Financial and business news and articles
Posts tagged House of Lords
Labour peer Lady Uddin will not face prosecution over expenses
Mar 12th
Labour peer was investigated over claims that she was paid expenses on a flat in Kent that had been unoccupied for years
Lady Uddin, the Labour peer accused of claiming more than £100,000 in expenses for a flat she did not live in, will not face any criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed today.
The Labour peer was investigated over claims that she was paid expenses on a flat in Kent that had been unoccupied for years. Uddin has a second home in the East End of London, just four miles away from parliament.
The inquiry has been suspended with no charges made because there was “insufficient evidence” to bring a prosecution alleging that Uddin did not occupy the home in Kent.
Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, said: “The allegation against Baroness Uddin was that she had claimed ‘night subsistence’ for overnight stays in London, after attendances in the House of Lords, to which she was not entitled. Although she had nominated a flat she owned in Maidstone, Kent, as her ‘only or main residence’, it was alleged that her ‘only or main residence’ was in fact a house in east London.
“Evidence in this case was obtained from neighbours of Baroness Uddin and from companies supplying utility services, such as water, gas and electricity to the flat in Maidstone. But after careful scrutiny of all of the available evidence we have decided that, in applying the definition of ‘only or main residence’ adopted by the House Committee, there is insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Baroness Uddin and we have today advised the Metropolitan police to take no further action.”
The decision not to prosecute relied heavily on a ruling by the Lords clerk to allow peers to nominate their first and second homes, and that the definition of a primary home was one which the member visited at least once a month. On the evidence prosecutors had, they could not prove she had spent less time there.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
MPs on expenses charges cite parliamentary privilege
Mar 11th
Labour MPs and Tory peer plead not guilty and say workings of parliament should be dealt with by parliament
Three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer charged with theft over their expenses claims are to fight to keep their cases out of the criminal courts by attempting to invoke a 320-year-old law protecting them under parliamentary privilege.
Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield appeared today at City of Westminster magistrates court to plead not guilty to charges of false accounting under the Theft Act 1968.
The cases were committed to Southwark crown court after lawyers argued they raised issues of “high constitutional importance”. If convicted, the four face a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.
Julian Knowles, representing the three MPs, stressed the men were not saying they were above the law. “That would be quite wrong.” But, he added, “parliamentary privilege is part of the law, and it is for parliament to apply the law in their cases”.
The three MPs stood together in the functional reinforced glass dock of Court One at the Horseferry Road court, a short walk from the Palace of Westminster, during their 15-minute appearance.
A request they be allowed to remain outside the dock was refused by district judge Timothy Workman. Lord Hanningfield, who gave his name as “Paul Edward Winston Lord Hanningfield, previously White”, appeared alone immediately after them.
Knowles said the three MPs “unequivocally and steadfastly maintain their innocence of the charges against them”. Referring to the 1689 Bill of Rights, originally designed to protect freedom of speech, he said the MPs maintained “that to prosecute them in the criminal courts for their parliamentary activities would infringe the principle of the separation of powers, which is one of the principles which underpins the UK’s constitutional structure.
“The principle of the separation of powers means that whatever matter arises concerning the working of parliament should be dealt with by parliament, and not elsewhere, and should be dealt with in a manner that is consistent with the way other members have been treated.”
He added that parliamentary privilege meant that “proceedings in parliament cannot be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of parliament”.
“These principles mean that it is for the House of Commons alone to decide whether the conduct of Mr Morley, Mr Chaytor and Mr Devine has been such as to call for sanction.”
Morley, 57, former agriculture minister and MP for Scunthorpe, is alleged to have dishonestly claimed £30,428 more than he was entitled to in second-home expenses between 2004 and 2007 on a house in Winterton, near Scunthorpe, towards a mortgage that was paid off.
Chaytor, 60, MP for Bury North, faces charges that he claimed almost £13,000 in rent in 2005 and 2006 on a London flat which he owned, as well as £5,425 in 2007 and 2008 to rent a property in Lancashire owned by his mother. He is also alleged to have used false invoices to claim £1,950 for IT services in 2006.
Devine, 56, MP for Livingston, is alleged to have claimed £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationery using false invoices in 2008 and 2009.
