Labour need to repay over £15m of debt by end of year.

As of the 31st of March this year, the Labour Party had outstanding loans adding up to £17,847,756. They need to repay loans amounting to £15,630,500 (plus interest) by December 12th this year. As you can see from the list below, much of that owed is either overdue or due in the next week. How will Labour repay such a vast amount when they only took donations totalling £2,967,598 in the first quarter of this year?

The following list reads: Name/ loan amount/ date of loan/ interest rate/ repayment or review date.

The lines in red are due this year.

Margaret McDonagh £23,500 02 March 2008 5.50% 02 March 2024

Teresa Lewis £10,000 28 February 2008 Nil Indefinate

Roger Truelove £1,151 30 November 2007 Nil Indefinate

Dan Neidle £2,000 01 November 2007 Nil Indefinate

James Swindlehurst £5,000 24 October 2007 Nil Indefinate

Gerald Bass £1,213 02 October 2007 Nil Indefinate

Anne Campbell £2,000 07 September 2007 Nil Indefinite

Unity Trust Bank PLC £12,000 1 December 2006 Base + 3.00% Indefinite

Alexandra Mayer £1,500 1 March 2007 Nil Indefinite

Alexandra Mayer £2,900 1 October 2006 Nil Indefinite

HSBC Bank £2,000 1 July 2006 Base + 2.00% 1 July 2008

Richard Caring £2,000,000 25 June 2006 6.50% 01 March 2008 then 180 days rolling written notice

Unity Trust Bank £21,000 4 April 2006 Base + 3.00% 4 April 2013

Robert Evans £5,000 23 March 2006 Nil Indefinite

Royal Bank of Scotland £6,750 24 February 2006 Base + 3.00% 24 September 2010

Co-operative Bank £5,000 1 February 2006 7.25% 31 January 2011

AMICUS £6,500 19 December 2005 Base rate Indefinite

Weymouth Labour Club £9,907 10 October 2005 9.00% 30 September 2010

Rod Aldridge £500,000 4 October 2005 6.75% 12 October 2008

Rod Aldridge £500,000 4 October 2005 6.75% 12 December 2008

Nigel Morris £1,000,000 25 September 2005 6.75% 30 June 2008

Derek Tullett CBE £400,000 5 September 2005 6.75% 31 March 2008 then rolling 6 months notice

Unity Trust Bank £24,000 1 September 2005 Base + 2.00% 30 September 2010

Co-operative Bank £5,000 1 June 2005 Base plus 4.00% Indefinite

Dr Chai Patel CBE £1,500,000 20 July 2005 6.75% 7 August 2008

Co-operative Bank £2,000 June 2005 Base + 2.00% Ongoing

Andrew Rosenfeld £1,000,000 18 May 2005 6.50% 28 February 2009

Sir Gulam Noon £250,000 20 April 2005 6.75% 31 October 2008

Sir David Garrard £2,300,000 19 April 2005 6.75% 01 July 2008

Lord Sainsbury £2,000,000 18 April 2005 6.75% 13 September 2008

Gordon Crawford £500,000 13 April 2005 6.75% Indefinite

Barry Townsley £1,000,000 13 April 2005 6.75% 25 October 2008

Co-operative Bank £20,000 8 April 2005 Base + 2.50% 8 March 2010

Unity Trust Bank £95,497 2005 6.00% 2030

Unity Trust Bank £17,586 26 November 2004 Base + 2.00% 26 November 2014

Unity Trust Bank £10,000 6 August 2004 Base + 3.00% 31 August 2014

Co-operative Bank £152,289 1 November 2003 Base + 3.00% 31 May 2016

Lloyds Bank £35,700 17 March 2003 Base + 3.00% 17 March 2018

Co-operative Bank £47,000 20 March 2002 Base + 3.00% 20 March 2016

Furness Building Society £48,000 1 January 2002 Base + 3.00% 30 November 2023

Loughborough BS £17,763 2000 7.40% 2010

David Taylor £13,000 2000 Nil Indefinite

John Howlett £1,000 2000 Nil Indefinite

Lloyds Bank £28,500 17 April 1998 Base + 4.00% 1 May 2008

Co-operative Bank £75,000 3 June 1992 Base + 2.50% 2 June 2012

Co-operative Bank £1,000 Ongoing Co-op base rate + 2.00% Indefinite

Unity Trust Bank £5,000 Long standing Base + 3.00% Ongoing

Co-operative Bank £2,610,000 Long standing Base + 2.00% 30 June 2008

Co-operative Bank £32,000 Long standing Variable Indefinite

Unity Trust Bank £1,540,000 Long standing Unity rate + 2.00% 30 June 2008

Labour still have Abrahams £630,000 Donorgate cash.

