Hain and Osborne

To me it seems that the similarities between Peter Hain's and George Osborne's funding problems are tenuous, other than their timing.

It would appear that Peter Hain ran a shambolic deputy leadership campaign and could not vouch for those in his campaign raising money for him. One of them found a way to channel money to him through an unthinking think-tank, which looks suspicious.

Mr Hain says that he was too busy to get involved in the money raising and aspects of his campaign. It doesn't wash, especially after the various funding problems that have appeared over the years. He has a duty to care about the funding of his campaign, just as any M.P. has to justify their additional earning and spending.

Mr Hain has refused to answer questions from the press, and the various underlings answering questions on his behalf have not given any reason for the strange think tank. They also state that Peter Hain came forward, but only after he had been found out for declaring to the Parliament late.

The case surrounding Mr Osborne is different. There is a similarity in the fact that some money was channelled. But it was channelled from benefactors into the Conservative Party central office with a wish for some of the money to be directed into the office of the Shadow Chancellor. The donations were declared to the Electoral Commission. George Osborne asked the Commons Authorities whether the donations should be declared, the advice given was not very clear. The print of the letter on Guido's blog shows that the advice is confusing. It appears that Mr Osborne tried to do the right thing.

Unlike Mr Hain, George Osborne has made himself open to questions from the media. Whereas Mr Hain looks like he has something to hide.

Squiffy.