All three have been barred as standing as Labour candidates in the forthcoming general election.
Hanningfield, 69, who was suspended from the parliamentary Conservative party and stood down as leader of Essex county council, pleaded not guilty to six charges relating to claims for overnight allowances, ranging from £154 to £172, from the House of Lords between 2006 and 2009 when records allegedly show he was driven to his home near Chelmsford.
The judge agreed with the defendants’ application for the cases to be heard at crown court. All were released on unconditional bail to appear at Southwark crown court on 30 March.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
New details published of expenses charges faced by Labour MPs and Tory peer
Mar 11th
David Chaytor, Jim Devine, Elliot Morley and Lord Haningfield to face court today
New details of the charges faced by three Labour MPs and a Tory peer were revealed in documents published ahead of their court appearance today.
David Chaytor, the MP for Bury North, is accused of providing false information on an allowances form under the Theft Act 1968.
The charge states he falsely claimed rents between September 2005 and August 2006 for 152 Hide Tower, Regency Street, London, from Sarah Elizabeth.
It added that he claimed £12,925 by lodging a claim for £1,175 a month in rent when he was in fact the owner of the premises.
A second charge stated that on or about 19 May 2006, he dishonestly filed two invoices for computer IT services worth £975.
The court document added that they purported to show the services had been provided in February and March 2006 by Paul France.
A third charge stated that between November 2005 and September 2006 he dishonestly made use of a short-hold tenancy agreement in a claim form.
This showed that between August 2007 and January 2008 he rented Delph Cottage, Castle Street, Summerseat, Bury, from Olive Trickett for £775 a month plus a month deposit.
The charge added that Trickett was his mother and it was not permissible to lease accommodation from a family member. The total sum claimed was £5,425.
Jim Devine, the MP for Livingston, is accused of falsely claiming costs for parliamentary duties in March 2009.
The charge sheet alleged he submitted two misleading invoices worth a total of £5,505 for services provided by Armstrong Printing Ltd.
A second charge alleged that between July 2008 and May 2009 he dishonestly claimed allowances for repair, insurance or security.
The document alleges he intended to gain by submitting false invoices for services, cleaning and maintenance worth £3,240.
The services were allegedly provided between April 2009 and March 2010 by Tom O’Donnell Hygiene and Cleaning Services.
Elliot Morley, the MP for Scunthorpe, is accused of falsely claiming a furnishing allowance between March 2006 and November 2007.
The charge sheet alleged he submitted a deceptive mortgage application.
This showed £800 mortgage monthly interest was charged by the Cheltenham and Gloucester when in fact the mortgage was paid off. A total overpayment of £16,000 was made.
A second charge alleged that between April 2004 and February 2006 Morley made a further false mortgage interest claim.
Again he is accused of claiming £800 a month, a total overpayment of £14,428.67.
Lord Hanningfield, also known as Paul White, faced six charges.
The offences are alleged to have taken place in March 2006, May 2007, April 2008, July 2008, May 2009 and April 2009.
One charge stated that on or about 1 April 2009, at Westminster, he made a dishonest claim for travelling allowances.
It stated that Hanningfield “purported to show that you were entitled to be paid expenses when the conditions entitled you to payment of such expenses had not been fulfilled”.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
MPs and peer due in court over expenses
Mar 11th
Labour MPs David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Elliot Morley, along with Tory peer Lord Hanningfield deny theft by false accounting
Three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer are due to appear in court today accused of theft by false accounting.
MPs Elliot Morley of Scunthorpe, David Chaytor of Bury North and Livingston’s Jim Devine will appear at City of Westminster magistrates court.
They will be joined by Lord Hanningfield, who faces charges relating to his claims for House of Lords allowances.
Their prosecution, at a court a short distance from parliament, is the first to result from the Westminster expenses scandal.
All four have denied any wrongdoing, but if found guilty could face up to seven years in jail.
Morley is alleged to have dishonestly claimed £30,428 more than he was entitled to in second-home expenses on a house in Winterton, near Scunthorpe, between 2004 and 2007, including 18 months after the mortgage on the property was paid off.
