Tuesday, February 24, 2015 

The politicians we deserve.

You know, part of me really wants to look at the latest cash for access scandal, or whatever it is you want to call it, see the MPs ensnared, indulge in a bit of schadenfreude and leave it at that.  Couldn't have happened to a nicer couple of politicians, barring Nadine Dorries, John Hemming or a whole load of others you could name.  Good old "Rockets" Rifkind, who made a career out confusing people into thinking his innate pomposity was gravitas, and had never seemed happier than as chairman of the government's committee for whitewashing the intelligence agencies.  As for Jack Straw, what more is there to be said for the torture authorising (allegedly), prison building, dictator fawning war criminal?  Well plenty, but let's not extend ourselves too much.

Except the whole thing's a bit well, underwhelming, isn't it?  If you thought the previous sting by the same people was lacking in evidence of any wrongdoing as opposed to the suggestion there could be in the future, which memorably saw Stephen Byers describe himself as a "cab for hire", this one's even less convincing.  Dispatches could barely fill its half-hour time slot with the secret recordings of Rifkind n' Straw, and instead went to the expense of showing what both look like in cartoon form, presumably to eat up some time.  As previously, it was more they looked dodgy as filmed by hidden cameras, as most people will shot at an angle, something Newsnight dared to suggest, than anything else.  Then we heard the familiar boasts and exaggerations, which an awful lot of people will make if there's the possibility of some lucrative work in the offing.  Straw had "gone under the radar" to a former Ukrainian prime minister for a client, using a mixture of "charm and menace", neither of which are qualities you'd normally associate with the Blackburn MP.

Rifkind was even more effusive.  You'd be surprised how "much free time" he has, despite his parliamentary commitments, and in any case, he considers himself self-employed rather than, err, a public servant.  Not apparently realising the seriousness of having seen pound signs before his eyes, he then went on the Today programme and informed the listeners of BBC Radio Middle Class you can't expect people of his calibre to get by on a piffling £67,000 a year.  Most probably nodded sagely and then switched over to Grimmy.

"Rockets" has since claimed he's been terribly stitched up, and that he wouldn't for a moment have dreamed of lobbying on behalf of a Chinese firm in his capacity as an MP.  Instead his suggestion of contacting ministers without revealing his motives was to be done in a private capacity, one would have to assume, or at least would have been his explanation to the standards commission, since rendered fairly academic by his decision to stand down at the election.  Straw has long since announced his "retirement", although he clearly believed he was due to receive a peerage, as he would be able to help "even more" as a Lord.  There is perhaps a more prima facie case of breaking the rules for Straw in that he hosted the meetings in his parliamentary office, but hardly the most serious when compared to, ooh, signing off on the rendition of people back to Gaddafi's torture dungeons.

It's never so much the details in these exposes though as it is the sheer fact MPs have been caught looking comprised at all.  It just invites the "snouts in the trough" and "all the same" lines we've heard beyond the point of tedium.  It's also distinctly odd that we have such double standards over individual MPs' interests as opposed to those of their parties: conferences barring the Lib Dems' long since ceased being about policy and instead became an opportunity for a week of lobbying.  The Conservatives for their part advertise how they can be influenced, as pointed out before: just the £50,000 "donation" gets you access to the Leader's Group, where you can schmooze with Cameron and Osborne of an evening a couple of times a year.  Just the other week they were auctioning off "prizes" such as going for a run with Iain Duncan Smith, shoe-shopping with Theresa May, or a back-scuttle in a bus stop with Boris, as though such activities would be the only subject up for discussion.  Everyone points and laughs for a day or so, a few say how corrupt it all is, and then it's back to normal.

Only as we're so close to the election Labour's seized on the idea of trying to get an advantage where there almost certainly isn't one.  Miliband's suggestion of imposing a cap on earnings from outside interests to 10 or 15% of an MP's salary seems to be neither one thing or the other: it won't put an end to the claims of MPs' being bought, while it could have the perverse effect of stopping MPs from being able to work as barristers, GPs, or carrying on running a family business as some currently do.  As suspect and self-serving as the yelps from those extremely well renumerated for directorships and "advice" to businesses are, the last thing we want is a further professionalising of politics when that other cry is MPs don't have a clue as they've never had an ordinary job.

It's easy to be cynical about politics, as this blog proves on a daily basis.  £67,000 a year for working a number of hours broadly comparable to that of a teacher is more than a decent wage, not far off 3 times the national average.  Or at least it seems that way on the surface.  Factor in constituency work though, the arcane Commons practices currently being spotlighted in the BBC2 series, the way so many seem to think the absolute worst of their representatives, not always wrongly, and how in the current media environment you are essentially never off duty as it were, your every move and comment there to be scrutinised, filmed and tweeted, and you'd have to be either a masochist or a true believer in the idea of public service to want to be an MP.

This isn't of course to excuse Rifkind or Straw, god forbid, who proved to be just as gullible and potentially grasping as plenty of other mortals, but the last thing needed is further restrictions on individuals when the entire system of political funding is so open to abuse. Hence why it's possible something akin to Miliband's proposal could yet become law while all sides will continue to prevent the reform of party funding.  Frankly, we often get the politicians we deserve.

Labels: , , , , ,

Share |

Wednesday, April 09, 2014 

Miller in the Floss.

Off then goes Maria Miller, to spend more time with her converted barn in the paradise that is Basingstoke.  Often when politicians are forced to resign it can be written that events conspired against them; not in Miller's case it can't.  Miller clearly could have survived had she made a more fulsome apology than the now infamous non-sorry which only just managed to escape her lips, the kind of basic mistake a more adroit individual would have avoided.  If there's one thing you can't do enough of in modern politics, it's apologising, regardless of whether you mean it or not.  Do it, get it out of the way, reach for an onion if necessary, just don't give the impression you don't care about any mistakes in your expenses whatsoever.

We can't though divorce Miller's forced resignation from the coverage she's received since last week.  This might be one of the first examples of newspapers not claiming to have been responsible for getting a minister sacked, such is the level of embarrassment at knowing full well much of this has been about Leveson and to a lesser extent gay marriage, a whole swathe of hacks pretending their work has been motivated by the levels of public outrage still with us since the expenses scandal was first uncovered.  Have voters really been jamming the phone lines on call-ins as they were back then, all but demanding heads on pikes and the immediate destruction of all duck houses?  If they have, I must have missed it.  True, it doesn't usually take a personal animus for newspapers to splash day after day on a certain minister's problems in an attempt to claim a scalp, as it's something that comes naturally; this though has been something else.  Why after all would Tory papers otherwise fairly happy with their party of late be the ones leading the way, instead of making excuses or saying nothing to see here as they so often have in the past?