It's six months since Labour's dodgy donations from David Abrahams (via third parties) came to light. At the time of "donor gate", Gordon Brown promised that the money would be returned. According to the Daily Mail - It hasn't. The money is sitting in a non-interest making (escrow) account five months after Scotland Yard told the Labour party that: "the donated money was no longer an issue for the police".

Tory frontbencher Chris Grayling said:

"This was clearly another attempt by Labour to bury bad news. "It is extraordinary that Gordon Brown could make such a clear promise about repaying the money and then do nothing while quietly hoping no one noticed. He just keeps on treating the British people as fools."

A Labour Party spokesman said:

"The investigation has not been concluded and the Electoral Commission has not made a judgment. The escrow account holder will take instruction from the police, the courts or the Electoral Commission to determine the rightful ownership of the funds and who the money should be sent to."

Surely given the circumstances surrounding these donations, labour would be keen to return them? Couldn't they have gone to the courts or the Electoral Commission to ask if the money could be released? Or is it that given the state of Labour's finances, they were hoping to keep the money? They can't be that desperate - can they?

Has Ruth Kelly met with David Abrahams or not?

The following is taken from Hansard written answers 14th Jan 2008:

Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether she and her predecessor have met (a) Mr. David Abrahams and (b) representatives of Mr. Abrahams' companies since 2004.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and her predecessors have not attended meetings in their official capacity since 2004 with Mr. David Abrahams or representatives of companies registered to Mr Abrahams.

Now, is it just me, or is the answer to the question dodging something? The question asked if they had met, which I presume to mean, well... er.... met. The answer only tells us that they did not attend meetings in their official capacity. Have they met or not?

Labour MPs are voicing their dismay over poor ministerial behaviour (Smith and Hain).

It seems that each day more and more Labour MPs are making statements to the media that are not at all supportive of their ministers. Over the last couple of days their comments have been aimed at Jacqui Smith and Peter Hain. Keith Vaz, Labour chair of the home affairs committee, Lindsay Hoyle and Andrew Mackinlay have all made it very clear that the police pay award could have been handled better. Keith Vaz believes that the police pay award is of such importance that it should be voted on in parliament. Lindsay Hoyle has called the two stage pay deal "unacceptable and unpalatable", and Andrew Mackinlay believes the deal would not only cause "disproportionate offence to public servants" and "collateral damage" to the Labour government, but it was also "unfair". However Jacqui is not listening:

"I had a responsibility to make a decision that was right for the police, for the affordability of policing and for the taxpayer as a whole."

What Jacqui fails to mention is that her actions are in breach of the police pay award arbitration.

As for Peter Hain - he is getting it in the neck from all angles. Even Gordon Brown has left him swinging in the breeze, saying that Peter's fate is out of his hands. Labour MPs Peter Kilfoyle, John Spellar and Ian Gibson have made it clear that Hain should step down for the good of the party. To add to Hain's woes, it looks like the police could be called in to investigate his undeclared donations.

Rumour has it that Gordon Brown plans to have a cabinet reshuffle in February. If I were Gordon, I would ensure that Harriet Harman, Peter Hain and Jacqui Smith would still be standing when the music stopped and all the cabinet chairs were taken.

Gordon Brown - is he, or is he not, the Prime Minister?

I understand that Gordon Brown has told The Sun that Peter Hain's future as a member of the cabinet is out of his hands. What a peculiar statement. Surely Hain has been carpeted, and just as surely both he and Gordon Brown know whether he is going to be found guilty by the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. They both know the rules. And in that case if Gordon Brown is surely the Prime Minister he should have made one of the two following statements:

. Peter Hain has acted with the utmost integrity and I'm sure he will be found to have acted within the rules when the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards conclude their investigation. Therefore, I give Peter Hain my full and unconditional support.

. Peter Hain and I have discussed the circumstances surrounding the investigation into donations made to his deputy leadership campaign. We both agree that mistakes have been made. Mistakes that are not acceptable from a senior cabinet minister. Peter has asked me to pass on his apologies and has tendered his resignation from the cabinet as of this morning, which, with great regret I have accepted.

