August this year, rather than systematically taken and covered up over a rather lengthy period of time, and was handed to the Electoral Commission without the kind of fuss that beset Labour. However, it can be compared to the Wendy Alexander illegal donation, but at least neither Cameron or his Association wrote a thank you letter to the donors with an overseas address!

Yes, this has a whiff of hypocrisy about it. But it is hardly of the same level as that which has befallen Labour. This appears to be far more of a simple mistake rather than purposeful deceit and corruption. But it doesn't look good for Cameron after attacking Labour over similar issues. Especially since all political parties got given money to stop this happening.

It seems to me that those who defended Alexander also seem to be those who are attacking Cameron. If Alexander is innocent of any wrongdoing, Cameron certainly is.

Sources: The Guardian, The Telegraph

... and even though Labour took the £180,000 they were offered, they still broke electoral law.

It is absolutely disgraceful that even though they were given £183,052 by the Electoral Commission in order for "training staff in the duties imposed by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and was specifically for the party to prepare for its requirements on submitting accounts and declaring donations above £5,000."

What annoys me most about this is that it is yet more taxpayers money being given to political parties, even if for a specific purpose. Parties shouldn't need to be given this sort of money for them to sort out their own internal procedures to comply with the law. Companies don't get given money to train staff and to prepare to meet its legal requirements, so why should political parties? Obviously the money they given cannot have been spent properly on doing this, or else the mistakes that led to "Donorgate" simply would not have happened.

Since they were given money from the taxpayer's purse in order to comply with the law that they passed, it makes their acceptance of known illegal donations even less acceptable.

That all political parties have received this money as well means that for any of them to break the law is simply not good enough, and implies a lack of respect of the tax-paying electorate.

Sources: The Times, BBC

David Abraham may never get his money back since, under electoral law, donations must be returned within 30 days or else any which any forfeited gifts must be paid into the Treasury’s Consolidated Fund - something which has this year alone happened to £25,000 donated to the Conservatives and £40,000 donated to the Liberal Democrats.

Labour also doesn't seem to know whether or not it still has the illegal donations in it's bank account, which really does show a lack of financial knowledge within the party. It's one thing not to be sure who to give the money to and to say that, but to be "not sure" what has happened with nearly £700,000 is pretty damn poor.

That forfeited donations go to the government instead of being returned to the donor is a good thing. Both the political party and the donor should ensure that all is above board before any donation is made, and if they don't then they both deserve to lose the money - if not more as a fine. But there should be very strict controls over the use of that money - otherwise, as Dizzy notes, it's a win-win situation for Brown, since "when it's the party in power it's a little like just moving [the money] from one bank account to another but where the signatory is the same."

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

Read the rest here.

Want to read all about it? You can't at the Downing Street website because it's all been blocked out as "party political content". I am, of course, referring to the press conference on Labour's current woe: illegal donations.

It is ridiculous that quite so much of the official transcript needs to be blocked out like that. It is absurd. Whilst obvious party political attacks should not be recorded on the Downing Street website, blocking out those which just relate to party politics is just plain daft.

Common sense should be employed in these situations, and this is one of the times when, instead of just removing it entirely, the text should be posted but with the caveat that party political is content is there. That satisfies all criteria.

She says she hasn't, claiming that she and her campaign team "acted at all times within both the letter and the spirit of the law." Yet her leader, her Cabinet colleague and her husband have all said it is illegal to take undeclared donations from a third party. And that is precisely what Harriet did. Whether or not she or her campaign team knew that doesn't matter - ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

Since the scandal has now been referred to the police by the Electoral Commission we can hope that the truth will out.

Well, we can hope anyway.