In the wake of Peter Hain's resignation a Labour-inclined friend and I were discussing how the funding scandals and problems that Labour have faced over the last few years compare with the mid-90's 'sleaze' forever associated with the dog days of John Major's government. I was shocked when he said, quite seriously, that Labour's scandals still weren't anywhere near as serious as those the Tories faced back then. These things can always be a bit partisan but let me explain why I think Labour's record on 'sleaze' over the last decade is far, far worse than John Major's.
Sleaze, corruption and scandal exist on a continuum - there's no back & white and there'll always be subjective views on how serious each story is. Nonetheless you can still illustrate two extremes on that line. On the one hand there are the distinctly personal scandals - usually involving sex or relatively small sums of money. These stories tend to be about individual gratification - backbenchers or junior ministers simply on the make. Shagging someone they shouldn't, not declaring some hospitality they've received, pocketing a few grand here and there to ask a question in the house. The defining characteristic for me though is that however unappealing these things may be there usually exists a sort of firewall between them and the exercise of political power. Sexual misdemeanours obviously have little bearing on that and even backbenchers pocketing a few grand to raise an issue or ask a question hardly amounts to a significant corruption of the political process because of their relative lack of influence. That's not to excuse any of this behaviour; just to point out there is a distance there that speaks to how seriously we should take the story.
At the other end of this scale is something far more troubling. It might still be shrouded in the same half-truths, evasions or downright lies but the crucial difference at this extreme is that those lies aren't just put in the service of individual self-interest; they're actually serious attempts to influence government policy or get into a position to do so. The politician who gets away with this sort of thing is seriously undermining the democratic process - the guy shagging his secretary is, at worse, undermining his marriage. By any measure this is the more serious sort of scandal and the one that should really trouble us.
So whereabouts on this continuum do Labour's recent troubles fall in comparison to Tory troubles in the 1990's? I don't think there's any argument that they fall towards the more serious end - a Prime Minister interviewed by the police over allegations that his office 'sold' seats in the legislature, individuals trying to donate hundreds of thousands of pounds anonymously to candidates effectively running for Deputy PM (and more police interviews as a result), allegations that intelligence assessments used to justify war were doctored. This isn't to say that both didn't parties have examples of both of course - Aitken was more serious for the Tories and Prescott's dalliances were tabloid fodder - but the names forever associated with 90's Tories sleaze (Hamilton, Mellor, Asby, Yeo etc.) weren't guilty of anything as serious as the charges that Labour have had to deal with in recent years. Regular readers will know that I'm loathed to indulge in straightforward partisan point-scoring and if anything that probably predisposes me to be harsher to politicians on the right than the left. But in this instance it seems beyond doubt to me that Labour's record in terms of serious sleaze and corruption is far more shameful than the Tories record in the 90's - shagging around in a Chelsea strip isn't comparable to selling influence.
p.s. I've just read the remarks from Hain's replacement on this the Today programme this morning - he denies that these scandals have 'tainted' Labour! In his honour and in light of the above I've changed the title of this post....
Sleaze, corruption and scandal exist on a continuum - there's no back & white and there'll always be subjective views on how serious each story is. Nonetheless you can still illustrate two extremes on that line. On the one hand there are the distinctly personal scandals - usually involving sex or relatively small sums of money. These stories tend to be about individual gratification - backbenchers or junior ministers simply on the make. Shagging someone they shouldn't, not declaring some hospitality they've received, pocketing a few grand here and there to ask a question in the house. The defining characteristic for me though is that however unappealing these things may be there usually exists a sort of firewall between them and the exercise of political power. Sexual misdemeanours obviously have little bearing on that and even backbenchers pocketing a few grand to raise an issue or ask a question hardly amounts to a significant corruption of the political process because of their relative lack of influence. That's not to excuse any of this behaviour; just to point out there is a distance there that speaks to how seriously we should take the story.At the other end of this scale is something far more troubling. It might still be shrouded in the same half-truths, evasions or downright lies but the crucial difference at this extreme is that those lies aren't just put in the service of individual self-interest; they're actually serious attempts to influence government policy or get into a position to do so. The politician who gets away with this sort of thing is seriously undermining the democratic process - the guy shagging his secretary is, at worse, undermining his marriage. By any measure this is the more serious sort of scandal and the one that should really trouble us.
