He had a whole string of familiars of more or less doubtful reputation, one of whom, Lord Kagan, ended up in jail. But their function was either to entertain him or to provide funds for his private office. There was no question of their being party benefactors of the same order as the trade unions.In olden times the system was reasonably straightforward. Labour got its money from the trade unions; the Conservatives theirs from public companies large and small. Both methods of finance had one characteristic in common: the contributors of the cash were not asked their permission before it was disbursed.

Usually, indeed, they knew nothing at all of their generosity.Company donations were buried in the accounts and could only be extracted with great diligence. Union contributions were a matter of how many members the leaders chose to affiliate to the party. This figure bore an arbitrary relationship to the number of members choosing – or being compelled – to pay the political levy. In law, the levy was to set up a political fund merely, from which the Labour Party might or might not benefit. The transport workers would under-affiliate, partly out of parsimony, partly to avoid the impression that they were throwing their weight around. The mineworkers, principled in those days, would affiliate the precise number paying the levy.

But Clive Jenkins's ASTMS would affiliate more members than had any real existence, to buy more influence for the union or, rather, for him. In addition, most of the unions would chip in at election time.Rich individuals had always given money to the parties as well, usually to the Conservatives or the Liberals. The most famous practitioner of cash extraction was Maundy Gregory, who was Lloyd George's intermediary and whose activities led to the setting up of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. This has turned out to be one of the most ineffectual parts of our polity: it may be because we can only be certain of the rascals it undoubtedly lets through rather than those it may have turned down.We do know, however, that it rejected Lord Archer at least once and possibly more often before admitting him to their lordships' House. There is presumably no reason why he should not return there after he has completed his spell of imprisonment.