Not that it was anything approaching a good idea for Miller's loyal to the end parliamentary private secretary to send a text to presumably sympathetic backbenchers making just this point.  If there was a defend Miller campaign being ran by Number 10, it must rank as one of the understated and incompetent of recent times.  No one seemed to be willing to stand up for her in public other than spokesmen and Boris Johnson, and that was in his usual not entirely serious manner.  Indeed, Esther McVey said she wouldn't have gone about it the way Miller had.  Again though, was no one from Downing Street advising Miller on how to deal with the standards commissioner?  Wasn't it obvious from when the Telegraph suddenly discovered in December of 2012 that there were questions marks over her expenses this was going to be a campaign?  Why then wasn't she told to be completely open, instead of threatening the commissioner and all but telling the Torygraph to leave it?  It suggests a lack of attention to detail, David Cameron not willing to let his sort-of supporters in Fleet Street determine his cabinet, while apparently not caring enough to tell his loyalists to get out there and make clear Miller wasn't going anywhere.

Much as it's been pointed out how ruthless Cameron was to those within his own party over their expenses when he wasn't prime minister, Miller could have been saved, as Hopi Sen argues.  They managed it with Jeremy Hunt, when Number 10 just rode it out and claimed it was all the fault of his PPS Adam Smith that News Corporation was getting information on the Ofcom bid in advance.  It raises the question of why once it was obvious Miller's non-apology hadn't been anything close to adequate she wasn't sent out to try again in front of the cameras, told to accept she had got it badly wrong and apologise for having done so. A clue is perhaps in Cameron's reply to Miller's resignation letter, where he all but agrees with her pleas of innocence, prompting Ed Miliband at PMQ's to ask why she then had to go.

It certainly isn't any clearer tonight. Most likely is a combination of the factors, knowing the press wasn't going to give up, the lack of support from her colleagues and the feared impact on an already tough European campaign. In a way, it's also a case of the Tories reaping what they have sown. This week was meant to be about yet more welfare crackdowns, requiring the unemployed to have a CV and be signed up on the Jobmatch website before they can claim JSA, as well as further restrictions on what EU migrants can claim and when. Instead it's been nothing but Miller and her own outrageous entitlements. Why shouldn't people be angry about MP's expenses when those claiming anything other than middle class benefits are attacked as scroungers, day in, day out?

Cameron as a result has finished up looking weak and indecisive. The only positives to be taken are it will be a passing frenzy, soon forgotten, and that anger over expenses affects politics as a whole rather than any particular party, hence why Ed Miliband prior to today hadn't called for Miller to go. If there is any further embarrassment, it's in how Miller's replacement as minister for women, Nicky Morgan, couldn't also taken on the equalities brief as she voted against gay marriage. It just underlines how few ministers, let alone backbenchers share Cameron's view of both society and the economy. Miller for all her faults did, and he can ill afford to lose many more such supporters.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Monday, January 20, 2014 

Much as I'd like to just laugh...

Is there anything quite as hilarious as a political party tearing itself apart?  Well, obviously, almost everything is funnier than a party being plunged into crisis over what amounts to in practice a refusal to apologise, even when the party is the Liberal Democrats, but bear with me here.  It's more to do with how the Lib Dems have so often portrayed themselves as being holier than thou, having such deep integrity, being above the petty squabbling which the Tories and Labour have so often descended into.  In actuality the party can be and has been brutal, not least in the way it dispensed with the services of Ming Campbell in double quick time, while if anything it's long been a master of the political dark arts, smearing and engaging in ad hominem attacks on opponents when it's suited them.

It also takes quite something to relegate the small matter of a UKIP councillor informing the world that the recent floods are God's punishment for the government daring to legislate for gay marriage to being a lesser story.  Nigel Farage, bless him, has pledged to smoke out the "extremist, nasty or barmy" from his party ahead of the all important European elections, raising the question of when he intends to resign, especially considering his intervention today to claim that sexism no longer exists in the City.

The Liberal Democrats, it's fair to say, have a problem with women.  Not necessarily on the policy front, and I fully respect their decision not to introduce all-women shortlists in an attempt to increase the party's share of women MPs, but clearly something hasn't been right for some time.  All the main parties have their dinosaur tendency, especially among those elevated to the Lords, and it seems due to a mixture of old fashioned views on what constitutes unacceptable behaviour as well as loyalty towards Lord Rennard that they weren't exactly fully enamoured with the verdict of Alistair Webster QC, who while deciding that the evidence and allegations made against Rennard were "broadly credible", also felt they couldn't be established beyond reasonable doubt.  His suggestion was that Rennard should make a formal apology.

Rennard however has refused to apologise, believing that if he were to do so it would amount to an admission of guilt and leave him liable to pay compensation if sued.  He also continues to maintain his innocence, and so an apology would be fairly meaningless in any case.  The Lib Dems have duly reacted by suspending Rennard again, although it remains to be seen exactly what sanctions can be brought against a peer who is refusing to apologise, other than continuing to withhold the whip.  Rennard in response has released a statement saying he's considering legal action against the party, ably assisted as he has been throughout by Lord Carlile, the former "independent" reviewer of terrorism legislation, the same Lord Carlile who never saw a control order he thought wasn't justified, and pretty much complained only during his time in the role of the overuse of section 44 of the Terrorism Act.  It's also the same Carlile who took to the Mail on Sunday yesterday to complain that Rennard had been subject to treatment "that Thomas Cromwell would have hesitated from using on behalf of Henry VIII".  Quite apart from how the Mail and its sister paper were in the vanguard, leading the charge against Rennard, it's odd that someone so outraged by an injustice done to a friend never expressed anything even approaching such passion when it came to the "mistakes" of the state.

This isn't to say there hasn't been skulduggery on the part of all sides.  Despite the insistence of Channel 4's Cathy Newman, it always felt suspect that the allegations against Rennard were brought out into the open so close to the Eastleigh by-election when they had been known about for some time, and the email chain which fell into the hands of the Rennard camp more than suggests it was timed for maximum damage to the party.  This said, equally clearly those who complained about Rennard believed that the only way they would be taken seriously was to go all out, and they were fully entitled to do so.  We don't know the exact details of the allegations, not least because it doesn't seem as though Rennard himself has been given a copy of Webster's report, but they amount to more than Rennard just putting his hand on the women's knees.  The Telegraph, having heard of the allegations in 2010, noted that they included accusations of groping, and most seriously, two prospective parliamentary candidates who after a dinner at Rennard's home were told to "go upstairs", and were only allowed to leave when one threatened to call the police.

Rennard could of course be telling the truth, but when you consider the allegations against him were so widely known at Westminster before they became public knowledge, and it was believed his resignation in 2009 from his role as party chief executive was not entirely about his health it becomes less and less likely.  The opaque nature of the investigations also hasn't helped, making it unclear exactly what he had been accused of.  Whatever it was he thought he was doing, some came to see his approach as being to promote those who played along, while those who didn't found their careers floundered.  Whether accurate or not, he clearly has plenty to apologise for, and his mealy-mouthed and self-pitying statement today has exacerbated the situation rather than brought it nearer to a conclusion.

Much as we could enjoy the schadenfreude and leave it at that, it reflects badly on politics as a whole.  One suspects Rennard abused his position precisely because he felt he was indispensable, a situation which isn't analogous to the other main parties, although it has been true of the SWP, which has been going through its own agonies over far more serious allegations.  The sooner the party gets a grip, difficult due to its structure and how Rennard is no longer an employee, the better.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 

The wacky French and their wacky views on privacy.