So whereabouts on this continuum do Labour's recent troubles fall in comparison to Tory troubles in the 1990's? I don't think there's any argument that they fall towards the more serious end - a Prime Minister interviewed by the police over allegations that his office 'sold' seats in the legislature, individuals trying to donate hundreds of thousands of pounds anonymously to candidates effectively running for Deputy PM (and more police interviews as a result), allegations that intelligence assessments used to justify war were doctored. This isn't to say that both didn't parties have examples of both of course - Aitken was more serious for the Tories and Prescott's dalliances were tabloid fodder - but the names forever associated with 90's Tories sleaze (Hamilton, Mellor, Asby, Yeo etc.) weren't guilty of anything as serious as the charges that Labour have had to deal with in recent years. Regular readers will know that I'm loathed to indulge in straightforward partisan point-scoring and if anything that probably predisposes me to be harsher to politicians on the right than the left. But in this instance it seems beyond doubt to me that Labour's record in terms of serious sleaze and corruption is far more shameful than the Tories record in the 90's - shagging around in a Chelsea strip isn't comparable to selling influence.
p.s. I've just read the remarks from Hain's replacement on this the Today programme this morning - he denies that these scandals have 'tainted' Labour! In his honour and in light of the above I've changed the title of this post....
Labels: Politics
23 Comments:
I'm not going to offer an ounce of defence for the Labour scandals you mention (nor the others you didn't).
Just one point about perspective and comparison, though: there are much tighter rules nowadays and a lot more transparency as regards party funding. In days of yore, there was doubtless a lot of dodgy stuff going on (on all sides) that we never got to know about.
I'd bet that this government is less sleazy than the Major/Thatcher (and Callaghan, Wilson, Heath etc) governments. I'd also bet that the Tories today now are less sleazy than oppositions in previous years and decades.
(It's like the supposed rise in mental illness: is there really so much more, given that diagnosis has become more sensitive?)
Fair point Tom.
The mental illness analogy occurred when the last relatively minor 'missing laptop' story broke - to a degree these things have always hapenned but the media will pounce on them all now.
I guess in a sentence my point is that the 'Tory Sleaze' tag which was an effective electoral weapon for Labour until even a couple of years ago is now well & truly disarmed..!
I think Tom makes a good point... but Liam, you are being just a tad selective. Aitken and Archer went to prison... Blair, nor Hain have even been charged.
I'll give you just one example of Tory sleaze, established in the courts, proven, bang to rights, and you can try and top it.
Dame Shirley Porter: Evicted over 100 homeless families from hostels, as well as moving on students and nurses because they were all deemed to be more likely to vote Labour as part of a programme disgustingly named Building Stable Communities.
Together with 5 others she was ordered by the court to pay fines of 27 million pounds.
She skipped to Israel, transferred her vast wealth in to the names of other family members, and claimed her estate was only worth 300,000 pounds.
So, let's not waste our time on shagging, tabloid gossip or late financial returns, let's talk proven sleaze.
Go on... top that!
Someone's in a combative mood eh Bob! (missing NM?)
I wasn't being selective and I did acknowledge that both sides have scandals that speak to both types of sleaze. I was talking about overall balance and I don't think anyone could make a reasonable case that 'on balance' Major's mob were worse than what we've seen over the last few years - even at best the same Bob but the idea that the Tories are materially worse just doesn't hold up.
As for the example I completely agree that it's a shameful story and she deserved everything she got (and more) but it actually makes my point - she was the leader of Westminster Council, not the PM or the Chancellor.
The main point still stands - Labour can no longer cast themselves as politicians from a different, better mould than their opponents. And there's a strong case that they're from a worse mould in some cases...
Perhaps I've missed something. When were the PM or Chancellor charged with something?
