20 May 2009

Yesterday saw Michael Martin become the first speaker of the Commons to be ousted in 300 years. Lords Taylor of Blackburn and Truscott are now the first peers to be suspended from the House of Lords in almost four centuries. The two Lords were found guilty of offering to help two undercover journalists posing as lobbyists to change laws for cash.

That’s three ‘bad apples’ gone. But, as with expenses, what’s needed now is reform of the system through transparency. Lobbying of politicians must be out in the open so that the public can scrutinise who is influencing decisions on public policy. If Gordon Brown wants to restore public trust, his reforms must include a statutory register of lobbyists, which would put in the public domain who is influencing whom, on what and how much they are prepared to pay for it.

The public must now be allowed to see in whose interest politicians are acting – their own, the outside interests that pay them – as demonstrated by Lords Taylor and Truscott – or the public's.

David Morrison, 16 May 2009

“Tony Blair, I'm afraid, would never accept that our foreign policy actually had any impact on radicalization. …That's clearly rubbish.” (Lord West)

Lieutenant-General John Cooper used to occupy a small office in the vast new US Embassy in Baghdad, as the (British) deputy commander of the Multinational Force Iraq (MNF-I). The US had always accorded Britain this honour, as the second largest contributor to the occupation forces, though very little was seen or heard from successive holders of the office.

However, when Lieutenant-General Cooper retired from his post on 3 March 2009, he used the occasion to justify British military intervention in Iraq. No doubt, his script was supplied by 10 Downing Street.

According to the general, our intervention has been a great success. In an interview with The Guardian on 2 March 2009, he said that “the army will leave Iraq with al-Qaida largely defeated and the roots of democracy firmly planted” [1]. 179 British military personnel have been killed and 315 wounded (and around £6.5 billion spent) to achieve this great success [2].

It would be uncharitable to mention that neither of these objectives was mentioned in the motion passed by the House of Commons on 18 March 2003 supporting military action against Iraq, or in Prime Minister Blair’s speech proposing the motion [3], or in the official document Iraq: Military Campaign Objectives [4] defining our war aims. Nevertheless, according to the general, the deaths of 179 British military personnel and the wounding of 315 others was a price worth paying for this “success” [5], even though it was not the “success” we set out to achieve.

15 May 2009

“I work within the rules, but the rules are meant to be bent.” Not the words of an MP trying to explain away excessive expense claims, but, Lord Taylor of Blackburn when he offered to alter legislation for a Sunday Times journalist posing as a lobbyist. He now faces suspension for misconduct. It’s been the case that when there’s money to be had, parliament’s rules can become very flexible.

Let’s not forget that January’s cash-for-amendments scandal rocked parliament – the implications of public laws being bought is more grave, though less salacious, than fiddling the system. But MPs expenses have now shaken it to its core. The damage done to parliament’s “most precious asset” - public trust - is irreparable.

As the list of MPs caught bending the rules increases, so does the perception – or is it actuality? – that public officials are acting in their own interests or, as in the Lords’ case, for private interests. With a few notable exceptions, the idea that ‘they work for you’ becomes harder to swallow. The feeling of exclusion from politics is nearly complete.

Wednesday 13 May 2009

A meeting on genetic modification (GM) being held at the Vatican later this week^[1] has been condemned as “a total farce” by Spinwatch, an independent non-profit making organisation which monitors the role of PR, propaganda and lobbying.

Starting 15 May, the “study week” has been organised on behalf of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences by the GM scientist, Ingo Potrykus, the co-inventor of Golden Rice. Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the Academy's chancellor, told the Catholic News Service that the aim was to gather “an objective group of experts” in a search for “scientific clarity” on the subject.^[2]

But the 40 or so participants listed on the academy's website^[3] are all GM supporters, with many well known for their extreme pro-GM views or having vested interests in GMO adoption.

