Friday, July 21, 2006

Bow Group Says Blair Honours are Cheaper than Lloyd George's

Looks like another 'Sleazy Friday' for the government as John Prescott is about to hold his arm out for a slapped wrist from Sir Philip Mawer. Apparently the conclusions from his inquiry will be announced within the hour. All the news outlets report that Prescott will get a 'mild rebuke'. So that's alright then. I do not detect any sign that the media pack will try to force Prescott out because of this. I suspect they are waiting for the rich pickings he will provide them when he takes over from Blair in August. In some ways I can't blame them. If I were a newspaper editor with proof of another bimbo eruption it would be far more entertaining and a far bigger story to print it while he was in charge of the country.

ConservativeHome carries a full report of the Bow Group paper on how much honours have cost under Labour HERE. It's written by Chris Philp, the editor of the recent Bow Group book on the future of Conservatisim, Conservative Revival. The report is published today by The Bow Group, and is being sent to Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, investigating Labour’s cash for honours scandal. It doesn't pull its punches. A large donor to the Labour Party is 1,657 times more likely to receive an honour than a non-donor. Large Labour donors are 9,955 times more likely to receive a Knighthood than anyone else and 1,549 times more likely to receive an OBE. As Chris Philp says...

Looking at these figures, it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that Labour has been blatantly selling honours and selling places in the House of Lords.

I am sure the eager beavers at Labour HQ will now be busy compiling the equivalent stats for the Conservatives and LibDems.


David Boothroyd said...

The Bow Group is demonstrating its innumeracy. They are not comparing like with like. If you want to work out whether you're more likely to get an honour if you've donated to the Labour Party, you have to exclude all other factors which might also influence the chances of getting an honour: so compare people who are just as wealthy, just as involved in the community generally, etc. Of course the reason they do none of this is that this is just partisan knocking.

jm said...

The figures aren't comparible. the 0.001% figure clearly a reference to what percentage of people have been given peerages *out of the whole country*

The doner figure is a reference to what percentage of people *who can afford to donate large sums of money to Labour and have done* have been given peerages

I'm not saying the cash-for-peerages thing isn't dodgy. I'm just saying that the "proof" given by the table is disingenuous.

Also - I'd be careful about crowing too much. I suspect a similar Tory chart would not make for fun reading.

David Chalmers said...

We need a commission into the abuses of public office during this government. A written constitution or set of written rules seems a must along with enforceable checks. The conventions which have guided political life thus far don't work in the face of brazen behaviour.

Anonymous said...

This analysis is useless because it is confounded by the link between ability and wealth.

You need to calculate the increased odds of donors receiving an honour amongst those proposed for honours via non-party routes.

ian said...

Durrr. You can't add up percentages like that.

To demonstrate that, reverse the question: If you donate less than 50K to labour, then your chance is (100-8.74%) 91%+75%+85%+10%= 261%.

ian said...

Actually, I think I misinterpreted the numbers earlier. It's me who was the thicky. Please forgive me. I blame the Tories' relaxation of the licensing laws for that. I shall now slink off.