The BlogSpat is on

Iain Dale has responded to my post about Gordon Brown. And Guido has joined in too.

In this morning's exciting episode of BlogSpat:

Gordon Brown has put Labour MP Colin Challen on a climate change panel (a position, incidentally, for which most regard as him as well qualified) and the latter has announced that he is standing down as a Labour MP. This helps Gordon Brown's sidekick Ed Balls who can now step into the vacant seat. Iain and Guido think this is sleazy. I argued that it was a standard political move. They have responded that they are shocked, shocked at my cynicism, and that accepting that these things go on is what puts people off politics.

Now read on.........

In any workplace you may wish to renew your team, making a post available for someone you regard as useful. If this post is occupied you might offer the person currently doing the job another opportunity. You think what might tempt them and where else they might prove handy and make the swap.

And that's all that Gordon Brown has done, as far as we know.

Why is this sleazy? What is wrong with it? I can't see the smallest ethical objection. I am not saying that politicians shouldn't adhere the highest standards, I am merely struggling to understand why this isn't perfectly acceptable conduct.

Iain suggests that Gordon Brown's behaviour and my cynical acceptance of it is the sort of thing that puts people off politics. Let me put an alternative point - blowing up trivial and perfectly sensible political moves into pseudo-scandals and going on about them is what puts people off politics.

Comments

[Chris]

I'm with Danny.

This *could* be a sleaze story if we think Challen is unable to do the job, or the job was created for Challen. Otherwise, I really don't think so.

I also happen to think the Smith Institute stuff is a little bit tedious.

I think there is a legitimate question about respecting John Smith’s legacy, and the Smith Institute needs to do that, but I doubt I could codify that responsibility.

I reckon this is worth a read in this context (from Chris Dillow's blog):

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2007/02/missing_the_poi.html

Ruthless pedantry is not the same as public morality.

[David Stevens]

I think the problem is Danny, that the "political move" is being funded by the taxpayer. Brown is making room for a political ally, as a Labour candidate, by offering an inducement which is paid for by the public purse. Now, if he had offered Challen a job paid for by Labour, say, general secretary, there wouldnt be a problem. But he hasn't.

[Real Essex Boy]

I take it you consider the Cash for Peerages is nothing more than a little spat blown up out of all proportion then?

[Rob K]

What's wrong with it? One word, Danny, Nolan.

It doesn't matter whether Gordon thinks Colin would be great on his pet panel, the fact is that under the sort of rules established in the 1990s, when New Labour was so keen on ethical standards to beat sleazy Tories with, the government agreed that positions on quangos, etc, should be awarded on the basis of merit, open competition, etc. Not to free up a space for your mate who wants a safe seat but won't travel more than ten miles from his wife's constituency. David Stevens is right, Brown is using a public position for party political motives and that - whether or not the Tories would do the same - is sleaze.

[John]

There's a basic problem with this whole debate. Gordon Brown hasn't given Colin Challen a job on any commission - ergo he hasn't been appointed to anything, and nothing is being funded by the taxpayer.

According to the Treasury's statement to Gallery News yesterday: "The Chancellor has not appointed Colin Challen to any role. The conferences being organised by Mr Challen, the Chair of the All-Parliamentary Group on Climate Change, are a very important initative, but they are fully independent of Government."

So whether you're Danny or Iain Dale, you're operating under a false premise.

[Chuck Unsworth]

And what precisely has Challen done for the nation to deserve his elevation to the Lords? Apart from being inconveniently placed just now, that is?

It appears that you view politics as just some form of pragmatic use of powers for personal gain. So maybe you'd care to spell out why you think so many of the recent peerages and funding and public accounts have been subject to widespread condemnation. Presumably it's because the public are just a bunch of crackpot nutters who mistakenly believe that morals, principles and ethics should be the basis of actions.

Well, maybe you're right. In which case do not be too surprised when the tumbril turns up at your front door...

[Unity]

So far as I'm aware, or has been announced, there's no peerage to go with this task force role - nor in Brown in a position to make such an offer at present.

Unless someone's changed the constitution in the last five minutes, peers are still appointed under the Royal Prerogative, which is vested in the Office of the Prime Minister, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and has been since the late 18th Century.

[Chunters]

Clearly the problem here is that politicians and political commentators don't have a grasp on what is 'Real Life'....and how one should conduct ones self.

[Chuck Unsworth]

Unity - just you wait! He'll get his ermine if he plays his cards right, or just ups the ante very slightly. This is a very long game.

Brown is intent on getting his placemen into position - and that's not solely inside Parliament. And strangely, Blair is not the only one to recommend peerages, although it often feels like that.

Are they not also in the process of 'reforming' the Upper Chamber? Wonder who the new Peers of the Realm will be there.

As to protocol - since when did these people pay anything but lip service to that?