Chaytor faces charges that he claimed almost £13,000 in rent in 2005 and 2006 on a London flat he owned, as well as £5,425 in 2007 and 2008 to rent a property in Lancashire owned by his mother. He is also alleged to have used false invoices to claim £1,950 for IT services in 2006.
Devine is alleged to have claimed £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationery using false invoices in 2008 and 2009.
Hanningfield faces six charges of false accounting in relation to claims for overnight allowances from the House of Lords between 2006 and 2009, when records allegedly show he was driven to his home near Chelmsford.
The three MPs were barred from standing as Labour candidates at the forthcoming general election.
Hanningfield was suspended from the parliamentary Conservative party and stood down as leader of Essex county council.
In a joint statement last month, the MPs said: “We totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence and we will defend our position robustly.”
Hanningfield said he was “extremely disappointed” to be charged and insisted all his expenses claims were made in good faith.
The charges were announced by the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, after a nine-month investigation triggered by the leak of expenses details to the Daily Telegraph.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Labour peer Lord Paul promises to give up non-dom status
Mar 9th
Party donor will comply fully with law change requiring Lords members to pay full UK taxes
The Labour peer and donor Lord Paul today pledged to give up his non-dom status to pay full UK taxes, and suggested that all members of the House of Lords should be made to publish full details of their tax returns, dating back 20 years.
The peer has come under intense pressure from the Conservatives and has been the main target of their counterattack to criticisms over the tax status of Lord Ashcroft, the Tory donor and deputy chairman. Last week Ashcroft revealed he had renegotiated the terms of his peerage to remain a non-dom without senior figures in his party knowing for nearly a decade, triggering accusations that the leadership had failed to deal with the controversy properly.
Lord Paul has always declared his non-dom status but had not indicated how he would comply with new rules that compel all members of the Lords to become full UK taxpayers, leaving it open for him to resign from the Lords to avoid paying extra tax on his multinational steel company earnings.
Announcing he would remain in the upper house, he told the New Statesman: “On the issue of taxation position of peers, of course it goes without saying that I’ll be fully complying with the change of law which the government is bringing forward. I strongly support the government proposals in relation to the taxation status of peers and MPs and the membership of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.”
It also emerged today that Lord Paul is to be the subject of an inquiry into his expenses claims. Scotland Yard has dropped a police inquiry into his claims, but that has now allowed the subcommittee on lords’ interests to conduct its own investigation. The allegation is that he nominated an Oxfordshire flat he had never stayed in as his main home, then claimed thousands of pounds for his London property.
Paul told the Guardian that there should be full transparency of peers’ financial affairs: “Why not get every member of the Lords to put their tax returns for the past 20 years into the public domain? I would gladly do so; I have nothing to hide.” In the US all legislators have to provide full financial disclosure of their accounts.
Ashcroft is likely to be ordered to give evidence to a Lords inquiry into his appointment to the upper house, it was announced today, following a complaint from the Liberal Democrat Lord Taverne. In a letter to the subcommittee on lords’ interests he called for an investigation into whether Ashcroft had breached the code of conduct and principles of standards in public life, saying that if the original undertaking Ashcroft made to become a full resident had been broken, it “would be a serious breach of the code of conduct and the principles of standards in public life”.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Lords sleaze watchdog to earn £350 a day
Mar 9th
Pay is still significantly less than £108,000 salary of Commons standards commissioner
The House of Lords’ new sleaze watchdog is to be paid the equivalent of £90,000 a year, it was revealed today.
The post of commissioner for standards in the Lords has been advertised on the parliamentary website, and a recruitment firm is also understood to be identifying candidates.
It is expected that whoever lands the job will work for a minimum of five days a month, and earn around £350 a day.
Although the pro-rata sum of £90,000 is higher than an MP’s salary of around £65,000, it is significantly less than the pay of Commons standards commissioner John Lyon.
He is currently paid an annual salary of £108,000 for a four-day week.
The ad on the parliament website invites candidates who have “operated at senior level within a complex organisation in the public or private sector, and will bring natural authority to the role”.
It goes on: “They must be able to make sound decisions and give objective advice based on best available evidence, and must be able to work in an environment where decisions are subject to intense public and media scrutiny.
“Discretion in handling information of a highly sensitive nature will be critical. The appointee will demonstrate the highest levels of personal integrity, fairness and impartiality.”