When it comes to schadenfreude on the part of the media, it doesn't get much more pathetic than their collective opinion on France. You don't have to be aware of the Sun's headline "ZE FROGS ARE FILTHY: OFFICIAL" to know the press doesn't much care for our friends on the continent. They are, variously, dirty, weak, lazy, vain, self-regarding, womanisers, rude and good at pretty much nothing except surrendering. At the same time and contradictorily we naturally envy their very joie de vivre, their almost blasé attitude towards sex, and some even on the right grudgingly admire the bloodymindedness of their unions and farmers in sticking two fingers up to both governments and the EU.

Much as I tend to think in my more misanthropic moments that Britain is a beautiful country spoiled only by the natives, so those in the media who adore and might even have a holiday home in France itself think the same about the French. Their view of the nation and the stereotypes in which they so often paint the country, with the French then responding in kind about us "ros bifs", is especially refracted through the prism of our press versus theirs. On our side we have a boisterous, indefatigable, completely uninhibited media, which even now sees the sale of millions of copies of newsprint every day, whereas they have a cerebral, intelligent and generally respectful industry, which is precisely why in their view it sells a fraction of copies ours does.

More to the point, this apparent deference towards and respect for the privacy of even the most public figures makes a mockery of the very spirit of the free press. While the whole rest of the world is talking about president Francois Hollande and his apparent affair with Julie Gayet, a liaison which came as such a shock to Hollande's partner Valerie Trierweiler that she has been admitted to hospital, the French press limited themselves to asking about the alleged relationship in an extremely roundabout way, questioning Hollande over whether Trierweiler was still first lady, or if his security might have been loosened by the trysts. Hollande, politely as possible, insisted that private matters should remain just that.

Bashing the French and their odd little ways is of course tremendous fun. We would never allow our top politicians for instance to conduct affairs and then respect their calls for privacy, or indeed do the same when it comes to the royal family. From Fergie toe-sucking to Squidgygate, they've all been caught at it and exposed in the press. Curiously though, you don't tend to read much about the infidelities of Prince Philip himself, which seems distinctly odd. Still, the exception that proves the rule, right?

I mean, the media would never believe lies on the scale of those told by Mitterand, for instance. We draw the line surely at pursuing our representatives to the point of forcing them to resign over a blowjob, but otherwise we like to know who's shagging whom. It wouldn't take, say, the autobiography of a former minister to expose her relationship with a prime minister, for instance. Nor would suggestions that the breakdown of the marriage between a media baron and his younger wife might be linked to another former prime minister be quickly stamped on and not heard about again.  Our media is so dog eat dog in fact that even affairs between journalists themselves are reported on, especially when one of those involved was married to a soap star.  As for the exposing of those who've abused their celebrity, the record of the press is second to none, as we've seen over the past couple of years.

The fact is our media only exposes those it decides to, and even then only makes a song and dance about certain individuals, generally because they've either refused to go along with the narrative they're told to or have dared to involve their lawyers. It doesn't help that every editor seems to imagine that this latest example of infidelity by a politician could be a modern version of the Profumo affair, forgetting that one man died and another felt he had to pay penance for the rest of his days as a result of his shortlived relationship with a call girl. It also feels distinctly odd for the British media as a whole to feel so superior so soon after Leveson, when it was the very pursuit of such mundane details about celebrities and politicians that brought it so low.  Anyone would think some are trying to compensate for an ongoing trial which continues in the background.

Moreover, we're closer to the French position on privacy than the tabloids would like as it is. They might think indiscretions still sell papers, but it tends not to make us think any less of someone unless the details are especially sordid. And why should it? We only ought to know about an affair if it's affecting a politician so severely that their work has been significantly impaired. Only David Blunkett comes to mind as this being true of in recent years, while arguably Francois Hollande's alleged affair would also meet this criteria due to how it's impacted on Trierweiler. Vicky Pryce can also attest that seeking revenge via even as august an organ as the Sunday Times can go horribly wrong, not least when those you trusted turn over their source material with barely a fight.  It might also be worth remembering journalists and politicians consistently come bottom of trust surveys.  Could there possibly be a link?

Labels: , , , , ,

Share |

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 

The Paul Flowers pops.

At times, political machinations utterly perplex me.  Take the case this week of Paul Flowers, the former chairman of the Co-op Bank, who was pictured on the front page of the Mail on Sunday allegedly buying an assortment of Class As.  The secretly recorded video was incidentally "provided" (i.e. sold) to the paper by a "friend" (a 26-year-old Flowers met via the Grindr app) disgusted at Flowers' "hypocrisy".  Don't we all wish for friends like that?

Quite why the story was deemed front page material is still unclear.  Flowers left his position at the Co-op Bank back in June; he was only brought back into something resembling the limelight after he appeared before the Treasury select committee at the beginning of the month, around the time it's claimed he was exchanging texts with and buying drugs in the presence of Stuart Davies.  As yet, there hasn't been any suggestion Flowers was taking drugs during his time as chairman of the bank, although obviously that's the implication.  Flowers was however also a Bradford councillor up until 2011, when he resigned after his computer was found to have "inappropriate material" (i.e. porn) on it when handed in for a service.  Again, quite why accessing material that's perfectly legal, even on a computer provided by the state, should be a resignation issue escapes me (we're not seriously suggesting such devices should be solely for professional rather than personal use, are we?) but this misdemeanour apparently should have tipped off both the Co-op and the Labour party as to the fact he was a bit of a wrong'un, or at least should have done had they been informed.

The nub of the issue clearly has relatively little to do with how Flowers was clearly not suited to his role as bank chairman, and instead much to do with Flowers' and the Co-op group's involvement with Labour.  There is the matter of how Flowers was given the OK to become chairman despite having an extremely rudimentary knowledge of banking, with the defunct Financial Services Authority ticking the relevant boxes, Robert Peston pointing out that Graeme Hardie, now a non-executive director on the Co-op board was one of those who interviewed Flowers back then, but it's not exactly a surprise that the FSA wasn't onerous in asking questions, even after the crash.  No, this is as David Cameron made clear at prime minister's questions, all about Flowers' relationship with Labour, his position on the party's finance and industry board, and the various loans and arrangements the Co-op has in place with the party, both through the bank and the business proper.  Flowers "broke the bank", and he was on one of Labour's policy boards.  Who wouldn't shoot towards such an open goal?

There are then to be two separate independent inquiries into the near collapse of the bank, neither of which it seems would have happened without the MoS discovering Flowers was/is a drug hoover (allegedly).  To row back on the cynicism for just a minute, it most likely will be useful to see if any individual's behaviour was more responsible than that of the others, or if there are any wider lessons to be learned from the bank having to raise funds via hedge funds to stay afloat, but let's not kid ourselves here.  The Tories are attacking Labour on every possible front just now, such is the apparent desperation at the failure to make any great headway into the opposition's poll lead.  The economy finally recovering was meant to lead to a feel good factor and a Tory bounce. Despite the lead narrowing over the summer and in the period up to the party conferences, Labour is now once again ahead by an average of 6 to 8 points.

