Talk:Cash-for-Honours scandal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

Green Party nomination

What happened with the Green Party was that the invitation to nominate one working peer was sent to Hugo Charlton, who sent it back with the name "Hugo Charlton" on it as a potential peerage recipient, without having consulted any colleagues. When the other senior members found out, they threw Charlton out and said that they would not be nominating anyone because of their dislike for the current set-up of the House of Lords. David | Talk 10:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's as I thought it went from the sources, and I added something like that to Green Party of England and Wales#Organisation. I'm happy with your wording as this is incidental to this article, but wasn't I correct to say "its first nomination was rejected"? The source says "it was rejected by Downing Street when it emerged that he had signed the nomination form himself"[1]. A less clear source on this point is [2]. Rwendland 10:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who really is Treasurer of the Labour Party?

The role "Treasurer of the Labour Party" seems rather ill-defined. Legally, under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Treasurer is Peter Watt (the General Secretary of the Labour Party), not Jack Dromey; see the Electoral Comission register entry for the Labour Party. But on the Labour website Jack Dromey is called the "Treasurer" [3]. In their accounts the Labour Party call Jack Dromey the "Party Treasurer", and Matt Carter (General Secretary at that time) the "Registered Treasurer". Looks to me that Matt Carter/Peter Watt was/is the real Treasurer, and Jack Dromey really just has a honourary role. Does anyone have a clear understanding of this, worth putting in this article? (And I wonder if Matt Carter's resignation so soon after the election, with less than 2 years in post, has anything to do with this scandal?) Rwendland 11:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems confusing I agree. Dromey seems to be the National Executive Committee's elected man. This helps only a little [4]

--leaky_caldron 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The post of Treasurer of the Labour Party which Jack Dromey holds is one elected at each party conference and is mostly, though not entirely, an honorary one. It involves no day-to-day management of the party accounts but it does involve formal supervision and responsibility for them at the NEC. For the purposes of party registration by the Electoral Commission, the General Secretary is given as the person actually in charge and this is indeed the case when it comes to overseeing financial management. It's not entirely surprising that the Party Treasurer should be unaware of individual dealings with donors although he certainly should have been aware that the election campaign was funded based on returnable loans made at a commercial rate of interest.

As for Matt Carter, Labour Party general secretaries have tended to move on quite quickly in recent years, but there are several reasons for that: firstly they are more prominent political figures, secondly, they are younger, thirdly, they are blamed personally for poor electoral or administrative results, and fourthly, they are offered large sums of money to be consultants to lobby firms. David | Talk 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He may not be managing accounts but he does have to explain them to Party conference. So no wonder he panicked. However, Dromey must have been aware that the election cost lots of money and must have known how much there was or wasn't when he reported to conference in October re the previous year (that runs to ??June/when exactly??). Did he never wonder/ask where it all came from? If not , why not? Seems more than just a shade arms length!--farsee50 22:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

The title is currently "Cash for peerages"; this is unsuitable in two ways - firstly, as the article notes, because the term has been used for other occasions and allegations of such corruption, yet this article is exclusively about the current matter; secondly, because it's "Peerages" - it should be capitalised. I would suggest "Cash for Peerages affair, 2006", perhaps; thoughts?

James F. (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unhappy with the title for two further reasons: firstly, it is inherently POV, making an assertion that there is a link between money and honours, which is currently denied and under investigation; secondly, to be pedantic, the allegations have mainly been that there has been Peerages for cash, i.e. abuse of the honours system to reward donors/lenders, rather than the 'selling' of honours, although the latter is what is now being investigated by the police. I would be happier with something like "Abuse of the British honours system".