And Liam, don't just say it is a matter of public perception, because that just won't wash. Brown is what 5-6% behind in the opinion polls... Major was 18% behind Blair when he was overseeing the Tory sleaze years.
THAT is public perception.
You’re all over the place here Bob.
I didn’t say the PM was ever charged with anything. Neither was the previous Tory PM – my point is the last Labour one was investigated and interviewed by the police. Another ex-cabinet minister is about to go through the same thing. The general secretary had to resign. Taking refuge in the ‘but they weren’t charged’ line is a bit thin Bob and the sort of thing you’d rightly call out any right-wing blogger for doing.
Then you say any reference to perception 'won't wash' but immediately go on to quote an opinion poll and follow it with 'THAT is public perception'? Either it matters or it doesn’t Bob - it can't depend on which party it favours...
In that Tory sleaze was fairly fringe, and Labour sleaze is clearly quite central to the powers at the centre of the party, I'd say Labour has nationalised sleaze.
Alan Douglas
Now who is all over the place, Liam. I never said opinion polls didn't matter. What I said was saying was that you cannot say that the Blair/Hain/Prescott, whoever stuff has an ingrained effect on the public because the opinion polls simply don't show that. Another one out this morning puts the Tory lead at a couple of percent. During the Major years sleaze it had a much greater public impact.
Please don't think I am defending any of the sleazebags from any of the parties. They can happily walk the plank for me. What I do think is that it now largely washes over people's heads. They have almost come to expect it, and in that sense it has damaged us all.
The other thing is, though, the media are generally anti-Labour, so when they attack Labour I strongly suspect whole areas of the working class pay little or no attention.
Alan - Jeffrey Archer was not 'on the fringe'. He was Major's candidate for Mayor of London and a Chairman of the Party. Aitken wasn't 'on the fringe' either. He was a Cabinet Member who resigned to "clear his name" with his sword of truth.
Finally, Liam, my point about the PM and Chancellor not being charged was - what exactly are you saying they have done when you mention them in the same breath as the crook Porter (another 'fringe' figure who should have enjoyed a diet of gruel).
Bob Piper, "top that!!!".
What about Donnygate!!!!!, "a wholesale culture of corruption" according to the judge who jailed your boys?
Ignorant BP? I don't think so. Cultures of corruption need their apologists, don't they?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/mar/13/uknews
Will respond in full later Bob - worth adding though that the last couple of opinion polls I've seen specifically related to sleaze (and they were before the Hain debalce) had sizeable majorities who thought Labour we 'worse for sleaze' than the Tories.
I promised a fuller response Bob so let’s begin with the aspects of your argument that I accept. Labour’s troubles haven’t given rise to anything like the Tory lead that Labour had at the end of the Major administration – and that may well speak to a greater level of trust people have for Labour than they did for the Tories back then. It may also, if we’re being complete, speak to an increased apathy and lower expectations now that these sorts of political scandals have sadly become the norm. The only rejoinder I’d add here is that, as per a post I wrote a couple of months back Labour promised to end this political culture and asked to be judged harshly on their behaviour. No fair reading of recent years Bob could conclude they have ended it and any line of argument that tries to remind people that they’re predecessors were as bad or worse is morally bankrupt from the party who pledged to end it.
On the issue of public perception I’d refer you to my brief response above – the public by and large have now concluded that Labour are as bad if not worse in most polls asking that question. The other angle you seem to be taking is a straightforward count of convictions and yes by that method Labour are up 2-0 (Archer & Aitken jailed, no Labour members jailed) but here’s my point on that Bob. If convictions of senior figures are to be the only barometer of sleaze then after 18 years in government the Tories only had two – by your reasoning you have to discount almost all the other names that Labour were quite happy to trade on electorally (Mellor etc.) and the charge of sleaze looks overblown. But Labour (and presumably you) didn’t restrict campaigning to these rigid rules – all the extra-marital affairs and dodgy deals, none of which found their way to a court, were fair game in terms of characterising the Tories as we went into the ’97 election. And to be honest I think that’s fair enough.