Hence the constant bringing up of Unite, Len McCluskey and Miliband's supposed weakness, while everyone else yawns, knowing full well the biggest trade union's real influence on the leadership is negligible.  The continuing fallout from Falkirk could develop into something major, but for now it's just another talking point for those disenchanted with Miliband's leadership.  Going after Labour over Flowers perplexes as there is so obviously no scandal, unless businesses paying for party researchers becomes the issue it ought to be due to the potential for conflicts of interest.  As much as the coalition adores blaming the crash entirely on Labour and Gordon Brown, going over further FSA failures isn't going to achieve much.  Nor is flagging up Labour's relationship with Flowers particularly wise when he made clear at the Treasury select committee just how encouraging the former minister Mark Hoban had been of the bank's doomed attempt to take on 630 branches of Lloyds.

It's more that you can't really believe the chutzpah from Cameron in pointing the figure elsewhere when his former director of communications is on trial, in a case where three of those he worked alongside have already pleaded guilty to intercepting phone messages.  Miliband himself alluded to the trial in his response when he said "and they're just the people I can talk about in this house".  If crying scandal is meant to be a distraction, it isn't working.  More to the point, doing so just further encourages those who want to portray politics as being entirely venal and corrupt.  It takes something on the scale of the expenses scandal to really change minds.  Whatever was or wasn't known about Flowers, it doesn't so much as amount to a single "flipped" property.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

Tuesday, July 23, 2013 

The Crosby mystery.

There are a number of explanations as to why it's taken so long for either David Cameron or Lynton Crosby to deny they so much as discussed plain cigarette packaging.  The most obvious is that neither were certain that they hadn't, although this still doesn't explain why it took so damn long for them to long back through the minutes of their meetings and rack their aides' brains to be sure that they hadn't.  Another is that they didn't do just that precisely because it would encourage Labour and the likes of the Graun to dig deeper and keep asking about what other interests Crosby has and whether they had been discussed.  Notice that Crosby doesn't today deny talking with Cameron about either alcohol pricing or private companies working within the NHS, both of which he is also linked to through his lobbying firm.  Seeing as the lack of candour up to now has meant it's happened anyway makes that difficult to believe.

Alternatively, it could be that they in fact did talk about it, and it's fallen to Crosby to say they didn't so as to protect the prime minister.  Considering the widespread belief among the press that Crosby was responsible for persuading Cameron to focus on all that guff about hard work and aspiration in the Queen's speech, dropping out the bits on fags and booze, it would be bizarre if it wasn't even mentioned.  This isn't to say that Crosby's conflict of interest had anything to do with Cameron's change of heart, but this doesn't alter the fact that getting in advisers with previous having already lost one in unfortunate circumstances simply isn't very clever.  Nor is going weeks without adequately answering an exceptionally simple question.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

Thursday, July 18, 2013 

The Crosby show.

Where once everything seemed to lead back to the Simpsons, now everything seems to just as often lead back to The Thick of It.  With David Cameron whining to Nick Robinson about how he seemed to be falling in with the Labour campaign to link Tory adviser Lynton Crosby with the decision to drop plain packaging for tobacco, something described as "looking like a smear campaign" by Michael Green Grant Shapps, I couldn't help but be reminded of Jamie's response to Clive when he said "he would never forgive" what Malcolm did to him.  "This isn't fucking Eastenders ... we're all in the same plague pit, there's no clean hands."

Indeed, in the irony stakes, the whinging from the Tories about Labour daring to suggest there might at least be a conflict of interest in Crosby's lobbying firm representing Philip Morris is off the charts.  In what have almost certainly been Crosby advised ploys, over the last couple of weeks we've first seen Cameron present Len McCluskey as being only slightly less evil than a 70s BBC TV presenter, and the unions in general as little better than enemies of the people, while last weekend there was clearly an orchestrated attempt to "get" former health secretary Andy Burnham over the mediocrities in the NHS laid bare in the report by Bruce Keogh.  Fed to the likes of the Mail was the deeply misleading, not in the final report figure of 20,000 excess deaths (other papers went with 13,000) at the 14 trusts examined, with the blame pointed squarely at Burnham and Labour for having allowed the situation to develop.  This was then followed by Jeremy Hunt describing the report as "Labour's darkest day", while yesterday's Mail again splashed with an attack on the party.

Frankly, who knows what it was that led to the coalition backing down on plain packaging for fags and a minimum price for alcohol, although you suspect on the latter at least it was because it would have been extremely unpopular and also wouldn't have worked.  There's also a decent explanation for delaying action on tobacco for now: that it's prudent to wait and see whether it has an impact in Australia.  Of course, this government like its predecessor doesn't give a fig for evidence when it comes to going against expert advice on drugs they decide simply must be banned, so it's not entirely convincing, but all the same, it just about stands up to scrutiny.

Cameron's problem is that he keeps placing his trust in people who have what might be known as previous.  First it was Andy Coulson, and there's still the potential for massive trouble for the prime minister if his former spin doctor is found guilty of perjury, amongst the other charges he's contesting, now it's a man who was at the helm when the Australian PM John Howard claimed asylum seekers had thrown their children overboard.  His advice during the 2005 Tory campaign resulted in the much mocked "are you thinking what we're thinking" campaign, while his work for Boris Johnson's Mayoral campaign has been undermined somewhat by accusations he ranted about "fucking Muslims"

Regardless of the reality, and Cameron still hasn't explicitly denied that he discussed tobacco packaging with Crosby, just that Crosby didn't "lobby him" about it or anything else, that your chief adviser also works for tobacco companies fails the smell test.  It might not be Bernie Ecclestone giving Labour £1m and then finding to his surprise that Formula 1 would be exempt from the ban on fag advertising, but it's of a piece with Cameron's apparent lack of curiosity about those he surrounds himself with.  Yesterday's lobbying bill isn't going to alter that.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

Monday, June 03, 2013 

The same mistakes.

I'm sorry (I'm not sorry), but haven't we gone through this pitiful shit beforeI could have sworn that it was only a little over a year ago that the Tory treasurer Peter Cruddas had to resign after he told hacks from the Sunset Times that for a mere £250,000 they could have some real swell gala lunches with either the prime minister or the chancellor.  Prior to that, we had those three Blairite goons, Byers, Hewitt and Hoon prostrating themselves before reporters from Dispatches, all eager to stuff their pockets prior to their leaving parliament at the election.  And before that, we had another four Labour lords (a leaping?) done up like proverbial kippers, all of whom were willing to try and change legislation in exchange for the largesse of lobbyists.

That's not to include the incredibly sad defenestration of Liam Fox thanks to the activities of his dear friend Adam Werritty, the antics of Tim Collins of Bell Pottinger, or the related but slightly different revelation that Baron Ashcroft had taken his seat in the Lords despite breaking his promise to become domiciled in this country as opposed to the tax haven of Belize.  Now we have Patrick Mercer and another three lords to add to the roll call of those tempted by the lucre on offer from people who suddenly emerge from out of the blue.

There are three obvious things to take from this.  Firstly, that MPs and Lords keep getting caught out by the same old tricks suggests either they're not very bright, or there are loads of people with wads of cash wandering about Whitehall trying to gain influence.  Second, that some politicians are extremely cheap dates: bung Mercer £500 in used notes and he'll happily shill for whichever crappy little country it is you're from.  Third, that doing this every year simply doesn't change anything but also isn't close to being indicative of the true extent of corruption at the heart of our democracy.

