See Guido is poopoohing this, there must be something in it!!

I love the way Paul Staines casually downplays certain items one minute, then rages against the Labour spin machine the next.

Why would anyone want to investigate? It is a non-story.

All our major political parties use charter aircraft, your own more than most. Since the parties have no other source of revenue, all are paid for out of donations. What is so special about those donations coming in the form of flights? Seems very efficient, to cut out the broker's 20% commission and use a charter company the donor has a close connection with.

It seems these flights have been entered in the register of members' interests. Ashcroft is a known Conservative donor. He is generous, but nothing like as generous as Sainsbury or various unions are to Labour, and he has far less influence on the party.

Dassault would be offended by Penguin's characterisation of one of their better aircraft as "not exactly a Leer [sic] Jet", assuming assuming he means the Learjet. The Falcon 900 is a far more capable aircraft than any Learjet, or it couldn't go to the Sudan. Suggests to me that Penguin has little idea what he is talking about.

The fact that he makes something of a gear collapse on landing also suggests this. It is an uncommon occurence, but not usually one with grave consequences even to the aircraft, let alone passengers. One Scandanavian airline has had 3 in the last few weeks, with no serious injury except to the reputation of the manufacturer, DHC.

The fact Penguin gives no credit to the fact that at least Conservative opposition are looking at Sudan suggests he either knows nothing about international affairs, or he is simply scoring cheap political points.

Good luck in your campaign against Usmanov, by the way. I notice the banner.

Hmm, knows nothing of international affairs. Does a degree in it help? BTW, what did Dave achieve by going to Sudan, doesn't seem to have helped much. Still, made for some good media coverage.

Congratulations - you have moved your party back 13 years, to the good old days of "Tory sleaze" - a very important thing to do in the face of 10 years of trough-swilling on the part of your shameful party colleagues.

What is the betting this comment will by some miracle not be approved ?

Alan Douglas

I never left off on Tory sleaze comrade. The only reason they did was they have had less of a trough to dip their snouts in for the last ten years.

Mr Piper :

1) I am certainly NOT your comrade.

2) Kudos for actually allowing my comment through.

3) "they have had less of a trough to dip their snouts in" - pushed aside by the much larger numbers in the Labour rush, more like.

I honestly do not understand how people like you can be so partisanly one-sided ?

After all, ToNy sleeze has led to the first ever police questioning of a serving Prime Minister - toRy sleaze was confined to the minor fringes of the party, and most of it seemed to be reliant on the word of that noble purveyor of unvarnish truth, Fayed.

Your people made sleaze bigger and better, and involved a significant number of figures central to your government - do I need to list some : Mandelson 2x, Blunkett 2x, Prescott, he of the cocktail sausage, Robinson, Blair. I think I have made my point. That is what I would call PROFESSIONAL LABOUR SLEAZE, compared to the amateur bumblings of a few Tory fringe figures.

Alan Douglas

Comrade, I suspect you're right. I've no time for the sleazy gets at the top of Labour's greasy pole, never mind your former Party Chairman who doubled up as the member for Belmarsh prison, and your Cabinet member who did 18 months for lying through his teeth.