TONY BLAIR has been accused of misleading Labour’s ruling body after claiming he took secret loans because “potential donors†wanted to keep their identities hidden.

The Sunday Times has obtained a written record of Blair’s justification for the secret loans scheme — used to fund last year’s election — at a key meeting of Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) earlier this year.

Blair defended the secrecy by claiming that anyone giving money to Labour in the run-up to the last general election would be “trashed in the media and so potential donors preferred the confidentiality of a loanâ€.

However, his statement is at odds with new evidence given to the police as part of their investigation into the cash for honours scandal.

At least two businessmen at the centre of the inquiry are understood to have told detectives they were happy to give public donations but were told by a top Blair aide to lend the money instead.

Dr Chai Patel, a businessman, has told police that he initially offered £1.5m as a donation. He was then telephoned “within days†by Lord Levy, Blair’s chief fundraiser, and told the party would like the money as a “loanâ€. He was later nominated for a peerage.

Sir Gulam Noon, who lent Labour £250,000, said he also offered a donation but was told Labour wanted a loan. He too was subsequently nominated for a peerage. “My position is that I was very happy to contribute as a donation but that I was asked to give a loan,†Noon said this weekend.

One well-placed source close to the scandal accused Blair of misleading the party’s ruling body and the public. “No major business, never mind a country, could possibly have a chief executive behaving in this way,†he said. “The net is closing in on Blair and No 10 is beginning to panic.â€

The evidence provided by the backers will spark accusations that Blair’s loan scheme was specifically designed to hide the identity of donors in defiance of laws his government introduced to make party funding more transparent.

Another source close to Blair said: “There was no police investigation at the time but he will regret saying that now. With hindsight, it was a stupid thing to admit [that loans were used to protect confidentiality].â€

Patel’s and Noon’s accounts suggest that Labour — and not the businessmen as Blair claimed — wanted the donations kept quiet either because of potential embarrassment over the source of the funding or because the potential donors were being lined up for peerages.

Under electoral laws introduced in 2001, political parties are required to declare all sources of financial backing apart from commercial loans. Accepting “soft loans†— those not on commercial terms — from supporters seeking to hide their identities would be illegal.

Blair will come under pressure to explain his role in the cash for honours scandal when, as is expected later this month, he is quizzed by police, possibly under caution.

A Labour source last night insisted Blair preferred donations but acknowledged some donors were attracted to the confientiality of loans.

It has also emerged that Patricia Hewitt, the health secretary, wrote to Noon last year asking him to make a separate personal donation to her constituency. She is alleged to have been involved in nominating the businessman for a peerage. Hewitt is expected to be the next minister interviewed by police.

Gordon Brown, the chancellor, has so far managed to distance himself from the scandal. Police have written to him asking if he was aware of the loans. He insists he was not.

However, a source said: “Brown must have been aware, he was running the election campaign. Is he really trying to suggest that despite keeping a daily eye on every penny spent by the entire government, he had no idea how we were paying for the election?â€

 

Bliar would not know the truth if it bit him on the ass, most crooked leader we have ever had

A little while back there was a very good Dispatches programme on C4 and they actually had a Forensic Accountant go over the Nu Labour books.. His report basically said that if the Labour Party was a business then they would be prosecuted for trading whilst insolvent... Dear oh dear oh dear..... :lol:

 

Bliar has totally fukked up the party big time, he has totally alienated the traditional and long-time supporters of the Labour Party, membership of the Party has HALVED since he took over (from almost half a million in the mid-90s to just under 200,000 now...), the Unions increasingly want nothing to do with them either... The party has been trying to plug the huge gaps in their finances by these dodgy 'loans for peerages', and they've been caught 'at it'....

 

But dont expect B-Liar to be doing any prison time, oh no, as Ian Hislop pointed out on "Have I Got News For You" on Friday, he has appointed all his chums into the very positions that would have the power to prosecute him..... <_<

 

I am so absolutely depressed to admit this, but in terms of sheer corruption, this man and his scummy shower of utter b/astards are even WORSE than Thatcher or the Tories ever were. Something I NEVER thought I'd hear myself say......

I am so absolutely depressed to admit this, but in terms of sheer corruption, this man and his scummy shower of utter b/astards are even WORSE than Thatcher or the Tories ever were. Something I NEVER thought I'd hear myself say......

I sense a niffed Labour voter :lol:

Bliar would not know the truth if it bit him on the ass, most crooked leader we have ever had

 

....after Thatcher, of course...

....after Thatcher, of course...

That's debatable.. however I've only really lived under Blair so it wouldn't be fair on me to judge but with what I've seen from Blair and heard from Thatcher I wouldn't go as far as saying that Blair is worse than Thatcher.

....after Thatcher, of course...

 

Do you have some examples of corruption under Maggie ?

 

Whatever your distaste for her over the gay laws and mine closures it is unfair to call her a crook or of standing by crooks

 

Bliar >>>

 

Cash for honours

Mandelson mortgage fraud

Cash for visas

Lying about WMD's

Driving Dr Kelly to suicide

Do you have some examples of corruption under Maggie ?

 

Whatever your distaste for her over the gay laws and mine closures it is unfair to call her a crook or of standing by crooks

 

 

 

Well, she's certainly a war criminal - sinking of the Belgrano.... Aiding, abetting and giving shelter to a murderer - ie, Pinochet.....

 

I sense a niffed Labour voter :lol:

 

I've NEVER voted Labour, I'm a proper Socialist.... :lol: :lol: