Cash for what?

Nick Robinson is feeling somewhat jaded about donorgate. In the case of Abrahams, he says that it's a case of "Cash for what?". It's a good point. Abrahams did say he would like a peerage. But he didn't actually get one:

I have had blogger’s block in recent days. Having mastered who David Abrahams is, which Janet is which and what the law says about permissible donors I found myself feeling curiously empty. Until Mr Abrahams says more or reveals the documents he claims to have; until some other player breaks their silence, this story is unlikely to move very far. Rules have clearly been broken. Yes, laws too but let's remember that this is currently a case of "cash for what?" In other words, it is unclear what was in it for those breaking those rules and laws other than an awful lot of delayed grief.

The Tory debate yesterday leaves Robinson similarly cold:

Yesterday the Tories initiated a debate on party funding. They threw allegations of law breaking at Labour MPs who in return threw back re-heated allegations about Ashcroft, Chinese donors and Asil Nadir. It all made me feel like taking a long shower and is something I shall remember next time a politician lectures me about undermining faith in politics.