The House of Lords voted to toughen up its anti-sleaze rules and enforcement last year in the wake of allegations that some peers had been paid to influence legislation.
The new system should be in place by the start of the next parliament.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Labour donor Lord Paul to give up non-dom status
Mar 9th
Paul criticises Tories for trying to compare him to Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft, who admitted last week that he had been a non-dom since becoming a peer 10 years ago
Lord Paul, the Labour donor, said today that he would give up his non-dom status when legislation comes into force saying all parliamentarians must pay full taxes in the UK.
He also criticised the Tories for trying to compare him to Lord Ashcroft, the Conservative donor who admitted last week that he had been a non-dom since he took his seat in the House of Lords 10 years ago.
All peers will have to pay full UK taxes if they want to remain in the Lords when new legislation comes into force later this year. Ashcroft has indicated that he will comply with the law and pay full UK taxes, but in the past Lord Paul hinted that he could leave the Lords instead.
Today he said he would definitely remain in the upper house.
“On the issue of taxation position of peers, of course it goes without saying that I’ll be fully complying with the change of law which the government is bringing forward,” he told the New Statesman.
“I strongly support the government proposals in relation to the taxation status of peers and MPs and the membership of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.”
Paul, who was made a member of the privy council last year, has given at least £70,000 to Labour. He is a friend of Gordon Brown’s and his donations include a contribution to Brown’s leadership campaign fund.
Since Ashcroft’s announcement last week, the Tories have often pointed out that Labour also takes money from a non-dom in the House of Lords. But Paul said that he was not in the same position as Ashcroft.
Paul said that he had always been open about being a non-dom and that this tax status had not been a concern when he took his seat in the Lords in 1996.
Asked how much the decision to pay full taxes in the UK would cost him, Paul said: “Definitely not millions of pounds, or hundreds of thousands.”
He also defended Brown’s decision to make him a privy counsellor last year. MPs and peers normally only become members of the privy council if they have held senior office.
Paul said: “My contribution to this country is perhaps bigger than a lot of people who are privy counsellors.
“I don’t think it is a monopoly for ex-ministers and ministers to be members of the privy council. I bought steel companies in Britain and brought them to health and made the industry fashionable again in the 1980s. We have 3,500 employees in this country right now.”
The Tories have identified seven other people who have given money to Labour who are also reportedly non-doms.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Will Lord Mandelson remain in ermine for ever?
Mar 9th
Any deeply residual hopes Lord Mandelson might have of returning to the Commons appear to have been dashed.
The shadow justice secretary, Dominic Grieve, has announced that the business secretary must be a victim of the wash-up. In the Commons (and therefore in secret) Grieve announced that the Tories would not allow the constitutional reform and governance bill onto the statute book in the frantic last days of talks before the election – known as the wash-up – if Labour sticks to its plans in the bill to allow peers to resign and then stand as an MP.
Grieve’s reasoning is that this would turn the Lords into an unacceptable temporary resting place for ambitious politicians.
The reform – to allow peers to become MPs – was an idea that pre-dated Mandelson’s return to frontline politics as a peer, but the proposal has come to be seen – wrongly – as a purpose-built vehicle for him to shoehorn himself back into the Commons after the election.
The half-belief is that Mandelson still harbours hopes of becoming foreign secretary if Labour is re-elected, something he could probably only do in the Commons. Alternatively, if Labour lost the election, Mandelson could play a bigger role in the election of a new Labour leader from the Commons, it is argued.
No one, incidentally, quite knows how wash-up will work, but it is clear that peers will be able to put individual clauses of bills to a vote in a way in which MPs will not in the Commons. Bills, and individual clauses, are likely to be rejected or accepted in discussions between the frontbenches in the Commons, leaving individual MPs out of the discussions.
Harriet Harman, the equalities minister, believes she will get her groundbreaking equality bill through now without falling victim to wash-up talks.
The big test is whether Gordon Brown can find a way to force through the Lords his planned referendum on the alternative vote for election to the Commons. The aim is to embarrass David Cameron into explaining why he is opposed to a referendum on this issue.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Ashcroft using trips with Hague to chase business, says Labour
Mar 5th
Tory peer and donor is accused of using shadow foreign secretary as his introduction to Cuba and other countries
Lord Ashcroft was suspected by Britain’s ambassador to Cuba of attempting to develop business interests in the country while accompanying William Hague on an official shadow Foreign Office visit.
