Analysis: ‘Same old Tories’ says Labour – but that party also has plenty of cause to worry

All political parties, of course, need to raise funds, and this sort of story – not to mention the issue of party finance in general – has been a fixture of modern politics. Downing Street’s damage-limitation machine has, thus far, worked with ruthless efficiency.

Peter Cruddas resigned immediately and apologetically, while David Cameron promised a “thorough” inquiry.

Two things, however, will be worrying the Prime Minister.

First, in light of last week’s Budget, this affair will play into the opposition’s narrative that the Conservative-led coalition cares only about the rich and thus gears fiscal policy towards their demands.

Second, Cameron, who as a former special adviser in John Major’s government, will want to avoid any association with 1990s-style “sleaze”. Thus he has to close down the issue, and do so quickly. Depicting Cruddas as a rogue element was clever if a little unconvincing, while yesterday’s (apparently reluctant) decision to publish details of all the Conservative Party donors who have enjoyed dinner with the Prime Minister at his Downing Street flat was a further attempt to prove that his hands are relatively clean.

Also helping the Conservatives is Labour’s weakness on this issue. Sure, Ed Miliband called for a full inquiry and depicted the issue as having been “swept under the carpet”, but the Leader of the Opposition, a member of the government engulfed by the “cash for honours” scandal, lacks the moral superiority his party had when challenging John Major 20 years ago.

This did not prevent Alastair Campbell tweeting on Sunday – without any obvious irony – that the Cruddas story proved the government consisted of the “same old Tories”. But as Tory MP Michael Fallon has been busy pointing out, donations from trade unions contribute significantly to Labour Party coffers, something right-wing Tories have been unhappy about for more than a century.

Inevitably, the prospect of state funding for political parties has again been raised, but this is probably a non-starter. Not only would public opinion not stomach the idea of taxpayers’ money funding party political activity, but the two big parties probably have too much to lose.

The most likely outcome, therefore, is greater transparency about who meets the PM privately.

There is, as ever, a constitutional dimension. For the SNP, always adroit at exploiting their opponents’ difficulties, the Cruddas affair is another convenient example with which to illustrate what separates the “mad Scotsman” – as Cruddas called Alex Salmond – from the Westminster classes.

• David Torrance is a political commentator and biographer.