Michael Gove Lances the Boil

David Cameron is encouraging any of his MPs who have faced accusations from the Telegraph to take their case to their constituents and face them in public meetings. One of my regular readers, Crossfire, went to a meeting in Surrey Heath last night, addressed by Michael Gove. Here's his report...

"Michael Gove attended a public meeting at 7.30pm this evening in Camberley in his Surrey Heath Constituency. He called the meeting shortly after the expenses scandal broke to provide the opportunity to answer questions from constituents and to listen to their concerns. By 7pm a large crowd had already gathered at the venue, a church hall near the town centre, together with national media represented by BBC television, Radio 4, and other local radio stations and print media. By the time the meeting commenced there were approximately 3-400 people in attendance.

"Michael opened the meeting with a statement in which he explained his actions and specifically addressed the allegations made against him by the Daily Telegraph who had accused him of 'flipping' his second home, of spending £7000 on furniture for his second home, and of paying £500 for a single night stay in a local hotel. Michael explained, in detail, the events surrounding his house move. He explained that the allegations of 'flipping' were unfounded. He had not changed the designation of his second home to profit from it, or to avoid capital gains tax as was the situation in other cases where the term 'flipping' first became public parlance. Instead he had simply re-designated his London house as his primary residence, as it had become his family's main residence. He had not sold any property or made any profit at the expense of the taxpayer.

"Michael went on to explain the situation regarding his purchase of furniture. He explained that following his election in Surrey Heath he had to furnish 2 homes and had therefore had to buy furniture for his second home. He spent in excess of £7000 but claimed legitimately for this sum. However, he had decided upon reflection, and in response to some of the allegations, that with the benefit of hindsight he should have considering buying cheaper furniture and rather than claiming a lesser sum he had decided simply to repay the full cost of the furniture. Similarly he said that the 1 night stay in a hotel had been decided on the basis of convenience as he had a constituency event late the previous night and again the following morning but on reflection he wished he had taken the time to find more cost-effective accommodation for his family that night - so had again decided to pay the entire sum back.

"Michael then took questions from constituents. The questions were very direct and ranged across the whole spectrum of issues regarding his personal circumstances and the question of how the democratic system needs reform. Michael answered very directly, openly and honestly to all the charges made against him. When asked about the future potential for profiting from purchase of a second home when he sold it in the future he pledged that if any profit were made from it, he would pay any profit made back to the taxpayer – an undertaking which whilst surprising to many of his constituents was well received.

"To call a public meeting whilst public anger is so apparent was a real political gamble. He submitted himself to his critics and showed solidity and integrity under fire and emerged from the evening, if not with his reputation enhanced, then at least with the allegations addressed and with a demonstration of openness and self-effacing honesty to which many paid tribute."

It would be interesting to know of other MPs who are doing this and to have reports from those meetings.

What Michael Gove Didn't Say

Michael Gove has spoken out today about the downsides of lads' mags like NUTS and ZOO. This is what he didn't say but could have...

I believe we need to ask tough questions about the instant-hit hedonism celebrated by the modern women's magazines targeted at younger females. Titles such as Nuts Cosmo and Zoo Elle paint a picture of women as permanently, lasciviously, uncomplicatedly available. We should ask those who make profits out of revelling in, or encouraging, selfish irresponsibility among young women what they think they're doing.... The relationship between these titles and their readers is a relationship in which the rest of us have an interest. The images they use and project reinforce a very narrow conception of beauty and a shallow approach towards women. They celebrate thrill-seeking and instant gratification without ever allowing any thought of responsibility towards others, or commitment, to intrude. The contrast with the work done by women's magazines, and their publishers, to address their readers in a mature and responsible fashion, is striking."

Do we really need to start telling people which magazines they should be reading? I have never bought a copy of ZOO or NUTS in my life, but I do subscribe to STUFF (a magazine about new gadgetry, rather than what you may have been thinking). Perish the thought, but it has a semi naked woman on its cover every month. But I buy it despite that. I think we have quite enough interference from politicians in our personal choices as it is, thank you very much. The debate on ConHome is an interesting one, and essentially boils down to one of libertarianism v authoritarianism. If you had any doubt about it, let me put myself firmly in the libertarian camp.