David Cameron is correct to call Brown's actions dithering. I can only guess that the reason one or the other of the above statements have not been made is that Gordon is hoping the investigation will drag out until he can reshuffle the cabinet, or he doesn't have the guts to either back or sack Hain.

Labour's spin machine will go into fast cycle over George Osborne's donations.

Let's make something very clear from the start: All the money donated to the Conservative Party, which was then passed on to George Osborne was fully declared to the Electoral Commission. George did not report the donations to the Register of Members' Interests because commons registrar Alda Barry told him his declarations "were in order". Unlike Peter Hain, George's donations were not hidden or passed to him through a dubious think tank unknown in Westminster. George said last night:

'I was told that my declarations were in order. 'Ms Barry has now told us that her initial advice may have been unclear. 'These donations are to the Conservative Party, they are openly declared and we have followed the rules as they were explained to us. 'All the donations over £5,000 have been declared to the Electoral Commission and are available for all to see on their website, as the law requires.'

No doubt Labour will try and spin this into being something akin to their dodgy donations situation, but unlike the donations received by Labour Ministers, this money was not hidden from public view or received through a questionable third party. George Osborne acted under the guidance of the senior Commons official in charge of the register for the secrecy. The sad truth is that Labour Ministers will put a spin on this, and some of the more gullible members of the public will fall for their lies. The fact that you have to scroll two thirds down the report on the BBC News Website to discover that George believed he was following sound advice from Alda Barry will not help matters.

George tried to declare the donations, but was told that he didn't need to. And he has the emails to prove it.

Will Peter Hain go against labour policy and resign?

Peter Hain has already delayed his 10:30 press conference twice and we are still waiting for his 14:30 statement. Will Peter go against Labour Party policy and do the honourable thing by resigning? The MSM don't seem to think he will, and to be honest I will be very shocked if Hain does not tough it out. Gordon Brown has given his support to Hain, however there are rumours circulating the blogosphere that Gordon's own campaign funding may not be whiter than white.

I'll keep you updated as things develop.

UPDATE: Hain will NOT be resigning. He's issued written statement to the media claiming that he has done nothing wrong, but apologises for any embarrassment caused by delays in reporting donations to the electoral commission.

The truth about political party donations. (Waendel Journal).

Tony Sharp over at the Waendel Journal has an excellent post which puts a lie to the Labour party's continual whining about Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft. It is also worth noting that Labour are refusing to declare the tax status of their large donors. They've got a bloody cheek.

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Party Funding. (The Spine)

This excellent book cover comes to you courtesy of The Spine. There are many more great pictures over on his blog. Click to enlarge.

Breaking wind with dignity V breaking the law without shame.

I found a story today that sums up the way I was left feeling after watching yesterday's debate on party political funding:

77-year-old Maurice Fox received a letter from Kirkham Street Sports and Social Club in Paignton, complaining about him breaking wind loudly in the public bar. Maurice may be a man of with a bad habit, but he is a man with a sense of decency. When Maurice received the letter did he complain? no. This is what Maurice said: "I am happy to oblige them, there is no problem. I do get a bit windy - I am an old fart now. "I think someone has complained about the noise. I am a loud farter, but there is no smell. "I do not think it [the letter] is unreasonable, you get ladies in there." Maurice now goes outside to fart.

Compare this to the Labour party's behaviour at the commons debate for political party funding yesterday: If certain members of the cabinet had received a letter complaining about their party breaking wind in the bar, this would have been Labour's reply: "We admit that one of our group has been farting loudly in the bar. "We are angry that this has happened. "We are going to instigate an immediate review into this matter, and we are determined to have transparency at all times when it comes any member breaking wind. "Our friends will carry out the review, and on completion they will provide a detailed report of their findings to the alleged farter. "We will of course report this matter to the bodily function commission."

"However, we would like to make it very clear that patrons on the other side of the bar, have in the past, farted louder and longer than any member of our drinking group. "To this end, we would like to put forward a motion to ensure that any future farting will be done in a fair manner, and on a level playing field. "Although we admit that one of our group has farted, that member will not be going outside to fart until the Landlord throws them out."

Maurice Fox is a man with a sense of decency - The Labour party do not know the meaning of the word.

The commons debate on political party funding.

