following the money

Forget the baubles and gewgaws. The story seems to be getting bigger than peerages for loans:

Labour may have gathered as much as £10m in secret loans before the election, more than double the figure revealed so far, one of the party's most senior party fundraisers admitted yesterday.

He said Labour had taken the money before the election after its bankers were unwilling to give the party a larger overdraft.

At one of his most difficult monthly press conferences, the prime minister conceded he had made a mistake in not telling the Labour party treasurer, Jack Dromey, about the loans. He said he took personal responsibility, but was unable to explain the reason for leaving Mr Dromey out of the loop.

Well yes, why? He’s a party loyalist. He would have kept any secrets that needed keeping. Onwards:

Mr Dromey's allies said he went public because he felt he had not received the right assurances at the meeting. They stressed he was not accusing Mr Blair of breaking the law or offering peerages for cash.

A senior Blairite returned fire, accusing Mr Dromey of "trying to put the final knife into the heart of Tony Blair on behalf of Gordon Brown".

OK. So maybe he was kept out of the loop because he was close to the Chancellor. The Party’s official fundraising committee also wasn’t told that the party had just apparently raised £10 million. But this is not just a matter of being told. If the people in charge of the Party’s finances aren’t aware that the Party has just raised £10 million, then where specifically did the money go? And is there an audit trail showing how it was spent?

Is anyone else wondering about mortgages?