Brian Barder's blog

I suppose the most significant thing about the confrontation between the two Tory leadership contenders, old[ish] David Davis and young[er] David Cameron, on last night’s BBC television programme Question Time was that it took place at all, a novelty in British television politics.  Both the Davids enthusiastically endorsed the demand of the third David (Dimbleby, their moderator) for whoever emerges in December as the new leader of the Conservative Party to  have the chance to debate whoever is by then leader of the Labour Party on television during the election campaign.   Since both will still be newish in their jobs, they might even agree on this occasion to debate each other:  an incumbent and established prime minister usually has no reason to award his opposite number the opportunity to gain massive publicity and to be represented publicly as the equal of the head of government by agreeing to debate him on television.

If neither David slew his Goliath, that could be because Goliath (aka Kenneth Clarke) was eliminated by the Tory MPs at the first round of the contest and isn’t on offer to the party worthies who now have to choose between Davis and Cameron.  Each of the Davids evinced warm approval of the other, enthusiastically agreeing with almost everything the other said (‘we’re both Tories’).  Cameron earnestly defended himself for declining to specify any particular policies that he would adopt if elected as leader: we would look foolish, he insisted, at the election in three years’ time if we had adopted a whole raft of policies now (although why sound policies whould invite ridicule because of the passage of time was not made clear).  Davis, with equal enthusiasm, leapt on this as the defining difference between Cameron and himself, claiming to have policies for all occasions, all available on demand.

The depressing thing was the obnoxious or absurd character of such specific policies as either candidate ventured to espouse, in each case with the eager support of the other.  By far the worst of these was the demand by Davis, who said he was not talking about quitting the EU, for Britain to take back from the EU powers on fishing, immigration and social policy, including union law and labour regulation.  Cameron agreed.  EU ‘red tape’ (along with ‘government waste’ an old traditional Tory hobgoblin since the beginning of time) was severely damaging British companies’ competitiveness and we should reclaim national control from the Bad Fairy in Brussels. And what, David3 politely enquired, if our EU partners declined to return these powers to us?  Then, explained DavidD (recalling that he had once been the Minister for Europe, winning at that time the nickname Monsieur Non, ‘for good reason!’), resistance to our demand would precipitate a Crisis.  Well, that’s one way to get what we want out of Johnny Foreigner, I thought:  if there’s one thing the Frogs and the Boche don’t like up ‘em, it’s a Crisis.  Europhobia, lightly disguised as Euroscepticism, lives on even among the up and coming young Tories (and they don’t come much younger or more up and coming than DavidC).  No wonder the MPs ditched Ken Clarke before the baying Tory packs in the shires had a chance to tear him limb from limb.

And talking of baying hounds, the Davids also cordially agreed, in reply to a question from a purple-faced Tory in the audience, that each, if elected leader and then elected to lead a Tory government, would allow a free vote in the House of Commons on whether to repeal the ban on hunting with dogs:  and, said DavidD smugly, it’s not hard to guess how the vote would go in a House with a Tory majority.  So take heart, you aficionados of cock-fighting, bear-baiting and bull-fighting out there: your time may yet come.

There were occasional flashes of decent liberal opinion.  DavidC put in a good word — two, actually –  for action to deal with poverty in Africa, a novel proposition coming from a Tory.  Both Davids opposed the government’s current wheeze under which the cops and spooks would be able to bang up a terrorist suspect, without even charging him, for up to three months;  but both seemed willing to approve an extension of the present 14-day limit if a ‘consensus’ could be reached on a period somewhere between 14 and 90 days (Davis murmured ’28′ in a speculative way at one point, which is where the smart money seems to be).  Both agreed that same-sex partners should enjoy legal rights akin to those enjoyed by married couples, although both performed the usual ritual obeisance to The Family, its values. Neither had a good word to say for drugs.  DavidD made a great show of refusing to make political capital out of the rumoured druggy student past of DavidC.  DavidC poured righteous scorn on the notion that young red-blooded men should be constrained in their behaviour by the possibility that they might one day become politicians (not one of the reasons for refraining from drug-taking that springs immediately to mind, but I suppose any reason is better than nothing).

So who won?  Only a grass-roots Tory can reliably answer that, for the Davids are competing at this stage for the votes of members of Conservative Associations around the country (or at any rate where there are any), not for the support of the likes of the rest of us.  Perhaps whichever wins in December will thenceforth tack towards a more centrist position in readiness for mortal combat in two or three years’ time with Gordon Brown (or David Miliband, or Hilary Benn, or David Blunkett, or Tony Blair): but I wouldn’t bet on it.  Davis is reputed to be the candidate of the right wing in this contest, and he understandably said nothing to undermine that reputation.  Cameron is the candidate with Youth, Charisma, and No Policies, and similarly said nothing to disavow those considerable qualities, apart from boyishly pointing out that if his youthfulness was to be held against him, it wasn’t something that would last for ever.  Nor did he make any obvious bid for the votes of the Tory left: perhaps there aren’t any .  (Cameron put on a show of indignation at a suggestion from DavidD that he was in some way the heir to Tony Blair, in itself a rather suggestive point.)  

At the end of a pretty dispiriting hour, the only obvious conclusion was that we’d all just have to go on voting Labour, however hard Tony Blair tries in his declining political years to persuade us otherwise.  But don’t bet your children’s inheritance on David the Younger not moving into No. 10 in or around 2009.  Stranger things have happened.