If the phone hacking scandal should have taught us anything, it's that the ultimate way to win friends and influence people is to subtly assimilate yourself into their inner circle.  Witness how Rebekah Brooks went from being close to Blair and Blunkett to being BFF with Dave 'n' Sam.  Yes we cam! If you don't want to make the effort to do that, and who could possibly blame you, then there are easier ways.  Regardless of how the Tories were stung by the difficulty with Cruddas, the party is still completely up front about just what you get in return for a hefty donation.  For a cool £2,000 a year you join "Team 2000", "who support and market the Party’s policies in Government, by hearing them first hand from the Leader and key Conservative politicians through a lively programme of drinks receptions, dinner and discussion groups".  If you're feeling a bit more flush, £5,000 gets you into the Front Bench Club, chaired by Fatty Soames, which promises lunches (natch) and receptions with MPs.  Add another nought to that figure, and you join the leader's group itself, complete with access to Dave.

It comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever then to learn that the suggested legislation to deal with this inequity in our politics also includes measures that will attempt to do over Labour and the unions.  Think what you like about our buddies at the TUC, at least it's mostly obvious what they want from Labour and they don't attempt to hide it.  The donate to the Conservatives page on their lovely website doesn't so much have a "help us make the country make a better place" theme as a "help us put one over on the evil lefties" motif.  Labour's, by contrast, simply says "help us campaign for a fairer Britain".

The real problem here isn't so much that we have a problem with some politicians taking what they can get, which is close to being inevitable, it's more that we have a second legislating chamber made up primarily of old MPs pensioned off so the new blood can take their vacant seats.  Those who were previously ministers then almost equally inevitably find themselves wanted by companies to continue the cycle whereby they lobby their replacements.  It's why we get the likes of Lord Reid constantly whining about the terrorist threat, having worked for G4S and since set up his own advisory firm, and why Lord Warner is so in favour of the privatisation of the NHS, considering his declared interests.

To call it a vicious circle doesn't really cover it.  Any reform of the funding of political parties flounders because Labour is screwed without the unions which the Tories and Lib Dems want to heavily restrict; reform of the Lords hasn't happened because the Tories hate the Lib Dems and dinosaurs on all sides want somewhere comfy to continue claiming expenses; reform of the constituency boundaries hasn't happened because the Lib Dems hate the Tories and the Tories want to screw over Labour; and reform of the voting system hasn't happened because the Lib Dems picked the worst possible alternative system and the yes campaign then settled on luvvies rather than co-opting Farage.  Lobbying by contrast is relatively easy to fix.  It still won't happen.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 

Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?

Is it possible to not really know where to settle on the sentences handed down to Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce? As others have said, it would ordinarily be absurd to send two first time offenders to prison for a crime in which no one else was harmed, nothing was stolen and where the only real victims have been the perpetrators themselves, who might not have lost everything but most certainly have done substantial if not fatal damage to their careers. It's also the case that giving high profile figures "deterrent" sentences isn't just manifestly unfair, it doesn't achieve its aim. If anything, the coverage of the case is likely to increase the numbers aware of how to swap driving penalty points and make the practice even more widespread.

This said, there's always something eminently distasteful about the way politicians and public figures tend to regard the offences their own commit, and the way they respond to crime committed by everyone else. There have been plenty of tributes to the pair, especially to Huhne, most ignoring that he kept up a lie for 10 years, only admitting guilt after his attempts to get the case against him thrown out had failed.  Perverting the course of justice is an extremely serious offence, regardless of the circumstances, or as Simon Jenkins claims, how the entire judicial system is built around lying. While the likes of the Mail have delighted in Huhne's downfall, it's been nothing compared to the way plenty responded to the bringing low of Jonathan Aitken or Jeffrey Archer. That politicians on the whole remain wedded to the idea that prison works all but demands that their misdemeanours should be treated just as harshly as those committed by those at the bottom of society.

You don't though have to feel any sympathy for Huhne or Pryce whatsoever to regard the entire case as a circus.  Justice Sweeney, as the Heresiarch argues, seemed to swallow the media narrative wholesale and did his very best to add to it. His judgement on Pryce was extraordinarily harsh, who while devious and complicit in the offence has been comprehensively screwed over by all those she thought she could trust, first Huhne, and then the Sunday Times and their remarkable disregard for her as a source.  However much we might recoil from the phone calls she made to Huhne in an attempt to get him to admit to forcing her to take the penalty points, it's worth recalling how Huhne told her their marriage was over: during a World Cup game, with his parting remark being that Pryce shouldn't talk to the newspapers. And with that, he went off to the gym.

One contrast to draw is the settlement reached today between George Monbiot and Lord McAlpine, where he has pledged to perform three years of charitable work rather than pay damages. Quite apart from how I fail to see how either Monbiot or Sally Bercow libelled McAlpine with their tweets, it seems a remarkably more productive if over the top way to pay penance.  The most obvious example of a politician attempting to make up for their failings is John Profumo (again, whether he had much to make up for at all is dubious), who spent 40 years doing various good works in the East End after his resignation as an MP.  On these terms, a lengthy period of community work would normally have been a perfectly fitting sentence rather than a prison term.

I say normally as this isn't a normal case, however much it ought to be.  The normal punishment for the offence of swapping penalty points does seem to be a short prison term, whether it seems the right one or not.  In line with this, it would have been perverse for Huhne and Pryce not to go to prison.  All the same, it just doesn't seem right, and to go against Simon Jenkins again, I don't think there has been any great public glee at their downfall.  Rather, it's been the media that's revelled in it, as though they're either making up for something, or preparing for what might be coming to some of their own shortly.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

Monday, February 04, 2013 

The hubris and nemesis of Chris Huhne.

The downfall of Chris Huhne is one of those political scandals that has a dash of everything: an affair, a scorned ex-wife, an outraged and disgusted son, and the all but incalcuable hubris of a man who made the wrong decision at every turn.  Not since Jonathan Aitken has an MP lied so consistently to the press, only owning up to their misdemeanours at the very last minute. Just last week Huhne pleaded not guilty to perverting the course of justice; today, realising that he couldn't risk a full trial, he finally admitted the truth.

Huhne's original offence was hardly on the Aitken level, which only underlines how such an otherwise intelligent man could act so stupidly. Losing his driving licence would hardly have been the end of the world, especially for someone with not inconsiderable resources. Why risk being found out by asking your wife to say she was driving? That one foolish decision has eventually led to him losing everything other than his new partner, and Carina Trimingham will be but a cold comfort in Belmarsh.

Much will doubtless be written about the affair, as it has already. More pertinent surely is both the impact on the Liberal Democrats and the enduring low opinion of politicians. As someone who came incredibly close to leading his party and if cleared would have been an obvious candidate to succeed the man he christened Calamity Clegg, it leaves his party further in the mire.  While one would assume Vince Cable is still the obvious figure to take over should (when?) Clegg fall under a bus, Huhne would have been a formidable opponent. Tim Farron and Steve Webb, also likely to stand, seem unlikely as yet to have the broad grassroots support needed to win.  Huhne's resignation also deprives the party of a recognisable figure, as well as one who had preferred a coalition with Labour to the Tories.

