ANYONE who goes around telling people how to live their lives must expect to face close scrutiny themselves.

It's particularly true for the Government and, sadly, elements of the Labour Party seem to be falling short when the spotlight is turned on them.

On Wednesday Chancellor Brown revealed how he would be spending our hard-earned taxes. At the same time it has emerged that Labour is around £23m in debt and may have to sell its Westminster Party HQ to avoid bankruptcy.

But there is more to being fit to govern than the ability to balance the books.

I speak as someone with socialist leanings. I know many people at grass root level within the Labour Party and they are good people, committed to making Britain a better place. But they feel they have been let down by a small number who have brought the party into disrepute.

When I make a decision, behind closed doors or otherwise, I always consider how the public would perceive it. Will I be able to look myself in the mirror afterwards with a clear conscience?

I wonder if Mr Blair feels he passes such a test when he considers his part in the loans-for-lordships affair?

The sequence of events appears to be that rules are changed so that any donation to a political party over £5,000 has to be made public. So, instead of making a donation, a businessman makes a loan to the Labour Party. This can be kept secret from the public and, indeed, senior figures in the party.

Meanwhile, Mr Blair nominates the lender for a peerage and the process is repeated for other businessmen.

Let's be blunt: this stinks to high heaven and, like others, I object to being taken for a fool by those suggesting otherwise. If there is a link between the loan and the nomination then it is criminal and I welcome the police investigation to establish just what did go on.

But even if there is no link, it is still unacceptable. Government should lead by example and this secrecy sets a bad example; it is not the "purer than pure" government that Tony Blair promised us.

Those who knew about the arrangement shouldn't have gone along with it. Those who didn't should have asked where the money was coming from.

The Conservative Party has been rather muted over the whole affair which leads me to suspect they employ a similar covert practice.

Taxing the public further to fund political campaigns is not the answer. It will just lead to more and more spending and how would you like your money being used to fund a political party you despise - the British National Party perhaps?

Senior politicians can command up to five figure sums for speaking engagements and media work. They may well have a flair for such things but the main reason is because their day job of representing constituents has given them a lucrative national profile. Why should the public have to fund their campaigns, whilst they pocket such astronomical perks ?

If anyone wants to donate to a political party that's entirely up to them but any money over a certain level, whether given or loaned, should be made public. To make up the shortfall parties should adopt a more business-like approach to raising funds and living within their means.

If they cannot keep their own house in order then how can they be fit to govern the rest of us?

Published: 24/03/2006