Mtiedemann 23:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, wouldn't it be "Alleged abuse of the British Honours system, 2006" (note the capitalisation of "Honours", too)? I think that that would be, ahem, rather unwieldy, though. :-)

James F. (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mtiedemann that the title is POV and should be changed. However if the title proposed was adopted then the article would have to be rewritten to go through the whole history, including Maundy Gregory, Lloyd George, Lavender List, etc. - is this appropriate or should the current story be separated? Also the loans issue is increasingly including questions entirely separate from the peerage nominations. David | Talk 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cash for Peerages has widespread recognition as a term and seems to be how this "affair" has come to be widely referred to, albeit with 'so-called ' as a prefix. I'd favour keeping it for now, as a current event with links to previous acvtual and alleged instances of similar things, until we can look back and redefine it according to how it turns out. The intro can say it's a widely-used derogatory desription of a set of events that have been construed as such and caused controversy etc. --farsee50 00:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a change of title, if a suitable alternative can be agreed. The original article was "Secret labour loans" and maybe in retrospect that would have been still appropriate. Maybe we should see where this goes and review again in a week or so? I'm planning further content as soon as I can get a bit of time.--leaky_caldron 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to the correct capitalisation as a staging-move (ha!) before we decide fully what would be best.

James F. (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the title not simply reflect what future readers/researchers will look for? In the same way that we search for “cash for questions”, not “1990s Conservative scandal involving MP’s Parliamentary questions for reward”, “Cash for Peerages” is likely to be what this scandal will be remembered for.

Is it in fact a scandal or POV?

“Cash for Peerages” has already become a generally accepted idiom, it’s surely now beyond POV. Even if no malfeasance is proven, the whiff of scandal will forever remain. It would be reasonable to expect it to be referred to in the future as the “Cash for Peerages” scandal, in the same way that “cash for questions” is still referred to more than 10 years later.

The debate over whether it should be “Peerages for cash” is, IMO, semantic. We do not know who said what to whom and in what order. Speculating that someone approached wealthy potential donors suggesting a donation/loan would result in the subsequent awarding of an honour at a future date would imply cash (first) for honours (later). Peerages for cash could imply “give me the peerage (first) and I’ll give you the cash (later)”.

Second, because it’s become vernacular, far more engine search results arise from c-for-p than for p-for-c.

On the point about it having been used before - not in Wiki it hasn't, plus care was taken to mention the earlier incidents - so it is not totally exclusive to the 2006 affair.

On balance, and unless there are dramatic headlines in the next few weeks, I agree with farsee50 that the intro. should be enhanced but the title left as is. Is anyone still unconvinced?--leaky_caldron 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal defined as follows: "A scandal is a widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both." On that basis there is nothing alleged or putative WP:WEASEL about Cash for peerages - it is a scandal pure and simple due to facts as they stand, the revelations that have already been made and the implications that have been drawn. If everyone were to be 100% exonerated it would still class as a scandal.

So you'd be happy for me to refer to the "Wikipedia leaky caldron editing scandal, 2006"? David | Talk 08:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you've got me stumped with that one! If you have evidence or believe I have been involved in or you wish to allege wrong-doing by me in relation to Wikipedia editing - go ahead.--leaky_caldron 10:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've just said you don't need either evidence or allegations of wrong-doing to make a scandal. David | Talk 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening section

The first citation does not confirm the preceeding statement, i.e. that several potential nominees for peerages were rejected by an independent body because they had donated large amounts of money. The decisions are secret, which is exactly why Patel got so worked up.

The existing Background is adeqate.

While (perhaps mindful of libel laws) no suggestion has been that the donations were directly connected to the nominations of the donors for peerages, the incident was nevertheless referred to the Police as a breach of the law against selling honours[2].

again, there is an existing section, "criminal investiagtion" covering this

For these reasons I have removed these 2 sentences. It also gets rid of deprecated references in the intro--leaky_caldron 10:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the purpose of the lead section. It is supposed to summarise the article so that a reader unfamiliar with the subject can get a quick understanding of the key points. The introduction you have left is really appalling. It leaps straight from saying that it was a scandal, occurred in the UK and in March 2006, to then talking in speculative terms about what effect it will have. The reader will be asking "What was the scandal? What scandalous behaviour happened? Who did it involve? What was the immediate practical impact?" and will find no answers. They will have to delve deep into the article before gaining any knowledge. Therefore I have restored the previous wording. David | Talk 13:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly fed-up with the arrogant manner you have in constantly reverting other peoples work.

It would be arrogant if I was refusing to explain it on talk, but I am. Any editor can revert if they do not like an edit. David | Talk 13:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are these: you first sentence is plain wrong - the cited article doesn't say what you claim to be the case. No one has said why these lenders were rejected for honours - where are you getting that from? The background is far superior and is the next section - so it’s hardly "deep" into the article.

