Lord Levy: schmoozing Labour into
trouble
Right: Lord Levy, "Mr Cashpoint", with his wife at a
fundraising event"The great seduction goes something like this," said Roland Watson in The Times. He'll approach you, at a society do or charity function, and you'll be struck by the firmness of his handshake. Next time you meet, he'll remember not only your name, bur also your wife's. He'll ask after your children. After that comes the apparently casual invitation, to his white-carpeted mansion in north London. If you're lucky, you might sit next to the "goods" at your host's famous glass-topped marble table, or catch a glimpse of him on the tennis court. Later, when Tony Blair has gone, Lord Levy will move in for the kill. "You look like you could afford a million," he might say, with a smile. And before you know it, you've taken out your cheque book and given a five, six or even seven figure sum to a party you didn't even know you supported.
Tony Blair is indebted to his friend and tennis partner, said Euan Ferguson in The Observer. Levy - a self-made man who grew up in a one-room flat in the East End - played a large part in getting Labour into power. In the mid-Nineties, the music millionaire, nicknamed "Mr Cashpoint" channelled £2m into Blair's private office through a blind trust system which hid donors' identities and allowed him to approach businessmen from both left and right. He raised £12m for Blair's 1997 campaign and has carried on his "tireless effort" ever since - but not everyone in the party has appreciated it. There are some whose criticism of his bouffant hair, his stacked heels, and the "nouveau riche splendour" of his hacienda-style home in Totteridge has been nasty to hear, "bordering on anti-Semitic".
But others, said The Sunday Times, have long had legitimate concerns about Levy's schmoozing, wondering in particular what the big donors had been promised in return. Was it coincidence that Lord Sainsbury - the party's biggest donor - was appointed minister for science in 1998? Why was Paul (now Lord) Drayson awarded a lucrative government contract, shortly after giving the party £100,000? Levy's wealthy contacts didn't welcome that kind of scrutiny. And after Blair made his unpopular decision to go to war with Iraq, some worried about their names being associated with the PM. Donations began to dry up. By 2004 with an expensive election campaign round the corner, Labour was £11m in debt.
It was at this point that Levy suggested asking donors to give loans instead of gifts because under the rules of probity, that meant their identities did not have to be disclosed. Furthermore, the donors could then be (and often were) referred to the Lords Appointment Commission without their financial relationship with the party being revealed. Blair gave the plan the go-ahead, and Levy raised £14m to help sweep his friend to a third term. But key figures within Labour - including Gordon Brown and treasurer Jack Dromey - were apparently not told about the loans. Why? Because the scheme relied on exploiting a loophole in rules on disclosure that Blair had himself drawn up. In 1997 Blair promised to be "whiter than white", said The Observer. Now, the voters who put him in power to get a change from Tory sleaze must be wondering why they bothered. Rarely has that "traditional lament of political apathy" - they're all as bad as each other - sounded so apt.
This week Lord Falconer told the House of Lords that "the system had not been cleaned up enough and we need to change it", said David Aaronvitch in the Times. It was a comic moment. "The child, caught with its hand in the sweetie jar, sententiously suggests that it now be moved to a higher shelf." Falconer's reforms will include full disclosure of loans. David Cameron (whose parry raised £20m in undeclared loans before the last election) has called for more radical change: he suggests capping donations and giving the parties more taxpayer's money, according to the number of votes they win. But would it make any difference? Cap donations, and donors will only divide their gifts. As for state funding, that could mean licensing parties or giving tax pounds to the BNP.
This scandal has made giving money to parties seem "shabby", said Michael Portillo in The Sunday Times. "This is a pity because it should be celebrated." Democracy needs parties; parties need money; and so long as everything is transparent, it's far better to get it from private donors than from taxpayers. These donors are fulfilling an important civic duty - and some should be assessed for honours as other philanthropists are.
See also:
Berlusconi & Blair
Bankrolling New Labour
Sleaze and political corruption
David Mills
Mortgage-signing is a feminist issue
Tessa Jowell - a simple explanation
Propaganda Due - P2
Tessa Jowell is guilty
Silvio Berlusconi
Ken Livingstone