Brian

Unaccustomed as I am to feeling even a sneaking sympathy for the appalling Mr Blunkett, probably the worst and most illiberal Home Secretary in my longish lifetime, I’m bound to confess that it’s easy to see how he might have misunderstood the rules on seeking advice from the ‘independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments’ on taking up appointments after leaving ministerial office, the crux of his current difficulties:

Ministerial Code: A Code of Ethics and Procedural Guidance for Ministers’ [sic]

5.   Ministers’ Private Interests
General principle

5.1 Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.
….
Acceptance of appointments after leaving ministerial office

5.29 On leaving office, Ministers should seek advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments about any appointments they wish to take up within two years of leaving office. This is not necessary for unpaid appointments in non-commercial organisations or appointments in the gift of the Government, such as Prime Ministerial appointments to international organisations. Although it is in the public interest that former Ministers should be able to move into business or other areas of public life, it is equally important that there should be no cause for any suspicion of impropriety about a particular appointment. The Advisory Committee may recommend a delay of up to two years before the appointment is taken up if:
a. an appointment could lead to public concern that the statements and decisions of the Minister, when in Government, have been influenced by the hope or expectation of future employment with the firm or organisation concerned;
b. an employer could make improper use of official information to which a former Minister has had access.  [My emphasis -- BLB]

Compare with:

The Times, 1 November 2005

Correspondence between Lord Mayhew and Mr Blunkett
From Lord Mayhew of Twysden, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, to The Rt Hon David Blunkett, MP, House of Commons.

21 December 2004

I am writing to you, as I do to other Ministers who leave the Government, to advise you how to contact the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments if you wish to seek our advice on any appointment outside Government.  

You may recall that the Ministerial Code – A code of conduct and guidance on procedures for Ministers (July 2001) – states that “on leaving office Ministers should seek advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments about any appointments they wish to take up within two years of leaving office, other than unpaid appointments in non-commercial organisations or appointments in the gift of the Government …” (paragraph 140)….

From Lord Mayhew to Mr Blunkett
2 March 2005

I wrote to you on 21 December to let you know how to get in touch with us if you wished to consider taking up any employment after leaving the Government. I enclose a copy of my letter for convenience.

The system under which former Ministers can seek our advice about outside appointments is a voluntary and advisory one, although the Ministerial Code does state that they should do this. … in accordance with our Guidelines we would normally expect a former Cabinet Minister to wait at least three months before taking up an outside appointment.

… In view of the possibility of a misunderstanding on your part in this case, I thought it right to let you know that, if asked about your appointment with Indepen, we would need to say that we had not been consulted about it.

The Committee is always prepared to offer advice retrospectively, but it would be clear from our report that it was not sought until after the event….

From Mr Blunkett to Lord Mayhew
3 March 2005

Dear Patrick

Thank you for your letter dated 2nd March. You are indeed right that there has been a misunderstanding. It was my belief that I should seek your advice if I had any doubt about the nature of the employment and its connection with my role as a Government Minister. My apologies for not realising that, on a voluntary basis, I should have consulted you irrespective of this. … 
If there is a problem I would happily meet you but I am also please (sic) to take any advise (sic) on whether you believe I have broken the rules….  [My emphasis -- BLB]

 It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that Lord Mayhew, or whichever Committee functionary drafts his letters for him, was guilty of mealy-mouthed drafting in failing to make clear the crucial distinction between seeking the Committee’s advice (which is an obligation) and acting on that advice (which, weirdly, is optional).  As Sir Alistair Graham, chairman of the committee on standards in public life, has made brutally clear:  "undoubtedly there was a breach of the ministerial code", because Mr Blunkett had not sought the committee’s advice.  By writing to Mr Blunkett the fatally ambiguous sentence that "The system under which former Ministers can seek our advice about outside appointments is a voluntary and advisory one" (even though it’s immediately qualified),  Lord Mayhew left the courtroom door wide open for both misunderstanding and a means of escape.

However, there’s a problem for Mr Blunkett over the timing of his correspondence with Lord Mayhew and that of his subsequent action in taking another directorship, again without seeking the Committee’s advice.  As The Times article icily puts it:

The last letter was dated on [sic] March 15.  Yet in April, Mr Blunkett repeated the mistake by taking a directorship with DNA Bioscience without consultation.

He’s going to have his work cut out wriggling out of that one.  This is surely a crass misjudgement too many.  David Blunkett has lost his credibility, convicted himself too many times of failures of judgement in his private and public lives to retain public confidence in his judgement as a senior Cabinet minister, and by his own ill-judged activities made himself a figure of fun.  He should resign, or be sacked.

There are two ironies, though, in all this.  First, that Mr Blunkett’s ministerial career should have been ruined, not by his disgraceful record as Home Secretary, but by constant ludicrous misjudgements in both his private and his public life;  and, secondly, that Tony Blair, who a couple of years ago acted in such treacherous haste to dismiss his close ally and friend Peter Mandelson before, rather than after, taking the trouble to establish whether he had done anything wrong (he almost certainly hadn’t), should allow Blunkett to cling to his Cabinet ministerial job long after the established facts have made it abundantly clear that he ought to go.  Loyalty, even selective loyalty, is one thing;  upholding high standards of probity in public life is quite another.    

Update: These remarks were written on the day before David Blunkett’s resignation;  the comments below were written after it.

Brian