It's a shame this passage has destracted from an otherwise excellent speech from one of the Shadow Cabinet's brightest minds. I'd encourage you to read the whole speech HERE. I agree with virtually every word Michael writes/says but I really do disagree that escapist magazines such as these are having any effect whatsoever on family breakdown.

More on this from Shane, Donal, Tom Harris, Andrew Lilico and Guido.

Introducing...

The BBC being typically far-sighted on the Ten O'Clock News...

Graphic courtesy of Machiavelli's Understudy

Ming's Unhappy Anniversary Approaches...

Michael Gove has written a superb piece in this week's Spectator on the failures of Ming Campbell's first year as LibDem leader. You can read the whole article HERE, but here are some highlights...

It is striking that the eclipse of the Liberal Democrats should coincide with Ming’s accession to the leadership. He is, in a way, the purest living embodiment in British politics of the Peter Principle — the law which dictates that people will rise just one level above their natural slot in life, to a position in which their weaknesses are then cruelly exposed.
As deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ming had found his metier. He was the Sergeant Wilson to Charles Kennedy’s Captain Mainwaring — the suave, classier, better-educated number two whose dry style left everyone wondering how on earth he put up serving with under his chaotic superior. If Ming had never challenged for the leadership, everyone would have agreed that it was a tragedy he’d never enjoyed the top job. But now that he actually has the leadership, a very different sort of tragedy is playing itself out.
The pity is that the Liberal Democrats, having once enjoyed a reputation for innovation and creativity, should have embarked, under Ming, on the policy equivalent of a long mid-afternoon snooze. The Lib Dems were once the party you went to for environmental dynamism, but just as the nation has woken up to the scale of the crisis, it’s the Conservatives who are displaying the boldest and most creative thinking in this area. And it’s not just on green issues that the third party is feeling its age. Whether it’s social justice, where the Tunbridge Wells MP Greg Clark has done more to focus attention on inequality than any other opposition MP, or civil liberties, where Dominic Grieve and David Davis are the opponents Labour fear, traditional areas of Liberal Democrat strength have been taken over by the Tories. Take a gander at the Lib Dem party website and you’ll find that all its spokesmen’s statements are reactions to what the other parties are doing — with scarcely a fresh idea from one month to the next.
Tragically, and this is Ming’s fourth misfortune, the Lib Dems have retreated to their comfort zone, attempting to recreate the warm glow they felt when they were marching arm-in-arm with the SWP against the Iraq war, by making their strongest pitch on foreign policy. In the recent debate on Iraq Ming spoke with a forceful eloquence which will have reminded fans of his golden era, but the content of what he said soon fell apart under scrutiny. His demand that British troops withdraw to meet an arbitrary timetable was widely recognised as militarily naive. But, worse than that, for the party of Gladstone, Ming’s insistence on rapid withdrawal would leave Iraq’s liberals and democrats to the wolves. How ethical is a foreign policy which, when it sees trade unionists and feminists fighting clerical fascists, decides that the best thing to do is to give the clerical fascists a freer hand?
But then Ming’s whole approach to foreign policy is neither liberal nor particularly democratic. Discussing the wider Middle East, his only comment on Syria was a demand that the Golan Heights be returned to Syrian control, in order to satisfy the amour-propre of the ruling Assad dynasty. The part Syria has played in de-stabilising Lebanon’s nascent democracy, and its role in the murder of Rafiq Hariri, were ignored. On the Middle East peace process itself, Ming argued that the main obstacle to peace was the fact that ‘on both sides of the aisle in the US Congress, there is almost uncritical support for Israel’.
There may well be a place in British politics for a party which argues for greater concessions to Baathist tyranny and believes there is a malign Zionist lobby controlling American foreign policy, but one had rather hoped George Galloway had cornered the market. That the leader of the Liberal Democrats should enjoy what most acknowledge to be his finest hour as leader, making these sort of arguments just shows how far gone things are.

Ouch.

UPDATE: I have just received my daily email from the LibDems. In his article Michael Gove says: "Take a gander at the Lib Dem party website and you’ll find that all its spokesmen’s statements are reactions to what the other parties are doing — with scarcely a fresh idea from one month to the next." As if to prove Michael Gove's point the LibDem email contains eleven stories, each one of which "criticises", "condemns" in one form or another. Not a single one of the stories says anything original at all.