A memo sent to the Foreign Office by Dianna Melrose, the British envoy in Havana, states: “Ashcroft was sniffing out future business opportunities here – I think.” It was written after Ashcroft had flown Hague into the country for a meeting with Cuba’s foreign minister and visited the British embassy.
Disclosure of the note prompted further questions asking why Ashcroft is allowed to accompany Hague on official visits to meet dignitaries when he is not on the shadow foreign team. The Guardian has previously shown that Ashcroft met Chinese foreign affairs officials to discuss Belize hours after meeting Chinese leaders with Hague.
John Mann, the Labour MP for Bassetlaw who triggered an Electoral Commission investigation into Ashcroft’s company Bearwood Corporate Services, said the Tories should disclose where in the world Hague has been with Ashcroft, who they have met, and what was discussed.
“Ashcroft appears to be paying for William Hague’s flights to give him access into Cuba and other countries. This is particularly invidious considering William Hague’s foreign affairs portfolio.”
Yesterday Ashcroft’s spokesman denied having or pursuing any business interests in Cuba and said that Melrose’s assessment was wrong. “[The memo] speaks volumes about the business judgment of our lady in Havana,” he said. Hague’s spokesman declined to comment.
Hague’s three-day Cuban visit began on 15 March 2009, when he flew with Ashcroft into Havana, courtesy of a private jet from Flying Lion Ltd, a company controlled by the Belize-based billionaire. Hague has flown with the company on at least 10 occasions.
The British embassy in Havana was surprised to receive a telephone call from Hague in which he announced he was in the country and suggested a meeting.
Hague and Ashcroft held a 50-minute meeting with Melrose in her official residency in Havana, according to Cuban sources. Afterwards, she wrote a lengthy memo detailing the visit, which was then sent to London some weeks later.
One embassy official said: “It was unusual, to say the least. We get very few visiting dignitaries here. They came over for a meeting and talked openly about their meetings with Cuban government officials.”
Hague was also facing further questions about his role in securing a peerage for Ashcroft. Hague wrote to Lord Thomson, then the chair of the honours scrutiny committee, saying that the businessman had not only “publicly undertaken to resume residency in the UK”, but was needed greatly by the Tories in the Lords.
“I value his abilities and wish to make political use of them as a working peer within the House of Lords to which, I believe, he would bring new strengths,” Hague wrote. “I would not be renominating Mr Ashcroft if I had any doubts as to his suitability.”
Since being ennobled, Ashcroft has attended the Lords for an average of 36 days each year, has asked few questions and has missed the overwhelming majority of votes. He has, however, twice voted on tax matters during the nine years that he effectively concealed his own tax status as a so-called non-dom. The Commons public administration select committee is expected to raise questions about Ashcroft’s performance in the Lords when it holds a one-off session on the affair later this month.
Lord Soley, the Labour peer, said: “William Hague unequivocally promised both the then prime minister and the political honours scrutiny committee that Lord Ashcroft would become a permanent resident and pay ‘tens of millions a year in tax’ as a result. We now know that this was not true. He also promised that he would make use of Lord Ashcroft as a working peer, but in fact Lord Ashcroft hardly ever attends the House of Lords.”
It is unclear what use the Tories have made of Ashcroft since he was awarded his peerage. He appears to have voted fewer than 200 times over the past decade, about 16% of the votes in the Lords during that period.
He has asked about 30 questions during the past four sessions of parliament. Six of those questions have related to Belize or the Turks and Caicos Islands. He has also asked a number of questions about the south Pacific island state of Nauru, and about a Royal Air Force base, which is occasionally used by his private jet.
Hague’s spokesman declined to make any comment on Ashcroft’s attendance.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
If it helps, think of Ashcroft as a gigantic duck house | Marina Hyde
Mar 6th
Posted by Marina Hyde in Politics
No comments
The nation raged at MPs’ expenses but most ignore this much bigger issue of unelected influence. And so let’s find our level
“There are two kinds of woman,” says Harry Burns to Sally Albright, during one of their late-night phone calls in When Harry Met Sally. “High maintenance and low maintenance. You’re the worst kind. You’re high maintenance but you think you’re low maintenance.”
