Cameron and cash for access

And while the Tories quickly pointed out that no donation was accepted – or meetings arranged – from deals negotiated by Peter Cruddas, the party’s co-treasurer who has fallen on his sword, taxpayers have still to be reassured by these denials, or the growing calls for full state funding of political parties. For, while the Conservatives’ deputy chairman Michael Fallon said there were sufficient checks in place to comply with rules on donors, this is at odds with the impression given by Mr Cruddas – and his bold assertions about the size of a donation required to “buy” a Downing Street soirée with Mr Cameron and his wife Samantha.

If the co-treasurer was a rogue operator, as is being claimed, why did it require a newspaper investigation for this wrong-doing to be exposed? Why did the Conservative Party have insufficient checks in place? And why has the Prime Minister failed to honour his pre-election pledge to curtail the influence of lobbyists?

With public trust in the Government eroded by issues like the the pensions sleight of hand in last week’s Budget, the Tories need to provide some very clear answers on Mr Cruddas, who he met while on their payroll and how he was in a position to make such claims.

Predictably, this shameful episode has prompted the Liberal Democrats – perhaps mindful of Labour’s relationship with the trade unions – to call for political parties to be state-funded in the future to ensure influence and access cannot be bought. This is not the answer, however. It should be up to the main parties to derive sufficient income from their own members, with total transparency on all donations over a set limit.

If there is also a complete record of meetings between donors and politicians, there should be no need for the taxpayer to bailout the parties. But it comes down to the issue of trust – and whether politicians will abide by the rules. And this latter point is now the primary consideration.