The HLAC does its business in secret and so any decision it comes to is never reported. That has, however, not stopped widespread leaks about what it has said. Unfortunately for any putative editor of an encyclopaedia article about it, these press stories are not consistent with each other as some state that a nominee was blocked, others that they were not blocked. David | Talk 13:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

second: While (perhaps mindful of libel laws) no suggestion has been that the donations were directly connected to the nominations of the donors for peerages, the incident was nevertheless referred to the Police as a breach of the law against selling honours[2].

This is a FORTY word sentence - how can a reader unfamiliar with the subject get a quick understanding of that? The subject matter is also covered in a separate section.

I do not claim this to be the acme of excellence (forty words is a pretty short sentence for some people), but it does help give the reader an understanding of the significance: not a direct sale of peerages, but nevertheless something thought worthy of police investigation ie illegal. David | Talk 13:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another go at the sentence. On second thoughts the 'mindful of libel laws' ref was a bit too OR (no-one has actually threatened to sue). What do you think now? David | Talk 13:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to get into reverting wars with you. I hope other readers of this article will note the lack of co-operation and the single-minded attitude you have demonstrated and will amend the wordy and inaccurate intro you have drafted.leaky_caldron 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept my point about the function of the intro, and see why your intro was no good? David | Talk 13:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not.

In that case, please go to WP:LEAD and see the Wikipedia policy as it is described there: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." David | Talk 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your intro about the potential nominees is factually incorrect.

Second, it's far too wordy and you are being patronising in the extreme when you say that forty words is a pretty short sentence for some people (for politicians trying to obfuscate, maybe). Also, the statement that no suggestion has been that the donations were directly connected to the nominations of the donors for peerages that's just plain daft - that is precisely what is being voiced, hinted at and implied - hence the scandal!

No it isn't. A direct connection would mean that someone said, in terms, to the donors "If you give us so much, we will give you a peerage". No such allegation has been made in this case (or do you have a cite?). If it was alleged that such an offer was made, then such an allegation would be libellous both of the person who suggested it and of the potential donor. David | Talk 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third, it results in the good subsequent sections appearing to be duplicates of the heading.leaky_caldron 13:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be because they are still very badly written. David | Talk 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

much better now. Please check out the facts about the reasons they were rejected by the honours committee thoughleaky_caldron 14:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. More work needs to be done on this but it is difficult to write because of the HLAC's secrecy. In essence what appears to have happened was that the extra scrutiny of the nominees was prompted by the leak of the list in November, and the extra scrutiny discovered some extra financial links which had not previously been disclosed, but I can't tell whether that was for all those rejected, nor get agreement between sources on who exactly the committee rejected and who it was prepared to allow. David | Talk 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

allegedly Lord Levy

User:Dbiv asked "can I go into HIGNFY mode and add an 'allegedly'? da Lord Levy" after changing "at the solicitation of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy." to "apparently at the suggestion of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy",part of his recent edit [5].

As it's been published in UK newspaper The Independent that it was Lord Levy [6] (which is itself referenced in the article), I don't think we need the wolly wording as he's suggested. Thoughts? --Oscarthecat 21:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)== John Prescott ==[reply]

The problem with the source is that you've got Gulam Noon saying that Lord Levy suggested turning a donation into a loan, but we haven't yet had anything from Lord Levy saying "I suggested turning donations into loans". He might turn round and say "I did no such thing!". David | Talk 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amidst all this sleaze in the Labour Party, there's been another allegation, involving troubles with planning permission. Appears that £200k was given to the Labour Party to "grease the wheels" in getting some troublesome office-block planning permission approved. [7] --Oscarthecat 21:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunday Times story [8] has more detail on this, eg "Prescott decided not to “call in” for further scrutiny plans for the 50-storey Minerva tower, due to become the tallest building in the City of London — despite intervening in two similar developments by other companies." plus the comment "the wife of Lord Levy ... runs a charity from Minerva’s headquarters". Probably worth adding something about this to the article. Rwendland 22:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you include Prescott's adamant denial if you do. NPOV and all that. David | Talk 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added re John Prescott. I've included his response pretty much in full. He always gives me the impression of someone digging a whole and not realising it's time to stop!!leaky_caldron 08:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tribune article source

