Tired old thinking landed Labour in this dodgy-donations mire

Why on earth was it so important for Labour, north and south of the Border, to gather such cash in the early summer of 2007? So important that party political funding rules were apparently broken, even though the SNP was already on Labour's case after the bruising "cash for honours" affair?

The answer is that the controversial 950 donation to Wendy Alexander's campaign was for a leadership election that never happened. In Gordon Brown's case, ditto.

If the dodgy donations had been solicited and received to mount a campaign that would have seen off Maggie in the bad old days of the 1980s, bending the rules might have seemed wrong but understandable to many Scottish punters. If the cheques had rolled in to finance a Westminster or Holyrood election campaign, voters convinced "they're all at it" might have felt the end justified the means. But breaking rules in the immediate aftermath of the Met's fruitless cash- for-honours inquiry - for nothing?

If hell hath no fury like a woman spurned, I wouldn't like to see how the spurned Boys in Blue behave when they get a second chance to investigate London's Labour establishment. Robust might be a polite way of putting it.

All of this reeks of poor judgment - especially in the wake of the failure to call an election by Gordon Brown and the loss of two prominent advisers by Wendy Alexander.

It may also be a pattern of cynically abusing power and even of criminal behaviour.

But, in many ways, Gordon, Wendy and the Labour apparatus in Scotland and England are all guilty of a much more ordinary and serious failing: government and leadership on autopilot.

When Tony Blair and Jack McConnell resigned after the SNP's May victory, two leadership contests began - and two autopilots immediately kicked in. Election meant a campaign. A campaign meant effort. Effort demanded cash. Cash meant donors. Finding new donors meant effort. Approaching old donors meant no effort.

So, out went the solicitations. Even though the rules on donation had changed. And even though there was no campaign to fund.

South of the Border, there were uncomfortable love-ins and mock debates. In Scotland, there was a nationwide tour, halls were hired, a mailshot was sent to Labour members and a biographical film was played at Wendy's "coronation". Great examples of the meaningless message delivery at which Labour has come to excel.

While they were talking about energising Britain, encouraging fresh talent and exhorting Scots to change diets and holiday plans, Labour was plugging on with old donors, techniques, campaign methods, staff and ideas - because they'd been used before.

A change of leader is relatively easy. A change of thinking is harder. And a change of behaviour - harder still. But the hard path is the one disappointed Labour voters expected their party to take in a bid to regain power. Instead, there's been recycling aplenty.

The Labour adviser expelled for his four-letter-word outburst against Alex Salmond was an adviser for Charlie Gordon - the shadow transport spokesman, former Glasgow council leader, MSP for Glasgow Cathcart and the man who set out to raise money for Wendy's unnecessary leadership campaign. He was also the man who backed businessman Paul Green for an honour and was leader of Glasgow City Council when it approved Green's planning application for the 350 million Silverburn shopping complex.

And why not? Green had created 6,000 jobs through shopping malls and donated 1 million in public works for the city.

Of course, we all rely on colleagues and people with whom we've done business successfully in the past. But in the case of New Labour, this reliance has reached epidemic proportions and has dramatically reduced the size of the political gene pool. Those who succeed are all too often chosen because of where they come from, not where they're going.

Take Gordon Brown's decision to let Saatchi's loose on Labour's PR: were they chosen for their flair and brilliance, for the thrill of the poach, or simply because they are successful (if very expensive) used goods?

And Labour cannot attempt to distract attention from this shoddy mess by cranking up the debate on state funding of political parties. The dodgy donations were not made in the course of a public election. They were intended to help particular candidates win internal party battles. If this is what state cash is to be spent on, it's scandalous. I do not want a taxpayer penny extracted from me or anyone else to fund a film made to accompany the announcement of a foregone conclusion masquerading as an internal Labour Party election. If it is not, then Labour should stop dragging yet another "innocent" cause into a morass of its own making.

Money has always been Labour's weakness - just as sex scandals have bedevilled the Tories. Forbidden fruits fascinate. And, like the once-poor who can never have too many homes, cars, Prada bags or Jimmy Choo shoes, Labour often collects cash simply because it can.

Whatever happens to Wendy Alexander and Gordon Brown, this is the wake-up call senior Labour activists need. Open the doors, change procedures, lose the autocue and win through conviction not marketing. In short build a new party - fast.