For those concerned about the public view of politicians as liars and all the same, you can't imagine this is going to do much to disabuse them of the notion. Huhne didn't just mislead on a small scale; his mendacity went on until it couldn't be sustained any longer.  Any sympathy he might have received due to the general disdain for motoring offences had he come clean straight away is now but a supposition.  Instead, his demise will just serve as further evidence of the political class's contempt, both for the public and the very laws they themselves write and expect everyone else to abide by.

What's more, they would have a point. It's not just that Huhne's web of lies shows politicians as a whole in a poor light, it's that as soon as he'd pleaded guilty the by-election circus was straight into full swing. There was no real enquiry or even hand-wringing, just an immediate plunge into the next election to be fought. It gives the impression that as ever, we have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Probably because we have.

Labels: , , , ,

Share |

Monday, June 04, 2012 

Ah, consistency.

Jeremy Hunt: acts as effective minister for the Murdoch BSkyB bid, having originally shown "acute bias" in favour of it, and then swaps emails/texts with both James Murdoch and News Corp lobbyist Fred Michel once in his "quasi-judicial" role. Was also apparently unaware that his special adviser Adam Smith exchanged over 500 texts/emails with Michel, including information about the process before it was announced to parliament. Cameron refuses to refer his case to Alex Allen, the official who oversees the ministerial code, for the reason that Hunt is an effective firewall for both him and George Osborne.

Sayeeda Warsi: Fails to declare some slight income to the Lords register, and allegedly claimed £2,000 in rent for a room she was staying in gratis. Also "forgets" to declare her shared business interest with a friend who travelled with her on an official visit to Pakistan, although it appears he didn't gain financially in any way. The claims are hardly on the scale of those against Adam Werritty and Liam Fox, when Cameron called in the cabinet secretary and not Allan to investigate. Warsi just so happens to be unpopular with the Tory grassroots, making her expendable, so this time Allan has been called in to adjudicate. If only Warsi wasn't about as likeable as a vomiting cavalier, there might have been some Tories willing to defend her and attack Cameron's Blair-like hypocrisy.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 

More blurring of the lines.

To call Gus O'Donnell's report into the allegations against Liam Fox (its actual title no less) a slight document is to put it very kindly. At all of ten pages and around 2,700 words it's shorter than some of my more extravagant posts on here, which it has to be said probably says more about me than it does about the cabinet secretary. It does those raise the question of just why it took him more than a week to produce it, and also why it was repeatedly delayed today; it certainly wasn't for proof-reading, as wags have had it, as it contains at least a couple of errors often found on the average quickly thrashed out blog entry. Whether it was, as Craig Murray suggests, down to No 10 demanding certain paragraphs or comments be excised we'll most likely never know.

Those 10 pages do however contain damning criticism of our dear friend Foxy and in turn his dear friend Werritty, albeit delivered in the finest mandarinese. As Fox himself was quick to trumpet, it does clear him of personally profiting from this friendship with Werritty, but then no one was seriously suggesting that this was a matter of immediate personal enrichment with Werritty as his fence. Fox in his statement also pointed to how O'Donnell decided there was no breach of national security, but he strangely overlooked how his disclosure of future foreign visits to his best mate "posed a degree of security risk" not only to Fox himself but also to the accompanying party of diplomats and civil servants. Still, they don't matter much, it was only a degree of risk, and Fox has accepted such disclosures were "not appropriate".

If O'Donnell's report was somewhat nobbled by Downing Street, then he at least deserves praise for the sheer manner of the skewering of Fox. He adopts the "blurring of the lines" half-apology first used by Fox himself and twists it into him repeatedly, you suspect with abundant glee at the absurdity of the formulation, as he and everyone else knows that this was no "blurring of the lines" on the Fox's behalf; it was entirely deliberate. Fox and up until now the Conservative party as a whole have tried to play this as a simple, relatively uninteresting affair involving a minister allowing his slightly clingy friend to tag along with him on meetings, ignoring completely that someone had to be paying for Werritty to gallivant around the world pretending to be an official adviser.

We already knew that Fox had directly solicited a donation from Jon Moulton for Werritty's company Pargav, which it seems was set-up to replace the Atlantic Bridge, Fox's forced to disband neo-con charity. O'Donnell reveals the other donors are names involved from the beginning, some of them also being contributors to Conservative party funds. Three have pro-Israel connections, although it's possible to stretch this too far: one of those named, Mick Davis, last year had the temerity to suggest that the current Israeli government "lacked a strategy on the peace process". Leaving aside that it's very clear that it does have a strategy on it, which is to make a Palestinian state impossible through constant delay, claiming not to have a partner and settlement building, he hardly strikes as having an Israel first mindset like Melanie Phillips.

They do however obviously want to know what their money is paying for. Giving money directly to the Tories is one thing; why fund Fox's pal unless he's doing something that civil servants either can't or won, with presumably end results. This is what O'Donnell is hinting at when he writes

The links between Dr Fox and Mr Werritty means that the donations given to Mr Werritty could at least be seen as giving rise to the perception of a conflict of interest.

With his remit preventing him from investigating or commenting any further, he has to leave it at that, while going on to say there is no evidence that Pargav sought to win contracts, something it was clearly not formed to do in any case, nor that Werritty lobbied Fox on behalf of the donors, something that he didn't have to do when Fox was in one instance in personal contact with one!

That Fox had then broken the ministerial code was obvious. What this report leaves completely unanswered and was always going to was what exactly Werritty's true role was, something that Fox doesn't want to talk about and neither does the Conservative party. Werritty, bless him, is apparently consulting the lawyers for his part. For instance, why is it that Werritty's most well documented engagements are with representatives of Israel and Sri Lanka, the latter of which Fox has had a long association with? Was he operating, as has been suggested, as a link in Fox's shadow foreign policy, aimed at giving more support, both moral and economical to two highly controversial foreign countries with poor human rights records? MI6 was so interested in what Werritty had been talking about that they debriefed him. Who else in government, other than the two junior defence ministers, knew about Werritty and when, especially the four who served on the Atlantic Bridge's advisory council? Why is there so little apparent interest and comment from within the party on exactly what Fox was up to when it so obviously seems to be at odds with official government policy?

The key difference between this and David Cameron's prescient feeling about lobbying is that lobbyists usually work to persuade a minister one way or the other over an issue that personally concerns them. Liam Fox was essentially employing a friend to represent his true interests in government in an unofficial capacity, funded by lobbyists who shared his values. The Liberal Democrats, perhaps worried about further antagonising the Tory right and the potential for Chris Huhne to be next, have barely said a word about the entire affair and this sordid conflict of interest. Without them raising their voices the chance of a full inquiry or even an expanded one into what Fox 'n' Werritty wanted and were doing is next to nil, even when it is so obviously vital that we get to the bottom of this covert operation at the very heart of the Ministry of Defence.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

Friday, October 14, 2011 

Outfoxed.

