Labour baffles many on donation issue

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON, JAN. 4. Mr. Tony Blair's critics are calling them ``64 hours that shook the Labour Party'', alluding to the time it took to disclose the source of a £ 2 million donation to its election fund.

The fact that in the end the party did make a clean breast of it and got the publishing magnate, Mr. Paul Hamlyn to own up the donation is being sought to be turned on its head by Labour's detractors and the question they are now asking is: why it dragged its feet for so long in the first place particularly when, as it turned out, there was nothing fishy about the donation?

Even friends of Labour, indeed its own members, are puzzled by the party's handling of a controversy which turned out to be so much ado about nothing. They say there was a touch of arrogance in the way it initially responded to the demand for identifying the donor with one senior leader saying that the party did not believe in giving a ``running commentary'' on individual donations. As one Labour M.P. critical of the leadership said later, the party almost made it appear as though it was taking money from a ``serial killer'', rather than a highly respected businessman.

The fact was that here was a donor with a reputation for not seeking political favours in return for donations. This was not the first time that Lord Hamlyn had contributed to the party - in fact in 1997 he donated £ 500,000 - and, as he said in his statement, he saw no reason for being apologetic about supporting Labour ``in this way''. ``If he was not old and ill, he is precisely the type of respected businessman Labour would use on political platforms in the coming election. And yet Labour spent more than two days acting as if there was something of which it should be ashamed'', The Times commented. In acting the way it did, the Labour leadership nearly revisited the infamous Ecclestone affair when it refused to acknowledge that it had received a £ 1 million donation from the Formula One race tycoon, Mr. Bernie Ecclestone until it was ``dragged kicking and screaming into not only acknowledging the gift but also having to pay it back.''

There has been no credible explanation why the Labour played so coy and ended up producing so much smoke when there was no fire.

The argument that everyone was on holiday for Christmas and New Year and Lord Hamlyn himself was in France has not washed, and few are taking at face value the Labour spokesman's glib explanation that ``within hours of people being back at work, a full statement was issued to the press''.

The question, as a commentator asked, remains: why it took so long to ``pick up the phone'' and speak to Lord Hamlyn. When the party finally decided to do it, it took no time to clear the air. Eventually, it boils down to New Labour's ``style'', according to close observers. It is said to be typical of the Blair-set to get on its high horse in the face of a political controversy and try to stonewall until it is forced to sit up and do something about it.

A Labour official has said that finally what is more important is that the ``mystery has been cleared up''. True, but why was the mystery allowed to surface in the first place?

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : U.S. interest rate cut surprises Europe
Next     : Hashimoto in the ascendant