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 |

Tuesday, September 03, 2013 

How not to tackle the next big scandal.

When a government of any stripe wants to either bury bad news or in this instance, let loose a bad bill, it usually releases it just before parliament goes into recess.  Infamously, on the day Tony Blair was interviewed by the police over the loans for peerages scandal, the government published a veritable boatload of reviews and initiatives, in one of the most transparent attempts to distract attention away from the boss getting a visit from Inspector Knacker.  Only rarely though does it then follow up this attempt at subterfuge by attempting to ram in through the Commons almost as soon as MPs have returned to Westminster.  Instinct alone then ought to suggest that the transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill is a wretched piece of legislation.

Sadly, such is the level Polly Toynbee has reduced herself to, and I speak as someone who is still sympathetic towards her comment pieces (meaning I will at least read them, unlike those scraped together by Zoe Williams), when she writes about how terrible something is, I find it hard not to suspect it perhaps isn't as awful as she's making it out to be.  Then you read the reservations the Electoral Commission, the independent body meant to implement it has (PDF), and it becomes clear that if anything, on this occasion Polly has actually undersold how dreadful the bill could be in practice.

What's at stake most certainly isn't being helped by the BBC's lackadasical reporting of the bill.  The only figure they mention is the overall cap on spending by third-party organisations of £390,000, which is only accurate if the spending is spread across the UK as a whole.  The actual limits are £320,000 in England, 35k in Scotland, 24k in Wales and 11k in Northern Ireland.  What's more, the limits before you have to register with the EC in the year prior to an election seem ridiculously low outside of England: £5,000 is a 50% reduction on the limit as it is, but this falls to a mere £2,000 in Wales, Scotland or NI.  The activities deemed to be political have also been considerably widened, to encompass rallies, media work, polling and "transport for the purpose of obtaining publicity".

How a bill that was supposed to deal with "next big scandal waiting to happen" has transmogrified into an act that looks to muzzle charities, third parties and trade unions isn't initially clear, but it can certainly be guessed at.  With the reforms to constituencies and party funding both deadlocked thanks respectively to the coalition bust-up and intransigence on all sides, the coalition seems to have hit on the next best thing.  Unwilling to accept that the spending by Lord Ashcroft and the Midlands Industrial Council in individual constituencies is akin to that of Unison, the Tories are looking to staunch it by the back door.  Additionally, despite having come into office promising to boost the Big Society, the coalition has also swiftly recognised that come the election, charities, while not advocating a vote for any particular party as the Charities Act prohibits from doing so, are going to be blunt about just how austerity has affected the most vulnerable in society (the Lib Dems especially are worried about how the NUS will campaign on their u-turn on tuition fees).  By making the rules on what is or isn't spending on "political purposes" as clear as mud, they seem determined to frighten organisations into saying as little as possible.

Andrew Lansley certainly didn't go out of his way to deny that this was precisely what the second part of the bill was intended to do, merely that people were scaremongering and that charities shouldn't be running campaigns that look to be partisan without registering in the first place.  As the EC briefing sets out, the potential impact could be draconian.  A local campaign on a planning issue within Wales for instance could have to register, and as spending on employees is included, they could quickly find themselves over first the £2,000 limit and then the £9,750 within a constituency.  As the campaigns against the pylons needed to connect wind farms to the national grid, HS2 and fracking are likely to metastasise between now and the election, a whole new regulatory burden is swiftly going to be placed on activist groups.  The same is the case when it comes to the larger blogs: Wings Over Scotland recently crowd-funded a poll on independence, despite not having any direct affiliation to a party.  Any blog that follows suit should this bill pass will almost certainly have to register, while it's more than possible that other blogs could also be caught up in the regulations, hence why Guido is up in arms.

Quite apart from the potential impact on freedom of speech itself, or indeed the ability of the electorate to be able to make an informed choice on who to vote for, as independent fact checking organisations are also likely to be hit, what really surprises is just how open the coalition seems to be about the direction this takes politics in.  At the same time as some MPs have realised that the old closed off world of Westminster only breeds apathy or worse, others seem to want to turn the clock back to when debate was between parties and the established media only, and for nothing other than the potential of short-term gain.  Shameless, shameful and shaming doesn't even begin to cover it.  And failing a major rebellion, or a rethink from a government that doesn't appear to have any intention of doing so, it looks set to become law.

