If there were any justice in the world, and nice men came first, Hilary Benn might well be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party come June 27th. If you believe the Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph, he will be. They both rate him at 2-1 favourite. There's just one problem, he doesn't seem to have enough MPs to get on the ballot. According to one source he's got fewer than 20 signed up.Today's smear story in the Sunday Telegraph also won't do him much good, although having read it twice I still can't see what is new in this story or what he is supposed to have done that's wrong.
21 comments:
Why did the Telegraph put a non-story on the front page?
Reading it through, this is *such* a non-story it can only been the Telegraph doing the Tories a favour by smearing the only potentially popular Deputy Leadership candidate.
How absolutely ridiculous. I've always liked Hilary Benn and I'm surprised to see Chris Grayling, a member of Cameron's Shadow Cabinet and thus somone who should be holding back from this pathetic "Punch & Judy" style of politics, smearing a perfectly competent minister over such a non-issue. Benn has avoided making any decisions regarding this corporation in his role at the DfID, so I really don't see where this conflict of interest lies.
The sad reality is that we're going to have an unelected, unpopular Prime Minister in Gordon Brown and some repellant abortion like Hazel Blears, Peter Hain or Harriet Harman as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. At least Alan Johnson and the aforementioned Benn have some integrity and talent.
The breach of the Ministerial Code is crystal clear. Why don't even the most senior politicians in the country seem to understand the responsibilities that are taken on when becoming a Minister? To an extent, I can understand his carelessness given Blair's woeful enforcement of the Ministerial Code, but I wouldn't expect an opposition politician not to make political capital. If he is not punished under the Code this will go down as yet another textbook example of Labour sleaze.
My copy of the Telegraph must have been individually printed for me because it say's Benn failed to declare his shares for several years. That's a breach of the ministerial code. These shares are in a company that trades with the International department. Even worse.
This shareholding drives a coach-and-four through the terms of the Ministerial Code, both in spirit and as a matter of the clear terms of its text.
How can a minister who has the ultimate control over who distributes some of its press releases not be thought to have an an actual conflict of interest between their ministerial position and their private financial interests?
The other activities of this company detailed by the DT give rise to an apparent conflict of interest between Benn's ministerial position and his private financial interests.
The failure to register this holding is also very odd given that it was remembered for registration in 2001 and then forgotten until 2005? How can one possibly forget such a holding, given that one might remind oneself of it by looking at the 2001 entry?
Quite why you are advocating holding off Benn is a puzzle. That little Red Ferret Robin Cook never felt constrained, so why should the Tories? Grayling is entirely right to point out this grave breach of the Ministerial Code in one who pretends to the office of Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and quite possibly to the office of Deputy Prime Minister.
The fact that he is "perfectly competent" has nothing whatever to do with it. Nor does the suggestion that he has avoided any dealings with his company while at DfID make any difference.
He should be formed up in front of the appropriate committee forthwith and despatched to the Backbenches.
Iain - as with excessive MPs expenses you seem to have a blind spot when it comes to matters of this nature. Despite the fact that you're authoring the LRBOLS (thanks for the invite to contribute) I think you need to pull your socks up when it comes to political ethics and standards in public life. Benn either didn't read the Ministerial Code or ignored it. Neither is acceptable.
The UBM services are just a media subscription service, like LexisNexis or the newswires. I'd be surprised if any Government or political party press office doesn't use it. Not using it would be comparable to a departmental catering department having to boycott PG Tips because their Minister had shares in Unilever. Not sure if it’s an infringement of Blair’s crappily drafted Ministerial Code or not, but for the Telegraph to call it ‘sleaze’ with a straight face is taking the piss rather. Fair play to Grayling for placing it, definitely a helpful smear from the Tory perspective, but it doesn’t make Benn ‘dodgy’.
Prague Tory is right. Iain, this is a fairly consistent theme for you. You seem accept rather shoddy behaviour with indifference. A shame.
Benn strikes me as capable, likeable and honest, in a Government of snakes and liars. But he is clearly in the wrong in this case and deserves punishment.
Right, if the code asks for disposal or “alternative steps” to prevent “any appearance of a conflict of interest” and the Department did take alternative steps, that is to say shielding him from having any role in the decision to subscribe to the service (which I can’t imagine would be that hard a decision, it’s a useful service) then he’s got a fair argument that he isn’t in breach anyway. As I say, certainly handy partisan fuel certainly for the Tories for de-railing his Deputyship campaign, but no great crime, if any.
Iain, I am surprised that you don't see what the problem is here. Simply holding the shares, howver acquired, is a breach of the ministerial code. This sort of obligation is well understood by people working in the City, who are quite entitled to require politicians to observe the same standards. The Big 4 firms of accountants are particularly strict about independence, not just shareholdings, even to the extent that I know of one instance where a partner in a large firm was asked to resign frm the partnership because his brother-in-law became FD at an audit client, even though the partner was not involved on the audit or with the client. More generally, when accounting firms take on new audit clients or when audit clients take over companies in which they hold shares, all members of staff are required to dispose of those shares immediately.
It seems that as in the case of the 5th Avenue Partners due diligence, a different standard is applied by politicians to that required by the regulators of City professionals.
Mark's point is very pertinent. Even the most junior members of many professions have to jump through all manner of hoops to comply with either government or pseudo-governmental regulations relating to independence.
Lord Stansgate's little boy has been naughty, and should resign from the cabinet (or be fired). Pity, as he was one of the most nearly-human specimens in the present zoo.
Clothilde Simon
I wonder if these shares were held in that offshore trust that wedgie Benn used to have.
His excuse was although he was happy to pay taxes , he didnt think it was right that he decided for his children as to how much loot they inherited.
f*** hilary and F** is c*** of a Father
"C" word
You may like to know that this piece of info on the Benn family's enviable wealth was leaked/brought to the attention of the Opposition by a senior Labour backbencher.
Yippee.
Has there been a trade? No-one to get enough nominations for any challenge to Brown in the leadership election in return for not enough nominations for the front runner in the deputy election so that Cruddas gets to be deputy leader and trade union commissar?
Anon - which senior Labour backbencher would be that treacherous? In other news I understand that Tom Watson has come out in support of Jon Cruddas.
Why is it OK for labour MPs to get away with this sort of thing but not the Tories when they were in power. Cameron needs to get on the offensive before Brown just brushes him aside. I am not sure Cameron is the right person to take on Brown.
Its true that there've been a number of anti-Benn smear stories and insinuations in recent weeks placed by people who want him out of the running - I would put my money on the Milliband coterie who seem to have limitless access to the media. But at the same time the Benns are wont to sneer at anything hereditary so he can't expect to inherit a national political role just because his Dad had one. Like the rest of the NuLabour cabinet he's pretty average. He might at one time have had the potential for greatness but his parents sacrificed his future by sending him to Holland Park Comprehensive in accordance with their political beliefs.
Desperate Dan, why do you think he's been held back by going to a comprehensive school (a fairly successful one at that)?
"nice men came first"
That's not what my mummy taught me!
Post a Comment