|
It seems much more likely that the ‘scandal’ is an intelligent and effective plan to hijack the news cycle and move public debate away from the economy, on which the Conservatives’ performance has been woefully weak. In the sanctity of parliament David Cameron has found probably the one issue which could have catalysed the instinct for self-preservation innate in all MPs.
If credit for the scheme is due at Conservative HQ, the abject failure of the government to dampen the hysteria and instil a sense of perspective into the discussion is an error all Labour’s own. Why, indeed how, are they losing a fight which involves the arrest of a scheming Tory politician for possibly breaking the law?
Nobody has effectively challenged the Conservatives’ hypocrisy in their attack on the Home Secretary. They have accused Jacqui Smith of intervening to order Mr Green’s arrest, while also claiming that she should have intervened to stop it.
Nobody has effectively challenged the Conservatives’ assertion that the Speaker of the House, an elected politician (of a government hue no less), should have impeded the police investigation by refusing them permission to search Mr Green’s office.
And nobody has effectively challenged the Conservatives’ Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, on the conflict of interest posed by the fact he is at once Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority and a close personal, professional and political friend of the man to be arrested.
If the police think somebody might have broken the law then they are entitled to investigate, and the nature of his job or the location of his office are immaterial. Why are we even talking about anything else?
See also: The wheels come off
8 December - The Horse Whisperer says:
The political class should be ashamed of their self-aggrandising outrage at the recent arrest of Damian Green. While the economy dies on its feet and millions face an uncertain future, the political elite seem more concerned with ensuring they remain free from justified police investigation in order that they can ‘do their jobs’.
But apart from being selfish and grossly insensitive, this issue has highlighted the dearth of progress and the staleness of debate in our leading democratic institutions.
Politicians are our leaders, and Parliament is as close to a group able to express common morality as anything we have. As keepers of our moral progress, politicians need to be held to the highest standards when in office, and display the moral leadership appropriate for their positions as role models for the population at large.
At what point, then, did it become acceptable for MPs to base their activities on encouraging disloyalty, deceit, betrayal and theft? Is it right that such underhanded tactics are defended as a general modus operandi by all major political parties? Indeed, is it right that they are considered essential to be able to do their jobs? What sort of example does this set?
Defending such actions makes a mockery of our institutions, and rightly holds the basis of our democracy open to ridicule. If the process of obtaining government information is poor or obstructive, then let us have that debate. Let us push for more open government, transparent decision making and independent statistics.
But for goodness sake, let us not resort to, and be happy with, underhanded deceit, betrayal and theft as a way of holding government to account.
All three political parties need to take a good long look in the mirror. British democracy deserves far, far better. |
|
4 December, 2008 Taking a leak
The arrest of Damian Green has prompted anguished cries of foul play and state persecution from the Tories, and not a little consternation among MPs on either side of the House. The problem is that nobody seems to have really grasped what this story is about.
If a senior government politician knowingly utilised state apparatus to order the arrest of an opposition politician, then that would be a truly frightening state of affairs. Really, though, that didn’t happen.
It had the potential to blow up so badly, and damage the carefully groomed careers of so many of the various public servants involved, that it simply wouldn’t have happened unless this was indeed an independent police investigation. |
|
Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine Opine Opine opine Opine |
