The latest corruption scandal to hit the Labour government should come as no surprise to anyone. The rot set in at the first meeting of the new cabinet back in 1997 when the then Prime Minister said "call me Tony". This might just seem like a decision to avoid pomposity or unnecessary formality but it was actually much more. It marked a failure to distinguish between the man and the office he held.
Two consequences flow from that failure. The question every government minister should ask on every issue of policy is "what is in the national interest"? He will undoubtedly form a personal view when an issue arises but merely being a minister does not give you carte blanche to impose your personal opinions, you have to weigh your opinions against all relevant circumstances and reach a policy decision in what you consider to be the national interest. If you fail to acknowledge the difference between you and the office you hold, this exercise can easily go by the by. Secondly, and more damagingly in the long term, if you think the ministerial office is you rather than that you are temporary custodian of the office, it is easy to see the office as being for your benefit.
The corrupt offering by former ministers of insider links to government was exposed today in the Sunday Times and will be reported on further in a television programme tomorrow. Undercover reporters posed as having interests they wanted brought to the attention of government and given special preference. Part of what is reported is that the former ministers boasted of being able to by-pass what always used to be known as "the proper channels". The proper channels exist for good reason, just like the convention that ministers should address each other in cabinet by their ministerial office not their personal names. Going through the proper channels ensures that everyone is in the same position if they wish to make representations to government. Of course we shouldn't be naive about this, obviously the representations made by some people will be heard louder and faster because of who they are, but buying the ministerial ear is something the proper channels prevent because they require openness and full disclosure of any relevant financial dealing.
None of this is new, plenty have already made substantially the same points already while commenting on this story. There is, however, one aspect of it that has not gained the publicity it deserves. You see, once the former ministers were tipped-off and/or the influence they claimed to have exercised in the past was investigated and found to have been either wholly false or at least wildly exaggerated, they back-tracked and admitted to having overstated matters to the undercover reporters. One could hardly expect them to say anything else once they had been rumbled. But it doesn't stop there.
Whether or not they would be able to persuade current ministers and senior civil servants to look favourably on their clients' special interests cannot be determined by whether they had done so successfully before. Maybe they have never by-passed the proper channels on behalf of fee-paying clients but that does not mean they would not be able to do so in the future. They quoted fees of £3,000 to £5,000 a day for their services (I would guess VAT at 17.5% would be chargeable on those fees, taking them up to £3,250 and £5,875). It is hard to imagine that they would ask for such substantial sums in order not to achieve anything for the paying party. After all, if they never achieved a favourable outcome the gravy train would come to an abrupt halt. In order to earn their fees they would have to act corruptly, but that is not the point I am interested in. I want to go back one stage.
In order to earn fees at all the former ministers would have to satisfy potential clients that they should be engaged. At meetings held to discuss the prospect of their being engaged they made representations about having assisted others to achieve favourable results that could not have been achieved without their intervention. Now they accept that those representations were lies. In other words they were seeking to gain work by telling lies. That used to be "attempting to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception" under the Theft Act 1968, it might now be worded differently and feature in a Fraud Act but the substance of the offence has not changed. They are in exactly the same position as Mr Hardup who tells lies about his circumstances in order to obtain a job or to obtain benefits he is not entitled to receive.
Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems to me that either they were telling the truth about their previous lobbying successes (in which case they were admitting to past corruption in order to gain fees for engaging in future corruption) or they were telling lies (in which case they were committing a criminal fraud in order to gain fees for engaging in future corruption). What is so peculiar about it is that their corrupt activities are not necessarily criminal offences, whereas telling lies to obtain money most certainly is a criminal offence. They just made their position worse.
"When in a hole, stop digging" is wise advice. In this instance the wording merits the change I have used as the title to this musing.
Two consequences flow from that failure. The question every government minister should ask on every issue of policy is "what is in the national interest"? He will undoubtedly form a personal view when an issue arises but merely being a minister does not give you carte blanche to impose your personal opinions, you have to weigh your opinions against all relevant circumstances and reach a policy decision in what you consider to be the national interest. If you fail to acknowledge the difference between you and the office you hold, this exercise can easily go by the by. Secondly, and more damagingly in the long term, if you think the ministerial office is you rather than that you are temporary custodian of the office, it is easy to see the office as being for your benefit.