I've added a paragraph on Dromey's tour of TV studios announcing his inquiry using a non-online source (Tribune 2006/3/24 p5). To make verification easier, here's the whole paragraph I'm using as source, from an article by Tribune's Deputy Editor, Barckley Sumner:

Mr Dromey decided to hold an inquiry into Labour's loans after failing to receive satisfactory answers from party officials and Downing Street advisers. Originally, Mr Dromey had intended to reveal his intentions exclusively to Tribune, but Downing Street advisors told broadcasters last Wednesday (March 15) that the Prime Minister would himself announce an investigation at a press conference the following day. On learning of Mr Blair's intentions, Mr Dromey press-released his statement and toured the television studios in a bid to avoid being left carrying the can for the party's financial problems.

This is the first really plausible explanation of Dromey's sudden actions I've seen, and Tribune being trade union owned and with a small part in the story, is in a good position to have accurate information. Without Dromey's announcement that evening I think this political scandal would have played out differently. Hence why I think it is notable. Rwendland 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Howard questioned by Police

Shouldn't there be something about this?

yes. Arniep 12:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baronetcies

The WP Baronetcy article states that James I (King of England and Scotland from 1603 to 1625) used the award of Baronetcies specifically to attract revenue to his Treasury. This Cash for Peerages article implies the practice started in the 19th C:

Historically, hereditary peerages were awarded to members of the landowning aristocracy and royal favourites. In the late 19th century, peerages began to be awarded to industrialists with increasing frequency

(I know Baronetcies are not regarded as Peerages) === Vernon White (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burying the bad news

Can we get something in about Blair burying related news by releasing it the same day as Princess Diana stuff? It's outside my competency, especially this evening after a lot of red wine. But here's a helpful search result Google search showing the issue. --bodnotbod 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I donated, or let's just say 'lent', some money to wikimedia, could I be promoted to the notability and have a flattering article written about me?

John McTernan and Jack McConnell

The exact dates of the interviews of John McTernan and Jack McConnell have not been published, but as key figures in the Scottish Labour Party, where do we mention them in the article?

[9], 23 Jan 07
BBC, 24 Jan 07

--Mais oui! 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we do have a date for McConnell's interview - it was held on 15 December:

BBC

--Mais oui! 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism is blamed for furore over Lord Levy

Who thinks this [10] should be mentioned in this article. I saw the original interview on Channel 4 and i think its notable accusation. Hypnosadist 13:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File sent to CPS

I've dropped in a new section now the file on the investigation has been sent to the CPS. I've also updated the timeleine - please help expand. Now the file has been submitted, I feel it deserves its own heading/section as this is a significant development and can be added to as more information emerges. Regards. Escaper7 14:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Lend or to Loan?

Surely the verb is to lend, not to loan? I know the BBC tends to use loan as a verb in this context, but I always considered it a clumsy back-formation from the noun.

The American Heritage Dictionary says

"The verb loan is well established in American usage and cannot be considered incorrect. The frequent objections to the form by American grammarians may have originated from a provincial deference to British critics, who long ago labeled the usage a typical Americanism... "

so maybe I'm just a British critic labelling this usage an Americanism. I don't have access to a British dictionary currently. Interested in anyone's thoughts. 194.74.200.66 15:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraphs

The current final paragraph is detailed on the Goldsmith memo injunction, which I feel is a side-issue to the new perverting-the-course-of-justice direction of the enquiry. It looks like it was put there shortly after the event and has been left. May I suggest something along the lines of:

The police have also investigated possible attempts to pervert the course of justice, and in particular an email that suggests that those under investigation may have presented their evidence in such a way as to hide illegal activities.

The police passed their file to the CPS who have since asked them to investigate further before any charges are brought.

194.74.200.66 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Cash for Honours"?

The CPS calls this the so called "Cash for Honours" investigation,[11][12] and "Cash for honours" seems a much more popular name in the media. Should we therefore rename? If so, "Cash for Honours" or "Cash for honours"? Rwendland 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian headline for Friday was no one to face charges in "Cash for Honors" inquiry and I was surprised that when one searched for that on Wiki nothing came up rej4sl July 20

Support rename. TerriersFan 03:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename - 'cash for honours' used far more frequently in the media. Rissa 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]