After the orgy of premature obituaries for Gordon Brown and the Government, it is worth recalling Tony Blair’s first six months or so as Prime Minister. He started on a high as he benefited from the comparison with his Tory predecessor, his popularity increased as the Northern Ireland peace process was revived and a second IRA ceasefire secured and then it soared still further in the aftermath of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Then the next three months were absolutely awful. The decision to abandon any ambition of entering the euro in 1999 was botched so badly that the Prime Minister learnt about it from the television news, the saga of Bernie Ecclestone’s £1 million donation to the Labour Party and the subsequent omission of Formula One from a ban on tobacco sponsorship in sport bequeathed an appalling stench and then a parliamentary revolt over incapacity benefit left the new administration looking hapless and incompetent. Alastair Campbell’s final diary scribbling for 1997 records Godric Smith, his Civil Service press officer, informing him that: “This is beginning to feel like the last government.”

This alone should caution against accepting too readily some of what has been written about Mr Brown. There exist, though, even more apposite entries in the earliest pages of the Campbell diaries. They came in October 1994 when John Major, reeling from the “cash for questions” revelations, announced that he would establish a committee on standards in public life under Lord Nolan. Campbell himself was perhaps understandably pleased at this turn of fortunes but his boss was far from enthusiastic. “TB didn’t like the sleaze issues,” Campbell noted, “Said the reality was our politics was probably the least corrupt in the world and while the party advantage was there, the trouble was that it would end up tarring all politics.”

A day later TB returned to the theme: “Hated the focus on sleaze. Once that becomes the currency of politics, the media would love it, and if you try hard enough, you can make Mother Teresa look sleazy if you establish there is something wrong in the motives of the people who want to help her.”

Mr Blair was hardly Mother Teresa but he was something of an oracle in this instance. His fundamental points remain valid – modern British politics is not corrupt by either historic or international standards and while sleaze might corrode one party at first, it will rust all of them in the end.

Three truths about the current fiasco should be recognised.

The first is that probably many more people will be embroiled in the issue of “dodgy donors”. It is unlikely that David Abrahams is unique in wanting to donate money while remaining anonymous (although it is a strange form of bashfulness that has included in the past seven days two newspaper columns, one television appearance and a jaunt at a London nightclub. More of a Paris Hilton than a Howard Hughes in his attitude to publicity, one might think).

A brief examination of the information held by the Electoral Commission reveals a number of cases where several members of the same family have made political contributions and there is no means of telling whether they all put their hands in separate pockets or if the real source of the money is just one of them.

There are other examples where quite large sums appear to come from relatively small companies, which could be a device for disguising what, in effect, is a personal donation. The only way one could be sure about the provenance of the money is by being so intrusive about the private finances of all the people behind the donors that no one in their right mind would ever again contribute to a political party.

The second truth is that large donors always want something in return for their largesse. It might be the comparatively harmless ego-trip of rubbing shoulders with famous politicians at social events. It could be consideration for an honour (although the market in that one has travelled sharply southwards). It might be a little back-scratching in advance of some commercial consideration. It could be on a slightly higher, but no less disturbing plane – to promote a pet policy or an ideological agenda, for example, But there is always something. There are no Mother Teresas out there in the land of hefty cheques to political parties.

Finally, the only solution is to starve the beast. This means that the cost of politics and campaigning should – by compulsion of the law – be reduced dramatically. A cut in the amounts that parties can spend on campaigningwould curtail the dependency of politicians on a tiny number of wealthy individuals and institutions. It was hoped that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 – and its requirement of disclosure – would eliminate what in many respects is an exaggerated fear of sleaze from the political process. It is absolutely clear that it hasn’t – because absolute disclosure of donor identity is difficult and complete disclosure of their motives is impossible. Now far tougher measures are required before the whole of politics is irrevocably degraded.

This debacle has forced the Prime Minister on to the path where he should have been in the first place. Draconian annual limits on what can be spent at both the national and at constituency levels have to be imposed, a cap of no more than £50,000 (I would prefer less) on what any person, business or trade union can donate has to be introduced and dubious additional allowances offered to MPs (by themselves) for “communicating” with electors must be curtailed.

A more austere regime should require less subsidy by the taxpayer, not more. And for this to work, the Electoral Commission has to be overhauled so that it operates like the Flying Squad, constantly sweeping in to ensure compliance, instead of running Teletubby-type campaigns about “engaging young people with the political process” (purleeze . . .).

Mother Teresa built her reputation on a vow of poverty. British political parties need to do the same.

Times Recommends

• Obama is giving his party whiplash
• Mamma Mia, how can we resist them?
• This loyal soldier deserves promotion