91热爆

No charges

• Nick
• 19 Jul 07, 10:52 PM

Lawyers from the Crown Prosecution Service met yesterday to finally conclude how this 16 month investigation into allegations of 'cash for honours' - that went to the very heart of Downing St - would end.

Their conclusion?

That there was simply not enough evidence to bring charges, in particular against the three individuals who came under arrest - Lord Levy (Tony Blair's chief fundraiser, his Middle East envoy, tennis partner and friend), Ruth Turner (the director of government relations when Mr Blair was in Downing St), and businessman Sir Christopher Evans (one of those who'd lent so much money to the Labour party - those secret loans that first produced this extraordinarily damaging investigation).

It's a reprieve* for Tony Blair, but of course, that won't reduce the anger of some of his supporters. I spoke to one of those close to the former PM in the last few hours, who said people cannot overstate just how much damage this did to Mr Blair in his final months in office - he was wounded at a time when he was already under attack, it led to an early exit from Downing Street, and all the while, Mr Blair felt quite unable to defend himself.

There is anger too, of course, from those who came under inquiry. But there is also anger from those who brought the original allegations. Angus MacNeil, the Scottish nationalist MP, has expressed his disbelief, and demanded to know exactly what the police recommendation was to the CPS.

All in all, this is sure to produce a monumental row. Assistant Commissioner John Yates of Scotland Yard will come to the defence of his officers tomorrow, after the announcement is made, insisting as he's always done, that they were simply doing their job - looking into the evidence, and taking so long only because some of that evidence had been concealed.

And let's be honest, there will criticism too of the media, for staging what some close to Tony Blair describe as a witchhunt. At the end of it all, I suspect, rather like at the end of the Hutton Inquiry, there will be no agreement as to whether justice has been done, or whether we are seeing a whitewash - or even, if this matter is truly at an end.

The only agreement that there might be is this - perhaps there needs to be a better way of investigating these sorts of serious allegations.

*Update, 6 December 2007: A reader has challenged the use of the word "reprieve" to describe the decision of the CPS not to bring charges on the grounds that it might have implied guilt. Given that Mr Blair was never questioned as a suspect there was no question of him being charged or, indeed, reprieved in the legal sense. My point was that it was a political reprieve that none of his staff were charged. This judgement from the 91热爆's Editorial Complaints Unit explores this in more detail.

• Permalink
• Comments

Cannabis matters

• Nick
• 19 Jul 07, 01:50 PM

Newsrooms across London are filled with the sound of a lively debate about how much the home secretary's "" to using cannabis matters. Some argue that no one cares anymore. Others that many beyond the liberal metropolitan set do care passionately. Some that it shows she's in touch. Others that she's a hypocrite.

The polls taken after the repeated speculation about David Cameron's drug use tells us the answer.

found that 81% thought that drug use at school or university by politicians did not matter.

A higher proportion - 85% - agreed that MPs should not have to answer questions about such activity because politicians were entitled to "have made mistakes when they were growing up".

The polls are less clear about harder drug use. Populus found that almost two thirds (64%) said it would matter if "more serious" drugs were involved and 71% would be concerned if any drug use had carried on into working life. However, suggested it would make no difference to two thirds of voters (66%) if the leader of the Conservatives had used cocaine at some point in the past. 28% of the sample said they'd be less likely to vote Conservative if they knew the party leader had used the drug.

Younger voters and men were more tolerant of past drug taking by politicians.

• Permalink
• Comments

Election fever?

• Nick
• 19 Jul 07, 10:16 AM

Funny place Westminster. The man who became prime minister rejecting the need for a general election to confirm him in office is, we are endlessly told, secretly considering holding - you guessed it - a general election. The signs are, it's said, all there.

This week we were informed in hushed tones of what was said at Cabinet. Normally the confidentiality of these discussions is fiercely protected. Not so this week. We were invited to report that Labour's general election co-ordinator had told his ministerial colleagues that - wait for it - the polls were looking good for the party and that - it gets better - I quote "because of the weakness of his position David Cameron has been forced to revert to right wing issues". Had those words been issued as a party press release most self respecting journalists would have put them in the file marked "propaganda" - known in my office as the bin.

Ah but, I hear you say, didn't I hear recently that Mr Miliband - that is the less famous of the two brothers - had begun drafting the next Labour manifesto? You did hear that but did you pause to consider what the words "begun drafting" might actually mean? Would typing the word "manifesto" at the top of a page qualify? There is, though, one word to describe the talk of a snap election - it's tosh.

Gordon Brown HAS laid plans for this autumn and those plans don't include an election. Key amongst them is October's comprehensive spending review which is meant not just to set the budget for every Whitehall department but to spell out the political dividing lines between Labour and the Tories. Mr Brown may have changed jobs recently but he's not changed his view of elections. The next - he believes - will be won as the last three have been - by posing a choice to the electorate between investment and cuts.

When Team Brown came to office, their planning assumption was for an election in spring 2009. The Brown bounce in the polls has put a spring into their step. It's allowed them to begin to dare to dream of what they might do if - and it's some if - that poll lead survives. They will, as all governing parties always do, then make sure they're ready for a vote whenever their leader thinks they can win one. Many Tories but very few Labour politicians I meet see that coming before next spring at the very earliest.

What then has all the fuss been about? In the main it's been a deliberate policy to unnerve the Tories - an attempt to confuse them about when to release their policies and when to spend their money too. There is, though, one respect in which election fever at Westminster is genuine.

Today sees the first electoral test since Gordon Brown became prime minister with in Ealing and in Sedgefield - two traditionally safe Labour seats. All the parties know that the results will be relentlessly examined for signs as to whether the Brown bandwagon is steamrolling on or beginning to stall; for whether David Cameron is faltering or recovering and for signs of life or perhaps terminal decay in Ming Campbell's leadership. That will keep politicians - and yes, we in the commentariat - guessing, calculating, plotting possible election dates. The rest of you can relax. You won't be asked to vote for some time yet.

• Permalink
• Comments