Cash for access humiliates PM

Having said that Downing Street soirées for Tory donors were private matters, Mr Cameron disclosed hours later, and against his will, the names of his dinner guests. He had no choice. Refusal would have suggested that his party had something to hide.

That said, this whole episode raises doubts about the Prime Minister’s judgment and choice of friends. It also demands a full, independent inquiry, rather than an in-house Tory investigation, if the public’s trust is to be maintained.

Let it be remembered that the Tory leader only started publishing his dealings with newspaper journalists and media moguls once his close acquaintances like Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks became embroiled in the News International phone hacking scandal.

Yet it still took a newspaper exposé for details of his dealings with donors to be published, even though the guest list does not reveal the nature of the conversations held over the canapés.

And, again, Mr Cameron leaves himself open to the charge of double standards after failing to honour his promise, when Opposition leader, for stricter rules on lobbying. Would the PM be promising to clean up politics if “cash for access” had not become the latest funding scandal to enter the political lexicon?

It is intriguing that he now wants decisive action, although the proposed £50,000 cap on donations will particularly disadvantage Labour because of its relationship with the trade unions. State-funding is also a non-starter in an age of austerity.

With the House of Commons rising today for the Easter recess, Mr Cameron clearly hopes that this affair will fade from the public’s consciousness. He will be lucky to be so fortunate – the PM’s absence from the Commons yesterday was very regrettable and many questions still persist about the role of Peter Cruddas, the Conservative’s co-treasurer who said “things will open up” for donors offering £250,000. His remarks have been dismissed as “bluster”, but he did appear remarkably well-informed.

And, while the PM says he has no dealings with Mr Cruddas or his donors, the public require more detailed answers – or they will conclude that there is a policy bias in favour of the well-off. After all, it was only public pressure that led to Mr Cameron’s dinner guests being identified.