When the Levy investigator breaks

According to the BBC News yesterday, whether Yates of the Yard tells all depends on how deep and how strong the questioning of the select committee is. It seems daft to me - he is talking to a Commons Select Committee, he must simply say it as it is. This is too big an issue to be spun.

Sky - no cash for honours charges

Tonight Sky are suggesting that no-one will be charged over Cash for Honours. I smell a rat. Eitehr Sky sources are very close to the Blair camp and are doing some osrt of pre-emptive leak ot take hte heat off, or someone has been leaned on. I cannot believe, after all the information that we have seen on this issue, that no-one is culpable.

The Smoking Gun

I am actually with the Attorney General on this one.

It is wrong for the media to take up opportunities to publish details that could compromise a trial. The difficulty is that "exclusives" are everything to the modern media, and they seem unable to resist, despite the consequences. This is even more important when the potential trial involves the offices of our most senior politician.

As for who provided the leaked information. The old Columbo movies used to talk about means, motive and opportunity. There only seems to be one organisation to which all 3 categories fit and that is No. 10 Downing Street. Only time will tell.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good headline

Only a left leaning newspaper like the Guardian could do this. Under the headline:

Blair will not face third interview on honours, says spokesman

comes the story that there has, so far, been no contact between Blair and the police over a 3rd interview - it contains abolsutely nothing authoritative to back up the claim in the headline that Blair will not be interviewed again.

A race to the finish line?

I have just finished re-reading the amazing "Don't cry for me sergeant Major" by Jeremy Hands and Tom McGowan - in my opinion it is by far and away the best account of the Falklands War .

One of the lasting visions of the book is the description of the Paras and the Marines competing over who would be the first tocross the finish line at Port Stanley.

Having just put that book down, I read THIS by Guido. It got me thinking about whether the Charities Commission and Yates of the Yard are in a race to see who can take a scalp first? I doubt if they are - but the thought of both the PM and the Chancellor having to fall on their swords at about the same time is one to relish.

How much more serious can it get?

I am sure every political blogger in the country is going to be posting something about Ruth Turner's arrest shortly, but I thought this Sky News article is interesting, it contains the quote:

Sky News' Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said the latest development means the police investigation has gone in a "serious and bigger direction."

It almost implies it wasn't that serious before, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has been interviewed (albeit not under caution). The next serious step is surely either an interview under caution for Mr Blair or a file being passed to the Crown Proscution Service. If the former, that must surely mean a resignation?

Does Downing Street Think It is Above the Law?

There are two issues at the moment that are really asking questions of the Downing Street machine.

The first is the decision to call off the investigation into alleged paying of bribes by BAe Systems, which was done for public interest reasons. It is totally wrong for politicians of any sort to interfere in legal processes in this way, but Tony Blair seems to consider it a minor issue. On the surface this seems to have been done to pacify the Saudi Government, but it could easily be suggested that the decision was as much about pacifying BAe Systems who have, in the past, made noises about pulling out of all UK defence work because of the difficulties with delivering projects to time and budget.

The second is the allegation that is doing the rounds this morning that documents have gone missing and that they are not co-operating fully with the Loans for Peerages investigation.

At the heart of both of these issues is Lord Goldsmith. He has agreed with Blair about calling off the BAe Systems investigation and will still potentially have the final say over whether Blair is prosecuted over Cash for Peerages. This adds ammunition to the argument that Goldsmith should have no say on the latter.

In the past the accusations about the Spin Machine were about the way it was manipulating the political system. Now there is a strong suggestion that, on more than one issue, they are manipulating the law. Another nail in the coffin of British politics?

Is Yates Coming Up Roses?

There are lots of positive comments about how Yates of the Yard seems to be doing his stuff and loads of optimism that Blair and others will be held to account over Cash for Honours.

Whilst I do think things are headed in the right direction, I still have this hint of scepticism. We have been here before with Hutton. Throughout the enquiry it looked like Hutton was really getting to the bottom of the problems identified (within his limited remit), we then found that the final report seemed to ignore much of the evidence that was gathered. I still have an underlying worry that this will be where Cash for Honours will end up.

One reason is because there are loads of opportunities for people to interfere, not least at the final stage where Lord Goldsmith is insisting on involvement despite the protestations of anyone with an ounce of credibility in the political system. I dread to think of the implications if Lord Goldsmith blocks a trial.