And so Dr Liam Fox has resigned to spend less time with his best man. If you must step down, it's always a good idea to do it on Friday, suspicious as it is: by Monday the story's usually moved on. It also usually means that the individual has got wind of what's likely to be published on the Sunday, and considering where the scandal appears to be going, into the realms of Fox running a covert policy bought with American money, potentially even with foreign intelligence assets involved, it's shaping up to be the most serious instance of outside influence on a minister for quite some years.

No surprise then that both Fox and the entire Conservative party want to dress this up purely in the realms of Fox doing favours to a long time friend. Not a single Tory it seems is interested in just where the money came from for Werritty to accompany Fox on the many trips abroad, nor why Werritty was meeting up with him in so many exotic locations except apparently to offer moral support. Fox in his resignation letter simply repeats what he said last weekend, that he "mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my government activities to become blurred". This if anything seems to be an attempt to deflect interest back onto the rumours and whispers surrounding the nature of his friendship with Werritty, which if not completely irrelevant is utterly inconsequential when compared to his role as part of his entourage.

Presuming we still receive Gus O'Donnell's report on the affair, which was framed narrowly along the lines of whether Werritty was organising meetings for Fox with private individuals in exchange for payment, it doesn't even begin to answer why civil servants didn't flag up this arrangement long ago. Once again it's the Guardian that's stepped into the breach, with other newspapers then following up Rupert Neate's initial digging. Additionally, only in the world of politics could Fox be celebrated as being successful for helping take the country into another entirely unnecessary conflict, having six months before helmed a "strategic defence review" which dismissed the prospect of a war along the lines of that in Libya.

The removal of another neo-con from a position of power, an individual with the brass neck to give a war criminal the "Medal of Freedom" at a dinner for his now wound-up Atlantic Bridge charity, is something to be welcomed. A full inquiry into Werritty's involvement with Fox is now urgently required.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Tuesday, October 11, 2011 

The Fox hunt: hubris then nemesis.

Has there ever been a political scandal as genuinely entertaining as the one that continues to engulf Dr Liam "actually a real doctor" Fox? Sure, in the past many enjoyed the schadenfreude derived from Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken getting their comeuppance, while in the sex stakes there's been John Prescott and Ron Davies amongst a whole range of others, but when it comes to general hilarity there doesn't seem to be anything to touch the adventures of Foxy and his best man, Adam Werritty. We've previously had the not very good not very satirical takes on the goings-on at the Spectator and riffs on Boris 'n' Dave, which one suspects didn't involve all that much embellishment; in this instance, there's no need for any. Wherever Fox goes, be it Dubai, Israel, America or darkest Peru, Werrity just happens to turn up! Fox could have wandered into a sauna in Sweden or a restaurant in Russia without letting anyone know, and there, in a coincidence to end all coincidences, would still be his old wingman just happening to be conducting a deal with some other chinless wonder who also just happened to be passing.

It's such a remarkable tale that you almost wonder if the civil servants working alongside the defence secretary didn't start believing that Werritty was an actual government employed adviser as well. Why else did no one apparently blow the whistle on this incredibly suspicious, potentially highly lucrative arrangement where by Werritty would follow around his friend like a loyal puppy dog, seemingly jetting around the world at enormous expense for no apparent reason? Didn't they suspect that something might have been going on when Werritty just popped up at a certain destination or was hitching a ride along with his best mate when he seemingly wasn't providing anything other than moral support? Indeed, it seems this entire happy affair wouldn't have been exposed if the Graun's Rupert Neate hadn't kept digging, having originally felt something wasn't right.

You then have to add in the fact that Fox, having originally denounced the various allegations as "baseless" and "wild", then chose his words so carefully in the Commons yesterday that it's a wonder the entire chamber, including the egregious Tories clapping like seals behind him didn't all die of suffocation from laughing so much. Alan Clark told a court that he had been "economical with the actualité"; Fox told the Commons, not quite as pithily, but equally revealingly, that of "the pecuniary interests of Mr Werritty in those conferences, I am absolutely confident that he was not dependent on any transactional behaviour to maintain his income". This was after he had admitted that his "distinctions had become blurred". For someone normally fairly blunt, as an individual imbued with the ethos of Thatcherism generally is, it's curious that he suddenly decides to come across like Bernard Cribbins in Fawlty Towers.

The only reason you can wager that Fox is still in his post is that for Cameron to defenestrate his right-wing defence secretary while Vince Cable and Chris Huhne have remained in their posts would be the equivalent of declaring war on the Tory headbangers, convinced that if only they could have their referendum on membership of the EU and cast off some of the liberal mumbo-jumbo inflicted on the government thanks to Clegg's crew that they would be assured of winning a majority come 2015. For while there's no ocular proof so far of obvious wrongdoing by either Fox or Werritty, their combined behaviour, failure to be immediately honest and 40 meetings, many of them by apparent chance, doesn't just fail the smell test, it breaks new frontiers in the political stench stakes. New Labour ministers lost their jobs for far less, Peter Mandelson and Charles Clarke to name just two.

The whole thing is ever so slightly reminiscent of David Cameron and his relationship with Andy Coulson. Despite being told by everyone and their mother that Coulson was a knave, he supposedly continued to believe his friend's protests of innocence. Far more realistic is that he imagined Coulson simply wouldn't get caught; after all, who could possibly be interested in how a Sunday tabloid filled its sheets with celebrity scandal every week. His biggest error was to think this could continue in government even when the Guardian was tenaciously continuing to follow the trail. Fox has fallen victim to the same belief: having given Werritty a job at his Atlantic Bridge charity, with his pal also making money from various consultancy work which just happened to shadow his jobs on the opposition benches, he thought that this could carry on in government without anyone getting wise to the arrangement.

It's not so much then that this is the arrogance, as Chris writes, that comes from the Tories conceiving themselves as the "natural party of government"; it's instead the old combination of hubris followed by nemesis which infects almost everyone at some point. Cameron managed to survive his brush with danger involving Coulson, although it could still damage him further. It's difficult to see any way Fox, by contrast, can keep his job, although an eventual return to the cabinet can hardly be ruled out should Cameron cut his losses now. The long lasting gift will instead be the image of this very odd couple, just happening to keep meeting in exotic places with Bunter-esque figures having walk-on parts. There might just be a one-off satirical comedy in it.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Saturday, May 29, 2010 

Question Time, spin and the downfall of Laws.

The Telegraph's accusations regarding David Laws' expenses certainly put the debacle over Thursday's Question Time into a whole new light. Did Downing Street or indeed Laws himself already have an inkling of what was to come, and so came up with the pretty feeble excuse of not appearing unless Alastair Campbell was shunted off and replaced with a member of the shadow cabinet, knowing full well the BBC was never going to acquiesce to such a demand from the government? Or rather did they believe that Campbell had been tipped off about what was shortly going to appear, and so prevent the possibility of him confronting Laws with it on national television?

If Campbell did know, then he certainly isn't letting on. Neither his blog or Twitter mentions any such suspicions of the scandal in the offing, and he's even written a rather sympathetic post on the matter, although he does make clear that Laws' sexuality, having been inadvertently "outed" in the process, was another of those "open secrets" at Westminster.