The corrupt offering by former ministers of insider links to government was exposed today in the Sunday Times and will be reported on further in a television programme tomorrow. Undercover reporters posed as having interests they wanted brought to the attention of government and given special preference. Part of what is reported is that the former ministers boasted of being able to by-pass what always used to be known as "the proper channels". The proper channels exist for good reason, just like the convention that ministers should address each other in cabinet by their ministerial office not their personal names. Going through the proper channels ensures that everyone is in the same position if they wish to make representations to government. Of course we shouldn't be naive about this, obviously the representations made by some people will be heard louder and faster because of who they are, but buying the ministerial ear is something the proper channels prevent because they require openness and full disclosure of any relevant financial dealing.
None of this is new, plenty have already made substantially the same points already while commenting on this story. There is, however, one aspect of it that has not gained the publicity it deserves. You see, once the former ministers were tipped-off and/or the influence they claimed to have exercised in the past was investigated and found to have been either wholly false or at least wildly exaggerated, they back-tracked and admitted to having overstated matters to the undercover reporters. One could hardly expect them to say anything else once they had been rumbled. But it doesn't stop there.
Whether or not they would be able to persuade current ministers and senior civil servants to look favourably on their clients' special interests cannot be determined by whether they had done so successfully before. Maybe they have never by-passed the proper channels on behalf of fee-paying clients but that does not mean they would not be able to do so in the future. They quoted fees of £3,000 to £5,000 a day for their services (I would guess VAT at 17.5% would be chargeable on those fees, taking them up to £3,250 and £5,875). It is hard to imagine that they would ask for such substantial sums in order not to achieve anything for the paying party. After all, if they never achieved a favourable outcome the gravy train would come to an abrupt halt. In order to earn their fees they would have to act corruptly, but that is not the point I am interested in. I want to go back one stage.
In order to earn fees at all the former ministers would have to satisfy potential clients that they should be engaged. At meetings held to discuss the prospect of their being engaged they made representations about having assisted others to achieve favourable results that could not have been achieved without their intervention. Now they accept that those representations were lies. In other words they were seeking to gain work by telling lies. That used to be "attempting to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception" under the Theft Act 1968, it might now be worded differently and feature in a Fraud Act but the substance of the offence has not changed. They are in exactly the same position as Mr Hardup who tells lies about his circumstances in order to obtain a job or to obtain benefits he is not entitled to receive.
Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems to me that either they were telling the truth about their previous lobbying successes (in which case they were admitting to past corruption in order to gain fees for engaging in future corruption) or they were telling lies (in which case they were committing a criminal fraud in order to gain fees for engaging in future corruption). What is so peculiar about it is that their corrupt activities are not necessarily criminal offences, whereas telling lies to obtain money most certainly is a criminal offence. They just made their position worse.
"When in a hole, stop digging" is wise advice. In this instance the wording merits the change I have used as the title to this musing.
Posts
10 comments:
Funnily enough I have noticed 1 or 2 other comments made on other blogs suggesting something along the lines of your blog. Having now read yours I have a much clearer picture and understand what they were alluding to. To my mind this is potentially quite explosive and could damage Labour irreparably assuming there were no Conservatives involved. The skeptic in me says that it will end up in harming all politicians equally, which thinking about it is nothing less than they deserve. Making a defense that is worse than pleading guilty just reinforces my belief that politicians are mostly a bunch of bumbling incompetent idiots who should not be allowed within 10,000 miles of any ministerial post.
Nice One.
An interesting thought, expressed in your usual crystal-clear fashion.
Very glad you decided to start blogging again!
I am not quite sure if I agree with the oriental gentleman or not.
I'm not sure you need to anymore.
time to replace the 'call me tony' party with the 'call me dave' party. led by a man with no connection to those dark arts...
So that's settled it then, censorship.
"Secondly, and more damagingly in the long term, if you think the ministerial office is you rather than that you are temporary custodian of the office, it is easy to see the office as being for your benefit."
Very true - but it is a mistake we all make by assuming that this country is for our benefit rather us just being the temporary custodians of this nation.
As a generation we've abused this country badly and wreaked havoc on a nation which our forefathers had spent generations buidling into something unique and precious. It can be put right, but it will take an enormous effort, a lot of time and require considerable pain. I don't know if we have the strength of character or the guts to do it.
Glad to see you are back blogging again, I missed my visits to your oasis of rational calmness.
Keep the good work up.
Thank you Mr Bill, may your barnacles never lose traction.
And thank you Mr Dan, sorry I should have said so earlier.
Post a Comment