But it’s equally fair now Bob. Labour can’t happily trade on innuendo and nudge-nudge wink-wink politics when their opponents are down but seek refuge in the strict letter of the law and whitewashed parliamentary committees when it’s their turn to be judged. That’s the point I and others are making here Bob. Labour promised to be whiter than white and fell a long way short. They asked to be judged on the appearance of wrongdoing and then clung to their jobs until anyone can provide proof. From what I can gleam about your character from your blog and comments here I can’t believe you’re not every bit as angered by that as I am.
Finally, the thrust of my piece was about how I believe Labour have been worse then the Tories on sleaze. Worse because the suspicions and allegations have centred on very senior people (the most senior in one case) and worse because those allegations have been about serious attempts to subvert the democratic process. As far as I can see the only argument you’ve offered against this is that no-ones been charged and as I’ve pointed out above that’s a week argument.
I defy you to name anything that Labour is accused off that wasn't done first by the Tories (loans, donations through proxies etc.) - and probably to a greater extent.
Now that isn't to say one wrong justifies another or to say that Labour isn't being damaged by this more because it is in government and it made the laws that made this all too transparent.
It does however indicate that the major parties are very competitive - and if one is gaining an edge in its spending/activities then the other will seek to follow - and if necessary will get involved in fund raising which is border line to say the best.
The sensible response to this is perhaps to get better control over what and how much the parties should be spending. We currently have the ridiculous position where one party thinks that by diverting spending through its local parties that such spending does not count towards the national campaign spending limit (this may be questionable legally however), and the limit as defined does not include staff on employment contracts or much of the ongoing cost of premises. We also have the situation where as targeting becomes more scientific that you have only very limited contact with the parties unless you live in a marginal constituency (and then you are bombarded - and heaven help you in a byelection).
We need to have a good hard look at what constitutes a sensible level of expenditure - and possibly what the electorate should receive in return - and then that should be compared with what the parties are able to raise sensibly (rather than going to places that they shouldn't) and if there is a gap then there will be a need for some state funding. I wouldn't want the parties not to feel some pain if theirt traditional sources of funding dry up - but then leaving them over short of funds would be recipe for disaster.
The reality when you look at the level of expenditure by our major parties which is c£20-30m in normal years rising to £40-50m in a general election year - probably isn't that high when you compare it with national advertising budgets for some products, the budgets of media companies (e.g a small magazine like the Spectator has annual expenditure of c£8m) or the budgets of European political parties (last time I looked the major German parties each received state funding of c150m Euros). Everything shows that most politicians are interested in spending money - and the raising of funds is something that they don't like to do and want to leave to others (isn't this what happened to Hain - I bet he will not deny direct involvement in the newspaper adverts/mailings that probaly account for most of his spending). So isn't the answer to spend a bit more time on thought on the level of political parties spending??
Liam, as so often, we are unlikely to convert each other, no matter how long we bandy this about. However, I think you make my point in your final paragraph:
"worse because the suspicions and allegations"
My point is, that is all you have interms of Blair's alleged cash for honours... or Levy, or Prescott's alleged casino backhanders which never saw the light of day, nor Harman or Hain, come to that, although everyone accepts Hain's stupidity, the corruption or deception is merely conjecture.
In the Tory cases, Aitken, Hamilton, Archer, Porter we are talking about proven issues of corruption, lies and deceit. I couldn't give a toss who Parkinson Mellor or Prescott were shagging, nor do I consider it sleaze for that matter.
So... if Labour are, in your original words (which now seem to be amended to 'as bad if not worse') are far, far worse than the Tories... tell me the sleaze stories that you are talking about. Not Daily Mail or Independent headlines, but genuine stories that you can stand up.
Now, if you want to throw stones at Blair's bloody dossier, I'm all with you, but you allege sleaze in these other matters and what is it you are actually alleging... I don't know.
that's all.
4 cases Bob, that's all you're citing from Major's supposedly sleaze ridden government? 4 cases? Involving incidentally 1 government minister, 1 backbencher, 1 mayoral candidate and 1 local politician.
I have a police investigation into selling peerages and another couple into serious funding irregularities - all three of which involved the PM himself and Cabinet-level ministers.
