Labour MPs defend and stand by a liar found guilty in court

What do the electorate make of Labour MPs in "rebellion", as it was put by one reproter today, because they feel the Labour Party should have stood by Phil Woolas, the labour MP stripped of office for being found guilty in court of spreading lies about his opponent ?

It's a ridiculous decision for Labour MPs to make that they feel the electorate want them to stand by someone found guilty in court.

Tories and Labour squabbling like children in the playground - "But he's doing it too !"

When I am dealing with a disagreement between children, when it is clear they are both in the wrong and both behaving in a way that is not acceptable, I let them know that the argument "I'm doing it because he is doing it" or "But he's doing it too", are simply not good enough reasons for doing something.

If it is wrong then it is wrong, whoever is doing it. So whilst I agree with Iain Dale that the Labour Party are showing stunning hypocrisy in criticising Lord Ashcroft's tax status, it is actually no defence for the Tory Party to say that they are doing it because Labour are doing it.

That was the argument many MPs made in making false expenses claims. It didn't wash then and it doesn't wash now.

There is, however, another subtly difference between labour and Tory tax dodgers making donations. The Labour people do not have a hand in the political strategy of the party. They make donations, but do not seek influence within Labour. Compare this to Lord Ashcroft who plays a major role in the Tories target seat strategy. This is a point the Tories choose to ignore when making comparisons.

Pressure on Baroness Scotland after new revelations

It is being reported that Baroness Scotland never asked to see the passport of the illegal immigrant she employed illegally.

It puts further pressure on her to resign and overshadows this week's Labour conference.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

The story involving senior government advisors attempting to smear the Tory Party seems to have developed a life of its own because of the word "Sorry", and it seems to me that this has as much to do with the Tory attempts to get Gordon Brown to apologise for the economic mess we find ourselves in as it does to do with the smear story.

In itself, getting Gordon Brown to apologise for something beyond his control seems utterly ludicrous. Why should he apologise for somethig he did not sanction and why should he be responsible for the actions of every member of staff ? But when you read what the smears were, the seriousness of the false allegations that were to be spread, it does make you wonder if Gordon Brown might have received less flak if he had simply said he personally apologised that his staff had acted in such a way.

The big problem is though that for a Prime Minister to admit errors is seen as a weakness, and whilst it might seem to Gordon Brown that to admit an error would undermine him, what he fails to realise is that his government is already fatally holed beneath the water line. There is no chance now of a Labour recovery and his inability to kill this sort of story off by making the wrong political decisions simply makes the crisis his party faces much worse.

Personally, I would be very surprised if Labour did not suffer a total meltdown of 1997 proportions at the next election and smart money should be on any Labour MP with a majority of less than 6,000 to lose.

Will Labour out-sleaze the Tories by the time the next election happens ?

Anyone old than 30 years of age will remember how in the period from 1993-1997 the word "sleaze" became almost permanently attached to the word "Tory" as the Tory party lurched from one self inflicted wound to another. When I read some young Conservative blogs I just wonder how keen they would be to be Conservative if they could actually remember what a Tory government was like. However, Labour seem to be in some sort of competition with the Tories to "out-sleaze" them before they are, hopefully, kicked out of office some time next year.

The latest from Mr Brown's sleaze merchants is that some Labour Lords are being accused of offering to put for amendments to government bills for a fee.

Truly appalling and another reason why the Tories can still rely on a comfortable lead in the polls this year as it seems that governments in crisis cannot help but shoot themselves in the foot.

Another day, another donations problem for Labour

You shouldn't laugh, but Labour's inability to register donations properly is laughable.

Is this why the Tory front bench were not keen to call for Hain's resignation ?

There has been a strange gap developing in the last few days between Tory Bloggers who have been calling for Peter Hain's head and Tory MP's who have been much calmer and less willing to demand his resignation. I thought, perhaps naively that this was a new more balanced Conservative party being fairer to Labour than Labour had been to the Tories in the last years of Tory rule. But I appear to be wrong.

This morning it turns out that Gideon Osborne has had problems with donations received to run his office. The scale of Mr Osborne's problems can be seen when the donations he has properly failed to disclose are five times that of Peter Hain, calling just short of half a million pounds. I wondered if this was why the Tory front bench have been so cool on demanding Hain's head on a plate.

The donation problems though do raise an important point. Are the rules about donations clear enough ? After all, both Hain and Osborne are not stupid men, so for them or their teams to make such seemingly obvious mistakes does lead me to ask if the House of Commons are offering clear and swift advice and whether new advice should be issued. It is clear that Osborne sought advice but was not given the support from the proper officials that MP's should get. As to Hain's "oversight", it remains to be seen. However it worries me that two bright men can get caught out like this.

It's not for no reason he is known in some circles as Peter Vain

The vanity of Peter Hain is well known. A man barely able to pass a mirror without taking a second glance at himself, never afraid to chase a headline, gets some column inches or turn up for the opening of an envelope, he is everything that gives politicians a bad name.

Take the brazen way he used the Young Liberals to get himself well known before jumping ship to Labour, a classic sign of a man without political principles, obsessed only with power and himself. This has been my own personal opinion for some years, based on what people in the Westminster bubble tell me and from what us written and said about him. Some might have accused me of showing political bias, but surely Peter Hain's statement today shows that he is a man of very few principles.

It appears Peter Hain thinks forgetting to declare £100,000 is just an oversight. Let's get it in to perspective, we are talking about £100,000, not a few hundred quid. I wonder if Hain had been made Chancellor, a job he had eyed in the past, if he would have allowed the Treasury to view people who fail to disclose £100,000 of income as "an oversight".

As it is, it shows almost comedic levels of incompetence from a Minister who has responsibility for two government departments. Gordon Brown is stuck between a rock and a hard place because if Hain goes, so should Harman and probably Wendy Alexander in Scotland because they too have had problems with donations in recent months. But if they stay, he is left saddled with useless ministers who refuse to face up to when they have broken the rules.