Batting for Britain

Blair batted for Britain with Czechs

By Nick Assinder BBC News Online political correspondent

There is an overwhelming sense of exasperation emanating from Downing Street over the recurring rows over Labour party donors.

Hardly a week goes by without yet another revelation about the prime minister batting for, or appearing to favour, companies which have handed over large amounts of cash to the party.

This week there is a bumper crop. One concerns the government purchase of smallpox vaccinations from a company whose owner donated £50,000 to Labour.

The other is about the prime minister's attempts to win a Czech defence contract for BAE systems, which has donated more than £5,000 to the party.

Ecclestone row continues

Then there is the long-running row over the fundraising role of the prime minister's chief of staff Jonathan Powell - particularly in relation to the Bernie Ecclestone million.

On the first, ministers are being asked why the normal tendering procedures were abandoned.

The answer from Downing Street is that the contract was a matter of national security and the company concerned was the only one which could provide the right goods at the right time.

Batting for Britain

Strangely there appears to be less concern over the fact that, post 11 September, the government feels the need to order 20 million smallpox vaccines while, at the same time, insisting there is "no credible threat" to the UK. And why only 20 million?

The second row is dismissed by Downing Street on the basis it was decided that keeping the negotiations quiet was more beneficial than shouting them from the rooftops.

However, there are plenty of precedents for prime ministers, including this one, making great play out of their "batting for Britain" visits.

Finally the controversy surrounding Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone's £1 million donation to Labour before the 1997 election continues to erupt on a regular basis.

This has all led to claims that Labour looks like it is up for sale to the highest bidder. And all too often it is impressions rather than explanations that count.

At best, it certainly looks like the government has made some questionable judgements over the two most recent controversies.

State funding

The prime minister's spokesman appeared to accept that, saying that "after all the hoo-ha in the Sunday papers" in relation to the Czech deal, it may have been better not to keep the prime minister's lobbying private.

Part of the exasperation comes from the fact that it was the Labour government that insisted donations had to be made public in the first place.

Ever since, the party has been subjected to a series of claims about its own donors.

Ministers are certainly right when they point out that, as long as party funding relies on donations, there are bound to be occasions when governments find themselves batting for companies who have also helped fund them.

So, once again, the issue of state funding has been raised.

The prime minister, we are told, does not believe there is a public consensus on the issue and has not put it on his agenda.

In any case, unless private donations were outlawed, it would not stop the controversies.

Public funding may not be on the government's current agenda but, the more these rows erupt, the louder the clamour for change will become.