If you're seriously telling me that the fact that the first lot got caught and the second lot got away with it is the sort of moral reasoning you're happy with so be it.
Just spotted this, seems that's another Cabinet minister embroiled.
Oops sorry - forgot. He's not actually been convicted or anything so none of this matters...
Your friend is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Let us hope you are never investigated by the police Liam, because you appear to think that would mean you were automatically guilty. I attended Lancaster Crown Court over 30 years ago when a mob outside were calling for the execution of 6 men accused of blowing up two pubs in Birmingham. At least the mob had the courtesy to wait for charges to be brought and 'proven' in a court of law. You are prepared to accept the guilt of people who have only been the subject of 'an investigation' which did not even find sufficient evidence to warrant any charges.
Don't let that stop you though, Liam... they must be guilty after all... the papers have told you that!
Just look at Iain Dale today, with a headline stating quite boldly: Four Ministers Facing Police Interviews... then read the first sentence he writes.
Perhaps it is no wonder we think all Tories are the same!
Of course I don't think that Bob - I just happen to have a healthy distrust of politicians and don't accept not being caught is the same thing as being innocent. You normally adopt the ame outlook hence your comments on the dodgy dossier (two committees cleared Blair but you're happy to throw stones there).
Anyway, you're entire argument rests on the fact there haven't been any convictions and that's fair enough - if they are all completely innocent then my post is utter nonsense. However, as your anecdote demonstrates, the law doesn't always get things right so since I'll accept your argument if all Labour politicians are innocent, if they were shown to be negligent or indeed complicit would you then accept the thrust of my argument?
No, I wouldn't, Liam... unless you think being negligent is 'comparable to selling influence' which is what I have taken issue with you over here.
If someone comes up with some evidence that Labour have received something in exchange for influence, then I'll go along with what you say. But they haven't, it's as simple as that really... and I'm not just talking about 'convictions' either.
Blair's dossier is different. It had been 'sexed-up' for want of a better phrase, and in my opinion was proved to be a pile of shite because there were no WMD, let alone ones that could hit UK interests within 45 minutes.
You appear to think I am in some way defending sleaze, but I'm not. But neither am I prepared to find someone guilty with no evidence to support the allegations, and I think that's what divides us here.
Oh dear, oh dear, the Tories are still dipping their fingers in the till.
No mere speculation either... Conway is bang to rights!
Clearly the outcome of the Mr Derek case shines some light on this. There is no visible work output from an overpaid and unqualified student helper. Mr Derek has just helped himself. Archer, Aitken, Hamilton - all disgraced big style. Basically perjury and insider trading for the first, enriching themselves by MP'ing to order for the others.
Hain for example may not even get investigated further and may be guilty only of what he admits - being late with declarations.
The Loans for Lordships ... went nowhere. But we can be sure some donors have got honours from all relevant parties. Purely by coincidence. Boris and George are also tap dancing close to the edge.
It's a case of proven guilt on the one hand. Of deliberate crimes and misdemeanors. Versus allegations, accusations, innuendo, and in Abrahams case what looks like an X in the publicity box which worked for him for some years in fact.
It would be easy also to say that the Labour cases are accusations of mess ups or deliberate contrivance for the good of the party and the Tory ones for personal gain. But obviously if Hain had won he might have gained personally by a boost in salary and certainly a gain of position.
But by the look of it all he's done is failed in timely declaration and clumsy use of a "think tank" vehicle - not dissimilar to MIC.
Chris Paul: 'clumsy use of a "think tank" vehicle - not dissimilar to MIC.'
I think youmeant "as similar to the MIC as it is to a ham sandwich". The MIC is an uncncorporated association with twenty or so members, whose names are readily obtained on enquiry (just like any other club), who discuss and collectively decide what are the needs of industry in the Midlands, and then if they see fit, provide funds to political parties (not just the Conservatives) or as they may collectibvely otherwise see fit.
The PPF is a dormant limited company that had no other purpose than to act as a conduit for funds to Peter Hain.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home