I've been listening for about half an hour and Jack Straw has just shot himself right in the foot. In response to accusations of breaking the law, Labour have been bleating on about Lord Ashcroft's tax status. However when Jack was asked about the tax status of Labour's biggest individual donors , he said it was a matter for the Inland Revenue - CLASSIC! To make matters worse, when Jack was asked if any of the dodgy £650,000 had been paid back, he said he didn't know. Finger on the pulse Jack.

UPDATE: Well the main part of the debate is over. What was clearly evident was Labour's total lack of regret. There was talk of anger and disappointment, but the majority of Labour's comments were made in an attempt to portray the Tories and LibDems as being as sleazy as themselves. What angers me the most as a voter, rather than a Conservative party member, is the way Labour ministers sit on the front bench, laughing and joking without the slightest remorse for having broken the law.

There is now, absolutely no chance of these supposedly honorable people resigning. I only hope that the police can collate the evidence that is obviously there, and those involved receive the maximum punishment for their crimes.

Wendy Alexander once again refuses to resign.

Talking to the media just before going into a meeting with Labour MSPs Wendy Alexander once again defied calls for her resignation. Wendy said: "I have never sought to mislead. I am not dishonest in any way and I have always believed that politicians should have the highest standards of integrity. "My campaign did not set out to intentionally mislead or brake the rules (LAW). Mistakes have been made. "It would be easy to quit, but also wrong. To give up this job in these circumstances would be also to give up my reputation for integrity and honesty and I am not prepared to do that."

I think that Wendy has given up her "reputation for integrity and honesty" by not resigning.

Commons debate - Scandals over the funding of the governing political party.

David Cameron has changed the subject of today's commons debate from the civil service, to one on party funding. The motion for the debate states: "This House notes with concern the corrosion of public trust in democracy following the recent succession of scandals over the funding of the governing political party." Cameron walked out on the last round of party funding talks when Labour refused to include the Unions in a proposal to cap donations to £50,000. Now for some reason (probably something to do with the police wanting to talk to several senior Labour party members) Gordon Brown wants to come back to the negotiation table, apparently willing to consider including the unions on any donation cap.

That Cameron has forced today's debate is not surprising following the weekend's revelations. Peter Hain has suddenly remembered even more deputy party leadership election money that he failed to declare, and Newcastle property lawyer George Crawford has called in the police to investigate the theft of his identity. In 2004 someone made a donation of £36,000 to the Labour Party in Mr Crawford's name, a donation which he has no knowledge of.

Gordon Brown is going to do some very fancy footwork during the funding debate. On one hand he stands to further alienate the general public if he does not agree to union donation capping, and on the other hand he faces a possible civil war within the party if he does. There have also been accusations that the only reason Wendy Alexander has not resigned is because she is being used as a human shield. Many believe that if Wendy was to resign, Harriet Harman would have to follow.

The Cabinet is meeting as I type this, and I've got the feeling that it will not be a pleasant chat over a cup of tea. Will someone be offered to the political altar in an attempt to assuage the demand for blood? Whatever happens it's going to be one of the most interesting days in domestic politics for quite some time. Will this be one of those days that people will ask of in the future: "what were you doing when....."

Peter Hain has just remembered more donations.

Cabinet minister Peter Hain has said more donations to his Labour deputy leadership campaign "were not registered as they should have been". That's on top of the £5,000 donation that he forgot last week. Isn't old age terrible?

Peter seems to have remembered these donations since Guido broke this story this afternoon.

Surely not another Dodgy Labour Donation!

Someone has very kindly donated £36,000 to the Labour party in the name of Newcastle property lawyer George Crawford. The only problem is that poor Mr Crawford knows absolutely nothing about it. It seems that the donation was made using a FALSE ADDRESS, an address that closely matches Mr Crawford's office address - In fact, it's just one digit out. The donation listed in the Labour party's official records was made in 2004, and Mr Crawford has called in the police to investigate the theft of his identity.

On a totally separate note (that I'm sure has nothing to do with this), it turns out that several years ago George Crawford worked for David Abrahams, who was then using the alias David Martin.

Will capping union donations cause a civil war within the Labour party?

Gordon Brown must decide whether he is going to stay in the donorgate frying pan or jump into the trade union capping fire. Either way he's in for a torrid time of it. If he doesn't agree to union capping, then he will have reneged on his comments made in the last few days of this fiasco. If he does agree to cap union donations then he is facing a potential civil war within the party.

