I have a column in today's Times on the cash for honours fiasco> Here's an extract:

...The Metropolitan Police have conducted an exhaustive 16-month investigation, have submitted their report to the Crown Prosecution Service, and no charges have been brought. And that’s it.

Throughout all the acres of coverage, bear that in mind. So why the assumption throughout this whole affair that sleaze is at the bottom of it? One word: wealth. OK, two words: personal wealth.

Lord Levy had a particular skill at attracting “high-value donors”, as Labour termed them. Rich people, in other words. Had he been in charge of attracting other donors – oh, let’s say trade unions, shall we? – and had he offered them legislation in return for their money, no police inquiry would have followed. No allegations of corruption would have followed. We know that, because none of the Labour members present at a meeting with trade unions at the University of Warwick in July 2004 has been arrested, or even investigated. Yet the upshot of that meeting was an explicit deal: unions would carry on affiliating to – and thus funding – Labour and, in return, the Government would frame policy with regard to public service reform and pensions as the unions demanded. Not cash for honours: cash for policy.

So organisations with a clear record of demanding favours in return for funding can pretty much do as they wish. When it comes to individuals with money, however, we instantly jump to the conclusion that they’re up to no good. They’re in it for themselves. They’re on the take.

Yet the evidence indicates the opposite. One of the first areas to come under suspicion by the police – an arrest was even made – was the idea of donors to city academies being given honours in return. Leave aside the point that such philanthropy is, surely, precisely the behaviour that should be rewarded. History suggests that there a many reasons why the wealthy endow schools – such as enshrining their good name, giving something back to their community or pure altruism. Corruption? Come off it. But the reaction to donors to city academies is, from many of us, to sneer.

Find a wealthy man or woman, and – inherited wealth apart – it’s a near-certainty that you have found someone with exceptional skills. Their money didn’t just turn up – they had to create a business, employ people and generate wealth. And in doing that, they do more for the common good than any politician. Indeed, find a modern politician and chances are you have found someone of, at best, mediocre calibre. So you might have thought that it makes sense to encourage men and women with exceptional skills to enter politics – to bring those skills to public service.