On 9 February 2009, Sense About Science (SAS) published "Making Sense of GM"^[1] – a new guide to GM food and crops aimed at helping the public “distinguish fact from misinformation”.^[2] The guide, co-authored by a group of scientists, focuses on unproven ‘jam tomorrow’ claims for GM and fails to address the scientific, social, and economic concerns about the effects of the technology. More insidiously, the guide’s potted biographies of its authors omit to mention that many are well known GM supporters and are connected to UK institutions and groups closely aligned with industry.

GMWatch sent out a press release^[3] that filled in some of the gaps. Ten days later, an article appeared in the Times Higher Education reporting on the concerns over the guide’s silence about its contributors' links with industry.^[4] The article pointed out that while the SAS guide noted the authors' public affiliations, such as their positions in universities or research institutes that are primarily funded from the public purse, it omitted any mention of any links to the biotech industry.

London, May 1, 2009

Nicholas Jones

A chilling insight into the military mindset -- as explained by Nato’s leading media strategist Jamie Shea -- provided an unexpected but revealing talking point at UNESCO’s annual world press freedom day debate on the international media’s role at times of war.  Shea spoke in support of a motion that "governments at war are winning the battle of controlling the international media" -- a motion that carried the day by a majority of more than two to one.

1 May 2009, Tamasin Cave

In a lively exchange between Alan Duncan and Harriet Harman in yesterday's expenses debate, Duncan described the tabled proposal for more public scrutiny of MPs outside incomes as "absurd".

Two thirds of Conservative MPs, just over a third of Liberal Democrats and nearly a fifth of Labour MPs hold second jobs. Lets be clear about who has the most to declare.

Take Alan Duncan. On top of his constituency work and his job as Shadow Leader of the House - and the odd (very odd) TV appearance - he puts in one month's paid work a year to an oil company. He was until recently also a paid director of a second company based in LA. One reason given for him quitting in December last year was "because others might think that it presented a conflict of interest".

That the public wants more information on where his priorities and loyalties lie is far from absurd.

Tamasin Cave, 29 April 2009

George Osborne announced an “age of austerity” at this week’s Conservative spring conference: “We need a government of thrift,” he said, adding: “David Cameron and I have earned the right to be heard on this.”

Has George Osborne earned this right? His personal record on expenses seems if not frugal, then certainly not extravagant. Last year George’s office – minus any housing and personal claims - cost the tax payer roughly £110,000. The bulk of this - £79,000 - went on staff costs. Sounds like value for money for a busy shadow chancellor.

Except that in the same year, George also accepted donations, earmarked by donors for staffing his office, of nearly half a million pounds. Suddenly George looks a bit of a spend-thrift.

Tom Griffin, 23 April 2009

Does the Irish peace process have lessons for the Middle East? Many of the key players in the Good Friday Agreement seem to think so. Tony Blair has cited the precedent as cause for optimism in his role as Quartet Envoy, while Gerry Adams called for inclusive negotiations during his visit to Gaza last week. The analogy isn't universally welcome, however.

Two recent articles reflect the parameters of the debate. In the New Statesman, Blair's former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, argues that the British government's engagement with Irish republicans provides a model for an Israeli approach to Hamas. In Standpoint, Douglas Murray reiterates a longstanding neoconservative critique of such suggestions, arguing that "the claims of the peace process in Northern Ireland itself are unproven - but they are also unhelpful to the point of uselessness."

When a key Downing Street strategist was exposed as having used a No.10 computer to write a grotesque email smearing senior Conservatives it damaged not only the Prime Minister’s standing but also chipped away still further at the public’s faith in the way Britain is governed. Although Damian McBride was stupid enough to get caught, he was simply exercising the unbridled freedom which he and his fellow special advisers have been allowed to establish for themselves at an unacceptable cost to the impartiality of the civil service.Character assassination is now in the dna of Labour Party spin doctors but what made this lurid email so exceptional was that the allegations were entirely unsubstantiated and those targeted included the shadow chancellor’s wife.