How New Labour should deal with Truscott, Moonie, Snape and Taylor

Posted on Monday 26 January, 2009
Filed Under New Labour

 


YOU RENT an MP like you rent a taxi, or so disgraced Tory lobbyist Ian Greer reportedly assured Mohamed al Fayed, anyway. It now looks like you can hire a peer in pretty much the same way.

And to extend the metaphor just a little, Lords Truscott, Moonie, Snape and Taylor of Blackburn have given every indication of being the type of political cabbie ready to go south of the river after midnight, providing only that the fare is right.

In plain English, these four peers displayed a clear willingness to amend legislation in return for cash. True, they are not technically guilty of any offence. No money actually changed hands and nor was any parliamentary influence actually exercised. But that will matter little to a disgusted public.

Nor will the punters much care that they were the victims of a newspaper set up, of the type that gets routinely repeated every few years, with politicos and backroom boys of all parties dumb enough to fall for it every time.

Other than unfavourable press coverage, there appear to be few consequences. Tory cash for questions MP David Tredinnick still sits as the ‘honourable’ member for Bosworth. One would have thought that his alacrity in accepting £1,000 from an undercover reporter in order to ask parliamentary questions about a fictitious drug disqualifies the use of that particular adjective in his connection.

On the New Labour side, Derek Draper and John Mendelsohn – two of the men at the centre of Greg Palast’s lobbygate sting in 1997 – have both been rehabilitated and currently occupy themselves with high profile campaigning roles inside the party machine.

This latest episode speaks volumes about the nature of Britain’s second chamber, a place in which unelected legislators enjoy real power, in many cases after effectively having purchased their place through generous donations to Labour Party funds. No wonder it operates on straightforward business lines.

It also comes at a bad time for New Labour, with the latest opinion poll giving the Tories a 15 point lead, and with the electorate starting to question Brown and Darling’s handling of the current economic crisis. If repeated at the general election that the prime minister must hold by next year at the latest, the figures would give Cameron an overall majority of 120.

That is a hell of lead for Labour to have to overturn, especially given a backdrop of serious recession. Labour can at the very least expect a severe trouncing in this summer’s European and local elections.

That gives the government an obvious self-interest in taking the latest scandal very seriously indeed. While the men accused by the Sunday Times of being on the take are entitled to due process, the two parliamentary investigations should be completed expeditiously, as should any investigation mounted by Scotland Yard.

If there is any truth in the allegations, those responsible should be expelled from the Labour Party for bringing it into disrepute, and should moreover face criminal charges if that is merited.

But there are wider issues to consider, too. If Britain is to have a second chamber at all – and I am agnostic on that matter – it should be 100% elected, thereby providing the elementary accountability without which the country cannot enjoy full democracy.


<<Go back

Comments

9 Responses to “How New Labour should deal with Truscott, Moonie, Snape and Taylor”

  1. GW
    on January 26th, 2009 at 14:22

    And whatever happened to a trial before a verdict ?

    GW

  2. Richard Harris
    on January 26th, 2009 at 15:47

    Robert Peston’s book, “Who runs Britain” is fascinating on the massive nexus of cash and influence into New Labour and the Lords via Lord Levy’s extended circle…also worrying in the light of current debates re. Gaza and the middle-east. Peston can get way with saying the blindingly obvious (The “Israeli elephant” in the UK policy room) and he does.

    Your field David…and he writes a lot lot better than he talks.

  3. modernityblog
    on January 26th, 2009 at 19:44

    Richard Harris raises an interesting issue

    nowadays, I wonder if ANY political point is complete, even related to the most obscure Marxian debate or Come Dancing, without chucking in some comment about the “Israeli elephant” or similar?

    years ago I suppose we would have found it strange, but not nowadays?

  4. Strategist
    on January 26th, 2009 at 23:58

    Craig Murray had Lord Taylor’s number back in 2007 – see http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

  5. Auld Leftie
    on January 27th, 2009 at 00:02

    So Dave, how are you enjoying life back in membership of Her Britannic Majesty’s Royal and Imperial Labour Party? Is this really any surprise?

    This episode certainly highlights the potential for corruption in a patronage-based system such as ours. Having said which, the track record of a number of duly elected politicians in this field hardly bears much examination, does it?

    As to unicameral legislatures, I don’t personally think that the Scottish Parliament -to cite an example close to home, in my case – provides particularly convincing evidence in their favour. I think a revising chamber can be valuable but it must be directly elected to give it popular authority.

    My own preference would be for a bicameral legislature with a fixed term elected by Single Transferable Vote. This would allow voters to choose between different candidates of the same party, thus preventing the parties from stitching up the candidates in the way that the list system allows and also mean that speculation about the timing of elections is removed from the equation.

    One thing the Scottish experience shows is that, even with an imperfect proportional system such as ours (although it is still far superior to FPTP), left parties do very well – as do Independents and single-issue candidates – once the electorate have worked out how to use the voting system. It took until 2003 for it to happen here, resulting in very heartening results for the SSP, the Greens and a few Independents – until Tommygate came along and screwed everything up and disaster befell in 2007.

    In Scotland, we also have multimember wards for council elections. I voted in 07 for the Solidarity candidate (the rump SSP Sheridan-loyalist faction after the split) in my ward, who was duly elected only to jump ship afterwards and join the fecking Labour Group! Pleased I was not.

  6. Southpawpunch
    on January 27th, 2009 at 08:23

    Maybe you are too hard on the milords.

    I mean they have only shown the entrepreneurial savvy that so embodies the Labour Party and there doubtless will be a trickle down effect with any monies received, albeit just to their sons and daughters.

    But it’s only understandable that they should seek to convert their access to cash, as the sun is doubtless setting for them soon as the majority of businesses, the media and others appearing to have decided it is the Labour Party, as a whole, that is bringing into disrepute capitalism; and they are to replaced by that paragon of transparency and virtue – the Conservative Party.

    And it would also appear that we need not worry about the election of the second chamber (even though it should be cleared out and terminated as a elementary democratic measure). Labour do have some plans for the election of peers albeit the forward motion of this being currently being terminated. These elections will see the great and the good able to feather their nests between elections that would be 15 – 20 years apart!

  7. Robert
    on January 27th, 2009 at 09:29

    I do not think it should surprise anyone look at Blair for god sake.

  8. Andrew Coates
    on January 27th, 2009 at 11:50

    One thing I’m surprised the left has not gone on about is Blair’s £1 million salary from, is it, JP Morgan? That he is in thrall to the Banks that created all the rpesent mess (okay, contribtued to it). This is pretty corrupt in my book.

  9. Letters From A Tory
    on January 28th, 2009 at 09:54

    “If there is any truth in the allegations, those responsible should be expelled from the Labour Party for bringing it into disrepute, and should moreover face criminal charges if that is merited.”

    But they haven’t broken any laws, nor have they done enough to even be expelled from the House of Lords (unless someone changes the rules pretty quickly).

    Proposing a 100% elected House of Lords sounds nice in theory but without some more meat on the bone it remains nothing more than another set of elections that people don’t really care about. Just look at the turnout for European elections if you want examples of how little people want to get involved with politics when they don’t see anything riding on it.