Three wise men?
Stories like the death of Gaddafi will, for a while, keep three men from the public gaze. For as we suggested the party political season was a bit of failure this year. Low on politics but high on laughs, it was all so silly. Then real politics came back with a bang, a bit like waiting for a bus as three interesting cases came along at once. This time it was the Tories who started it. Defence Secretary Liam Fox was caught being, well being Liam Fox, wanting it both ways if you like. Fox was followed by another Tory, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice since May 2010, Jonathan Djanogly. Like Fox, Djanogly also seemed to have a problem playing a straight bat, muddling his public and private duties. Next along was Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock, his problem was a simple leg-over affair. Alas the silly man chose a Russian spy for his entertainment. So three men and three cases. There are some similarities here, beyond the obvious, all MPs and all fools. There are also some differences.
We start with Fox. He was content with the power of being a Minister but was shirking the responsibility. But then the latter might be said of Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell, his report into the Fox affair is now published. It's wonderful in that it is so narrow, concerned only with the Ministerial Code, so it leaves a great deal unanswered. So yes, things went wrong, but only a little bit, so that's all right then is the general drift of it. It would seem that not only Fox and Adam Werritty have made the odd mistake but so has O'Donnell and others if they think this report puts the lid on the affair.
A report like this serves only to reinforce the generally held view that all politics is corrupt. The report takes evidence from only a few people and misses so much. For example O'Donnell makes the point that it's not just a proven case of wrongdoing that's a problem but the perception of such a thing that should be considered. Well I think O'Donnell will find that the public are not so assured that all is well as he thinks. The Fox case had been going on a long time and it is this that will irk the public. Why do the high-and-mighty get away with it for so long?
The Djanogly case has had less exposure, but we know all about him on this blog, see HERE . It seems that the Djanogly case has been 'going on a long time' too. He was part of the MPs expenses saga and showed that he had poor judgement then. It reached a stage when the MP used a private detective to spy on his staff, he then failed to declare an interest in a matter regarding his family that impacted on his work in the Ministry of Justice. The failings of Djanogly look similar to those of Fox but Djanogly has, so far, 'got away with it'. You would have thought that with David Cameron's growing reputation for poor judgement in selecting and appointing Ministers that he would have been quick to act.The fact Djanogly spied on his own staff should have been a warning a long time ago. But no, Cameron has waited until now and another mistake from Dlanogly before sacking him. So the treatment of Fox compared to Djanogly seems inconsistent.
Our third case is Mike Hancock, who was so pro-Russian it was thought to be best he went on the Defence Select Committee! How did that happen? The man is such a fool it will be interesting to see how the Lib Dems deal with the fallout. And remember there is stiff competition when it comes to fools and the Lib Dems. Again we contrast the fact that the Fox case did not, so we are told, have any national security implications. This is remarkable as stories circulate that Mossad has been sniffing around the Fox/Werritty partnership, but MI5 were very busy in the Hancock case. Hancock is such a comedic figure it would be hard to include him in a spy novel, yet here he is still an MP despite a lot of evidence to suggest he is no more than a chancer of the worst sort.
So three politicians, each part of the coalition ready to work hard to turn the UK into, well that's the problem, to turn the UK into what? The Tory party, with help from the Lib Dems, can see no further forward than a property bubble which they called 'growth'. Hence their desire to alter the planning laws to allow the sort of property boom which greatly helped ruin much of Ireland and Greece. No country has ever done well out of a property bubble. Gordon Brown claimed to have rid us of the curse of boom and bust, it was a lie. So is the idea that the latest proposals on planning will be benefit on a sustained long term basis.
If you think that behind Fox was a web of over zealous lobbying do consider what Cameron has sanctioned -
50 of Britain’s largest companies will be given direct access to ministers and officials. Corporate bodies will be designated an “account director”, who, despite what that title might suggest, is a cabinet minister
So what was the point of reining in Fox , only to set lobbying on a grand scale off in roughly the same direction?
Naturally property developers and all sorts of other people with their own agenda will become best friends with ministers, Fox may well feel misunderstood!
And the relevance of all this? Well let's start with Fox and Djanogly. Yesterday Cameron had to face a backbench rebellion related to the ongoing EU referendum, not. Naturally Cameron won the vote. However, you would have thought this was an opportunity for all the eurosceptics in his party to register their feelings, for both Fox and Djanogly have been described as eurosceptics. The proof of this is simple, type their names, title and the tag eurosceptic into Google and a long list of MSM articles is shown, which is odd as neither of their names appears on the list of the MPs who voted for the motion. So what kind of eurosceptics are they, also how does the MSM judge these things? As for Hancock he is just a fool. No doubt like any Lib Dem he trotted, willingly, into the lobby to oppose the idea of a referendum allowing more power to the ordinary people of the UK.
So three men, all MPs and all on the make. Typical of the obstacles in the way of extending democracy and legitimacy of our parliament.