This post (and comments) over on Labourhome gives us a good indication of just how deep into the mire Gordon could be taking his party. If there is a division of opinion on the Labourhome blog, then this will surely translate to the rest of the party. There is talk of Gordon and Hoon being on the wrong side of the fight to keep union money, and strong hints of looking for an alternative leader. Gordon may have leapt into serious trouble in an attempt to rid himself of his current predicament. A tactical error which could see the Labour party destroy itself in an internal war.

This all could have been avoided if Gordon had done the right thing - not the spin thing. Instead of blaming the donation system (which his party masterminded), he should have blamed those who broke the rules of that system. He should have sacked everyone involved in this whole affair. Then he should have announced that if he caught anyone else "at it" they would also be sacked and reported to Knacker of the Yard.

Now Brown is stuck with the choice of either going back on his word (of agreeing to a cap), or alienating masses of Labour and trade union members. Gordon keeps talking about making the hard choices, but many will find this one impossibly hard to swallow.

David Cameron on The Andrew Marr Show.

I've just watched Andrew Marr interview David Cameron. I've got to say that David once again showed why he is the leader of the Conservative party. Ever since his speech during the party leadership campaign, David has demonstrated time and again to be an articulate and savvy party figurehead. Without going overboard he established Gordon Brown's recent antics to be exactly what they are - spin.

David's analogy of the current Labour donation debacle was right on the money, David said: "Gordon Brown is a man who has been caught with a gun, waving it about, who then says we we need better gun control" (not word for word but near enough). Andrew Marr tried to trip Cameron up on a few occasions but did not seem to trying too hard. I think that could be because when it comes to sleaze, David has done a good job of eradicating it from the party. You will find that when someone hostile to the Conservatives attempts an attack, they have to hark back to a period of 10 to 20 years ago. That line will not work indefinitely, especially when the aggressors are constantly in the public eye for scandal, followed by disaster, followed by incompetence.

I wonder how much the Labour party faithful would give for a party leader like David Cameron. I hate having to say this, but Tony Blair was a far more competent Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party than any of us realised. He was the super glue that held so many weak parts of his government together. Now we see a Labour party held together by runny porridge, and it's starting to collapse in on itself.

You can watch the interview by clicking HERE.

Donorgate - the French connection. Mahmoud Khayami

The donargate scandal extends into new territory tonight. The Daily Mail have a report into donations of £830,000 in the past eight months received by Labour, from Iranian-born car dealer Mahmoud Khayami. His first donation of £500,000 was made the day after he qualified to donate. Questions are being asked as to whether Mr Khayami had any help getting onto the electoral roll.

A Labour spokesman said: "As far as we know, this donation is in order. But of course we will look into all these issues as part of our ongoing internal inquiry." Tory Chris Grayling said: "It is now very clear Gordon Brown had ordered a 'dash for cash' ahead of an early Election."

Full story HERE

Gordon Brown takes Harriet Harman for a little ride (video).

This video could have been made for them.

Keith Vaz spins Labour's involvement in Donorgate.

I've just watch Keith Vaz blatantly spin this whole dodgy donation fiasco in an attempt to pass the buck to the Tories. He's just had the neck to tell the BBC that this is all to do with the conservatives walking away from negotiations on donation capping. The Tories walked away from the negotiations because Labour refused to include the unions into the capping system.

And this is why:

The Government gave £12.8m to the unions (Modernisation Fund). The unions gave £17m in donations to the Labour Party.

That’s money from the TAX PAYER to the GOVERNMENT - from the GOVERNMENT to the UNIONS - and from the UNIONS to the LABOUR PARTY.

Can anyone spot a link? In fact, wouldn’t it be better to cut out the middle men and pay OUR TAXES directly to the LABOUR PARTY?

Fair enough, it could be said that the money given to the unions, by the government on behalf of the tax payer, is different to the money the unions are giving to the Labour party. But why do we the tax payers, need to give the unions £12.8m, when they obviously have £17m to burn on Labour party donations?

Can you smell something? Does it smell like a rodent that likes to frequent our sewers?

I feel sorry most of all for the union members. They are paying their taxes, some of which is finding its way into donations to the Labour party. And then to add insult to injury, they are paying their union fees, which are also finding their way into the Labour party coffers. Do they realise that they are donating twice?

We need a senior member of the shadow cabinet to get on every news channel possible to point out this disgusting practice.