Were I lying in bed watching Casablanca, talking on the phone to Lord Ashcroft who was also watching Casablanca somewhere across town – and let’s face it, it’s only a matter of time – I would make a variation of Harry’s remark. “Michael,” I’d say as we watched Rick and Ilsa at the airport. “There are two kinds of people. Those who pay tax, and exiles who don’t. You’re the worst kind. You don’t like to pay tax, but you think you can forget the exile bit.”
It probably wouldn’t be the start of a beautiful friendship. But this is beginning to feel like something of a bum deal. At least Rupert Murdoch sticks to his 91-day allowance, at all other times merely presenting in our dimension in avatar form, in the guise of his many newspapers, satellite television monopoly, and serially abusive hold on Downing Street. And yes, I do see what I’ve just done there.
Still, we love a tax exile in this country. We let them fund our political parties, and watch as they coincidentally obtain peerages. In the case of Lord Ashcroft, we watch as they become deputy chairman of the Conservative party, amass unquantified power over its leaders, and begin ploughing some of those very millions on which they don’t pay tax into intensely targeted campaigns designed to swing elections. David Cameron has honked loud and long about making trust and transparency an election issue, yet he and his lieutenants either misled the public deliberately as to his lordship’s status, or were too craven or venal to ask questions. They certainly refused to co-operate with the Electoral Commission’s investigation into the matter. Meanwhile, the BBC feel obliged to announce cuts effectively designed to appease that other unelected foreign billionaire, Rupert Murdoch, as though you can appease someone whose goal is your complete destruction.
So on it goes. Many of those bemoaning the axing of 6 Music will have bought a Murdoch newspaper the next day, and I am certainly one of those despondent at the BBC’s heartbreakingly ominous strategy review who will nevertheless be watching Sky Sports this weekend. Speak for yourself, some will retort, as well they might – but I fear such bovine hypocrisy speaks for Britain, which traditionally reacts to the ministrations of unelected foreign billionaires with a mixture of stupidity and apathy. Many care passionately, but those who don’t win out.
Clearly, David Cameron has always taken a view that Ashcroft’s untaxed millions and laser-like targeting of marginal seats is worth the media heat it draws, because the issue is not something being talked about in pubs. He is probably right, which is arguably the most depressing aspect of all these tales of non-dom Lords, be they Tory or Labour (not to mention Murdoch).
Unelected influence simply isn’t an issue that gains significant traction – but by crikey, it should. On the doorstep and in the televised election debates, both parties should be made to squirm over it and the revolting contempt it reveals for the taxpaying nurses and estate agents, and all the other worthy and unworthy subjects of a would-be government that is bankrolled by powerful special interests who wouldn’t dream of doing anything so schmucky as paying their fair share themselves. Between the likes of Murdoch and Ashcroft, a change of elected government in this country is merely a shuffling of junior personnel.
And so we find our level. As a nation, we might have to accept that a duck house was the kind of issue that could galvanise public anger, but that campaign finance is destined to be greeted by no more significant comment than “all the parties are doing it”.
Yet perhaps it would help those who got their knickers in a twist over pool-cleaning and pet food – but declare of campaign finance “this is a non-story” – to imagine what Ashcroft represents as a really, really big duck house. Inhabited by a giant duck. Picture a vast, multistorey duck house, marginally better appointed than the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Picture this duck house as the seat of government, staffed by thousands, where the elected representatives simply act as courtiers, second-guessing the duck by deciding policy in accordance with where it leaves its droppings on the floor.
Do roll out the same analogy for Murdoch. Although given his immense influence, Murdoch wouldn’t be a duck. He’d be one of those geese that craps out half its own body weight daily, trailed by forelock-tugging ministers, who treat each deposit with the witless reverence new parents reserve for the latest contents of their offspring’s nappy.
Apologies for the image. But while as a general public we might not be able to do psephology or ideology, it would be nice to think we could at least get our heads round scatology. We could then congratulate ourselves with all the misplaced pride of Maureen Lipman. We’ve got an ology.