I posted below on what I considered to be an error of judgement on Iain Dale’s part for not commenting on the Derek Conway story. In a post today Iain comes back to this and I joined the debate over there too. In the interests of clarity I want to explain exactly where I stand on this because while I haven’t revised my original view, Iain’s now coming in for some underserved stick and I’m keen to disassociate myself from it.
The charge that Iain’s being hypocritical doesn’t hold water. I’ve no recollection of him ever criticising anyone for refusing to comment on a story about a friend so we can put that one to bed. The other charge – and one I hinted at myself but which I now accept as unfair – is that he’s being partisan. I’ve been in almost daily contact with Iain over the last few months on a separate issue and he’s been unfailingly polite, honest & straightforward. I’m as confident as I can be that if this story had broken about a Labour or Lib Dem MP with whom Iain was friends he would’ve taken the exact same line. And all the tosh about Iain's supposed interest in the seat doesn't even merit a reply.
This is why I think Iain made an error of judgement. Derek Conway didn’t suffer some personal calamity of the sort millions of people experience every year. The story wasn’t about marriage problems or some youthful indiscretion exposed – the sort of story that’s essentially private and only holds an interest for the prurient. In such circumstances friends can rightly be expected to rally round and offer any criticisms they have privately. Party politics aside, most would have sympathy for anyone in this position. This story was about the blatant abuse of public funds and Derek was simply caught out – a career calamity but not a deeply personal one. It’s a story that fits perfectly with the prevailing narrative in UK politics at the moment (finance, funding etc.) – a narrative Iain was actively engaging in days before it broke. There is little, if any cause to have sympathy with Derek Conway over this.
In these circumstances, while it might be understandable (indeed honourable) to temper your remarks in light of personal relationships, to simply say nothing doesn’t strike me as the right thing to do. Nobody expected Iain to assassinate Derek’s character or call for his dismissal, it would’ve been perfectly possible to acknowledge the friendship but still address the story itself. I'm sure Iain's decision not to do so was motivated by noble sentiments alone but I still think it was an error of judgement - no more, no less.
The charge that Iain’s being hypocritical doesn’t hold water. I’ve no recollection of him ever criticising anyone for refusing to comment on a story about a friend so we can put that one to bed. The other charge – and one I hinted at myself but which I now accept as unfair – is that he’s being partisan. I’ve been in almost daily contact with Iain over the last few months on a separate issue and he’s been unfailingly polite, honest & straightforward. I’m as confident as I can be that if this story had broken about a Labour or Lib Dem MP with whom Iain was friends he would’ve taken the exact same line. And all the tosh about Iain's supposed interest in the seat doesn't even merit a reply.
This is why I think Iain made an error of judgement. Derek Conway didn’t suffer some personal calamity of the sort millions of people experience every year. The story wasn’t about marriage problems or some youthful indiscretion exposed – the sort of story that’s essentially private and only holds an interest for the prurient. In such circumstances friends can rightly be expected to rally round and offer any criticisms they have privately. Party politics aside, most would have sympathy for anyone in this position. This story was about the blatant abuse of public funds and Derek was simply caught out – a career calamity but not a deeply personal one. It’s a story that fits perfectly with the prevailing narrative in UK politics at the moment (finance, funding etc.) – a narrative Iain was actively engaging in days before it broke. There is little, if any cause to have sympathy with Derek Conway over this.
In these circumstances, while it might be understandable (indeed honourable) to temper your remarks in light of personal relationships, to simply say nothing doesn’t strike me as the right thing to do. Nobody expected Iain to assassinate Derek’s character or call for his dismissal, it would’ve been perfectly possible to acknowledge the friendship but still address the story itself. I'm sure Iain's decision not to do so was motivated by noble sentiments alone but I still think it was an error of judgement - no more, no less.
2 Comments:
Can I say first that I agree with the sentiments you express. I have had some contact with Iain over the 'top bloggers' stuff and he has always been courteous (although after he dismissed virtually all left bloggers as being unreadable I will certainly not bother if he does it again).
However, Liam, Iain doesn't escape the charge of hypocrite I'm afraid. That charge stands over his attitude to comments.
Iain allows people in his comments column to assassinate the character of other bloggers and commenters in the most vile and disgusting way, usually anonymously. John Hirst and Tim Ireland have been particular victims. This has been the subject of some criticism because we are not talking good humoured banter such as the stuff we do with newmania, but truly nasty, libelous stuff.
Then when some people anonymously attack Conway and Iain he gets all high and mighty about it. Well, the phrase 'cake and eat it' comes to mind, I'm afraid, and the word hypocrite is entirely appropriate.
Re Dale - I think that you should look at his criticism of Lord Putnam for defending Ruth Turner before you reach any conclusions about his conduct in this matter.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home