The Labour Party (LP) in Britain is in all kinds of trouble. First, it required conservative votes to pass its Education bill as Labour backbenchers rebelled. Previously, it had to face questions about its Culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, whose husband is to face prosecution in Italy for covering corruption scandals by prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. As if this litany of damaging allegations were not enough, up comes the ?cash for peerage? scandal. It is alleged that generous donors to LP coffers were selected for peerage. Three personalities involved in LP financing are on the list of nominated lords.

What exactly is happening? On the one hand, everything is perfectly legal. A couple of rich guys pour money into the LP electoral machine to help the party with the elections. Nothing new. Every party benefits from such ?donations?. However, the problem with this phenomenon is two-fold here. Firstly, LP received these monies as loans and the leadership did not even bother to notify the treasurer. Secondly, some contributors to LP?s electoral machine have now been nominated for peerage in the House of Lords.

In British politics, such antics are not new. Under John Major?s government, there was the ?cash for questions? scandal, whereby a Guardian journalist disclosed that Tory MPs were taking money from businessmen to ask positively-related questions in Parliament. But the 1990s was to be the ?Tory sleaze? decade, with Blair seen as the moderniser and clean leader of a party that his close acolytes (including Brown) had expunged of all notions of socialist revolution. In fact, the Blair clique that was then directing the party had reneged on many of LP?s traditional policies. Gone were the plans for re-nationalisation of British industries that Thatcher had flogged away. And gone were the plans for a more equal society.

In fact, New Labour had moved to the right and, securing the middle ground, it won the elections in 1997. It was a calculated move by the young movers and shakers on the right that included Blair and Brown. The public was sick of what became the catchphrase ?Tory sleaze? and they wanted a renaissance in British politics. Blair?s young and ?holier-than-thou? looks quickly delivered. The Tory party was cast into what is known in Mauritius as the ?dustbin of history?, though they are now raising their heads through the dirt. However, the trash is now being occupied by LP.

Thus, the allegation that New Labour had benefited from almost £10 million of undeclared loans can be seen as an unperturbed continuation of ?Old Tory?. Or, more precisely, it is proof that New Labour is just as sleazy as the conservative party that they took so much pleasure to berate. The ?cash for peerage? scandal is nothing surprising for anyone who has followed British politics lately.

Since the Iraq invasion, Blair?s credibility has been in freefall. While he took his country to war against its democratic wishes, setback after setback has plagued his premiership. The cornerstone of his antisocial measures, the ASBOs (Antisocial Behaviour Orders) has displayed many failures. Then, there was the identity card debacle, which basically left the conservative party, of all parties, to defend civil liberties. Since the 2002 elections, there have also been the London bombings, which many have blamed on Blair?s eagerness to follow the Americans into Iraq.

To make matters worse, Labour is now caught up in its own sleaze into the alleged ?cash for peerage? scandal. The loans are supposed to have created a party within the party, with Blair and his cabal of close associates allegedly controlling huge amounts of money, without the knowledge of neither the treasurer nor the general secretary.

Furthermore, three Labour donors have been nominated for cushy positions in the House of Lords. It is not the first time that Blair has been linked to the money men. It is alleged that, before the 1997 election, he met with Rupert Murdoch and agreed on media deregulation. Subsequently, The Sun, Britain?s largest tabloid, switched allegiance from its traditional Tory stance to Blair. The result was a sweet rise to power for the current prime minister.

While New Labour washes its own dirty linen in public, only the most hypocritical commentators would find this surprising. Sleaze is, after all, the main characteristic of modern political parties. From the opposition to the government, they are all engaged in sleaze. From political nominations to receive the highest orders in the country to sectarian and cold political calculations, they have all known that the best they earn is the people?s scorn. Since this is not going to happen soon, this time of the year represents an ideal period for civic society (including political parties) to analyse the shortcomings of the country and try and find an alternative way away from the elitist definition of society.

The ?cash for peerage? issue cannot be considered an extraordinary one but rather a norm that satisfies public opinion. These days, we are seeing the public at odds with the parties they elected to power. Whether this marks a new chapter in the history of democracy is too early to say. But certainly, this marks a new departure for English politics and hopefully it can serve as a lesson for the spineless politicians in Mauritius, who rely too much on advisers to do the thinking and leave little space for grass-roots participation.

<B>by Diren valayden, Outlook Correspondent in Dublin