It could of course just have been Andy Coulson and friends starting as they mean to go on, as was first assumed, already prepared to dictate just what is and isn't permissible as far as our new overlords go. The BBC has always been strangely indulgent of Campbell, especially considering how he was determined to bring it as close to its knees as possible after the whitewash delivered by Lord Hutton, and they did have something approaching a point that putting a former spin doctor rather than an actual politician up on the panel to represent Labour was a strange choice. Less convincing was the claim that the BBC was helping Campbell to promote the first volume of his unexpurgated diaries, which he didn't so much as mention once and neither did David Dimbleby.

Regardless of whether all this was just a happy coincidence, the response of the right-wing press to Downing Street's attempt to tell an impartial broadcaster just who it can and can't have on a political panel discussion programme has been instructive: you can guarantee if Campbell and cronies had tried the same during their tenure that they would have done their usual impression of Violet Elizabeth Bott. Distracted as they currently are by the "crossbow cannibal", they've been remarkably reticent about it. Spin it seems, as with so much else, is fine as long as it's your side doing it. Combined with Con-Dems attitude towards parliament, as shown by announcing the £5.7 billion of cuts to a press conference rather that in the Commons, it hardly shows that this new politics they've eulogised about it is any different to the old style we'd become so accustomed to.

Even more unnerving for Cameron must be that we haven't even had three weeks yet of this new fabled coalition and already it has its first "scandal" on its hands. New Labour managed to go almost six months before the Ecclestone affair punctured the party's political honeymoon, and while that involved money, it didn't also involve sex as a theme. It's not even as if Laws needed the cash: we've been treated ever since his appointment to tales of how phenomenally clever and hard-working he is, a millionaire at 28 who could be making even more dosh had he not decided to dedicate himself to the Liberal Democrats and to a public life. He's also fallen straight into the Hazel Blears trap, immediately paying back the money before any investigation has taken place, which only encourages the view that he must be feeling guilty and regrets having been caught, rather than even attempting to clear his name. That he's also the man wielding the axe, almost taking delight in slashing public spending, and yet has apparently been more than prepared to take what he thought he was entitled to also bodes ill for his ability to stay in his position.

The Ecclestone affair went on for weeks, led to Blair doing his now infamous "pretty straight sort of guy" routine, yet had no impact whatsoever on the polls. Whether the same will be the case this time round, with the public clearly prepared for the moment to give the Con-Dems the benefit of the doubt remains to be seen. It is depressing though, as Alastair Campbell himself pointed out, that already expenses seems to be impossible to break away from. The very last thing we need is another parliament defined not by its politics but by the extracurricular activities of its MPs. Even more reason for Cameron to be rid of a minister whom he owes absolutely nothing to; just what impact it will have on the Lib Dems and the coalition itself through them, already defending Laws to the hilt, is equally difficult to predict.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

Monday, March 22, 2010 

Intensely relaxed about getting filthy rich comes full circle.

As scandals go, Stephen Byers declaring to an undercover reporter that he was the equivalent of a "cab for hire", albeit for a sum which even most taxi drivers would blanch at demanding, isn't even close to the worst that Labour have suffered over the past 13 years. It's also hardly a repeat of "Cash for Questions", let alone the far more dramatic downfall of Jonathan Aitken. The closest comparison is in fact an almost identical operation by the Sunday Times last year, which successfully ensnared four Labour MPs with mouths equally as large as Byers'. In that instance they too also later said that they had played fast and loose with the truth of their fantastic ability to influence, although they didn't go so far in their attempt to don the sackcloth and ashes as Byers undoubtedly has.

The denials of Tesco and National Express also has echoes of that infamous scandal, or what would these days quite rightly be a non-scandal, the Profumo affair. As Mandy Rice-Davies didn't quite tell the court, they would [say that], wouldn't they? It's impossible to know without an investigation whether Byers was in fact telling the truth to begin with and then, either in an attack of conscience or fear that he'd been nobbled decided to retract what he'd said, but the attempt by Labour to shut the whole thing down, even after Byers referred himself to the parliamentary standards committee was never likely to put an end to things. The response tonight, to suspend Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon from the party while understandable, is only likely to infer guilt on all three. Equally Downing Street must be enjoying the schadenfreude, despite the damage to the party, of being able to cut down to size the two architects of the attempted coup earlier in the year.

This has though been a scandal waiting to happen; the only real surprise is that it's happened now, and that all three of those to most cover themselves in ordure have been or were Blairites. That might seem counter-intuitive: after all, while you can say plenty about the Brownites and their own use of the tactics of spin and smear, it's always been those on the Blair wing of the party that have found themselves at the centre of scandals. Why though, when parliament is so close to the end of term, were all three so willing to advertise themselves as available to lobbyists? There might be an element of all three being demob happy, as all are standing down at the election, hence their last chance to get some lucre before descending back into absolute obscurity, but it's not as if either Byers or Hewitt are broke: Byers is the non-executive chairman of two companies while Hewitt earns almost as much if not more than she does as an MP through her directorship at BT, having formerly been a trade minister, and slightly less through her role as a special consultant to Alliance Boots, having formerly been health secretary. Only Hoon has no such interests to declare, and he suggested that his quest for cash was down to having two children at university, and seeing as he was in cabinet when tuition fees were pushed through the Commons, he only has himself to blame.

As Justin astutely notes, corruption, lobbying and Mandelson's oft-quoted riff on how they were "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich" have all been hallmarks of New Labour, or most certainly the Blair side of the party since 1997. In the first term alone there was the Ecclestone affair, when very mysteriously it was decided the Formula 1 would be exempt from the rules banning tobacco sponsorship after little Bernie had donated a million to the party, then Lobbygate, when Derek Draper (yes, him) informed Greg Palast that he was "intimate" with the 17 people who "count". As alluded to above, it's odd that this has only just come up again now: after all, party conferences these days are just one long lobbying session, when charities and companies buy up fringe events and meetings, and as ex-ministers openly flog themselves to those that formerly were lobbying them, as most egregiously Hewitt and Lord Warner have done. Labour are hardly the only offenders though, as was illustrated when Cameron attempted earlier in the year to associate Gordon Brown with those charged with offences over their expenses, commenting at the time on lobbying. Back then we still didn't know about Lord Ashcroft's tax status, while we did know that Cameron has a "leader's group", where if you donate £50,000 to the party you get behind the scenes access to all the party's luminaries. At least you know what Labour's union backers want, and equally know that they very, very rarely get it, despite the millions donated.

Whether this will have any great effect on either support for Labour, or further disillusion those still to decide whether to vote or not is unclear. Labour most be hoping that the relatively quick suspension of three MPs already due to stand down will have next to no effect on those already likely to vote for them, but far more important is that the integrity of our politics has been once again brought into question. While the lowest point has probably been reached, thanks to the expenses scandal, where it was everyone's money involved rather than that of politicians personally profiting thanks to their influence, it's those that are politically engaged who this time are most likely to be disgusted. Even then, it's not the money involved, or that any of three would besmirch their entirely spotless reputations (snigger), but the downright stupidity and way in which they walked into such a trap. Politicians are human, something we sometimes fail to make allowances for, but hopefully not completely ignorant and lacking in inquisitiveness. The Sunday Times/Dispatches scoop suggests otherwise.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Archives

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates