Clear breach of the rules
It was the scandal over secret donations to the Labour party which made all politicians - and the media - look long and hard for other breaches of the rules.
At that time the cabinet minister Peter Hain publicly that he'd failed to declare a donation to his campaign to become Gordon Brown's deputy from one of those involved in that scandal - the party's chief fundraiser Jon Mendelsohn. He went on to admit that there were other donations he'd failed to declare.
Now, after weeks of going back through the paperwork he has identified a series of donations adding up to around £100,000 - the details of which he'll publish and give to the Electoral Commission.
Mr Hain's defence of this clear breach of the rules looks set to be to admit to a serious cock-up but to insist that since he came clean and has taken no donations from foreigners and no "Abrahams" style donations (via third parties) his only punishment should be severe embarrassment.
I'm 
Comments
Except, perhaps, that with a skin as thick as rhinoceros-hide, embarrassment is not part of the emotional make-up of people like Hain; so if this is to be the only fall-out of this sordid little episode, he'll have got away scot free.
And of course, to people of similar emotional construction, as most politicians are, this is no disincentive whatsoever to behaving in a similar manner.
I agree, I don't see anything sinister in this and think that Peter Hain is generally a decent politician. In fact, in the deputy leadership campaign he was given much too little praise for his role in Northern Ireland, especially on Question Time with the other candidates.
Hain strikes me as being someone who does what he's told and please people so I'd be surprised if there's anything major that blows up in his face. I just don't think he's the sort of person to take risks or wind people up deliberately. Reliable plodder. Quite dull. Move along.
I think, Hain could turn this to his advantage. He's got the brief dealing with the unemployed, right? They're faced with a wall of paperwork and finance issues. This could be worked into a story where his mistakes get him closer to the ground. Now, that could be exciting.
It's important for the top and bottom to connect. People are too easily baffled and distanced by circumstances but, really, things are the same whatever end you're at. By taking this disaster and finding the opportunity it's less of an embarrassment and more of triumph.
Ah 'foreigners'.
Isn't that what Peter Hain is himself?
Does'nt he originate from South Africa?
We are used to the idea of people in various trades becoming 'international', for example, businessmen and sports people.
But I've always been a bit uneasy about politicians plying their trade outside of their 'home' country because the nature of the trade is or should be highly nuanced and personal to effectively serve the aspirations of the (English) people who voted them in.
Others may beg to differ, but I think it is crucially important that English people govern England.
£100,000 is a lot of money to us mere mortals and if we, the mortals, were seen to hide or deceive the Gods (those in such authoritive positions as Mr Hain) we would probably lose a lot more than our jobs - he'd see to it.
"Crime and politics are the same thing" Don Tomisano, The Godfather Part III
Nick,
If a cabinet minister, being paid an extremely large salary can simply opt for the embarassment card when they are found out, then on what basis can they subsequently discipline the staff within their departments? I am sure that within the public sector, lower paid staff have lost their jobs for less.
As an aside, Mr Constable (or whoever) should ask himself this question - if only an English person can govern England, who will govern Britain / the UK? Must it always be an Englishman, and if so, why would any Scots, Welsh or Ulstermen agree to send our taxes to the UK Treasury when we are unable to determine policy as it affects the whole country?
If what he really wants is English independence, then I hope that he feels strongly enough to say so.
"No ifs, no buts" .... or is that only for us mere mortals?
What is the point of having rules when no one within Labour seems to be following them and the only punishment seems to be embarrassment?
Hain's defence is sorry it was a "cockup" and it wasn't my fault.
I wonder if Labour would have been happy with that explanation when they were in opposition.