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, December 06, 2011 

It's arrived.

You'll have probably read the following quote a dozen times already today. Lobbying, so said David Cameron, was the "next big scandal waiting to happen". To his credit, he has done absolutely nothing since he's been in government to ensure he'll be proved wrong. This is especially praiseworthy considering how his dear friend, Dr Liam Fox, was brought low in part by his former flatmate Adam Werritty's links to Harvey Boulter, who lobbied both on their unexpected sojourn to Dubai. Anyone else might have thought there was the prospect of his statement turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy; not Cameron.

The investigation by the
Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Independent into public relations firm Bell Pottinger could not then have come at a better time. Nor could they have selected a more utterly rotten and thoroughly vile organisation than the one set-up by Margaret Thatcher's former advisor to expose. Even this though was their own fault: posing as investors in the cotton textiles trade, they said they had been tasked by Uzbekistan's government with improving the country's image. The bureau's team contacted 10 separate firms asking whether they'd be prepared to represent them, with 2 declining, 3 not replying and 5, including Bell Pottinger, deciding they could work with a regime that sends children out to work in the cotton fields and boils dissidents to death.

It isn't however much of a leap, such are the companies and governments Bell Pottinger have taken the filthy lucre from. Back in 2006 Sir Tim Bell was instrumental in the lobbying that convinced Tony Blair to demand the Serious Fraud Office drop their investigation into the Saudi al-Yamamah deal, working on behalf of BAE Systems to the great benefit of the kleptocrats and murderers in the royal family. More recently the firm has acted for the Sri Lankan government, well known for its adherence to the laws of war, as so wonderfully demonstrated during the end game of the conflict with the Tamil Tigers. Closer to home they also advised Belarus, often referred to as the last remaining dictatorship in Europe.

Clearly still proud of the work they did for the office of Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa, one of the most prominent boasts to the team posing as the "Azimov group" was that they had written his speech last year to the UN. Some might be a little queasy about ghost-writing a speech for a man alleged to have personally ordered the execution of senior Tamil Tiger leaders after they had already been captured, but not so Bell Pottinger. Equally, they were not fussed as to where the money to pay them was coming from: there were worries about an audit trail should the media become interested, but they had no idea who had paid them on the behalf of Belarus.

Apart from the ethics of working with governments who have a tendency to "disappear" their adversaries, it was equally unsurprising to note just how a PR firm closely associated with the Conservative party (and which donates to it) was apparently able to influence policy on a moment's notice. A day after a complaint from Dyson, and David Cameron was talking to the Chinese prime minister on how their products were being copied. This has since been defended aggressively by none other than Tim Bell himself, as being "in the national interest". This is doubly amusing, not only because Dyson long ago moved its manufacturing to Malaysia, but also because it shows his firm in a good light, even if it doesn't the government. Also easily achievable would be the setting up of third-party blogs, which would look independent but use search engine optimisation to try and appear ahead of the criticism in Google searches. Wikipedia entries could also be edited, as they had all sorts of "dark arts" they could use, although they don't seem to have managed this on their own.

One thing the phone hacking scandal and the subsequent Leveson inquiry has somewhat distracted attention from is that there has been for some time a nexus between certain PR companies, the more aggressive reputation managing legal firms and celebrities/politicians. Bell Pottinger, having been informed of how they'd been stung instantly had a threatening letter from Carter-Ruck sent across (whom they also collaborated with on the Trafigura case), along with an utterly frivolous complaint to the PCC that the rules on subterfuge had been broken. Newspapers for the most part are outside of this loop, although they occasionally enter into it for the access it provides to individuals they would otherwise be denied any access to. Those with long memories might recall how Craig Murray was threatened by representatives of Alisher Usmanov for suggesting his reputation was far from unblemished; a thoroughly softball interview with the corpulent Uzbeki swiftly appeared in the Sunday Times. If the tabloid media is to be cleaned up, as it must, then Cameron has to follow through on his word and do something next about those so eager to boast about their access to him.

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