Once Were Wankers

I was going to be snarky about in this appeal for sympathy by former MP Joe Ashton, on behalf of the Association of Former Members of Parliament, but really, it’s impossible to satirise.

Few voters or even newspapers ever realise that the average length of service for a Member of Parliament is about 8 years.

Sooner or later the guillotine falls. Either the voters feel like a change and sack them, or their local parties deselect them. Or their constituency boundaries change, or they retire on a pension based on their length of service.

In one general election, in 1997, 164 MPs lost their seats inside two hours at midnight.

Many of them were shown on television with the whoops, cheers and boos of a pop idol arena with their relatives and children watching and silently crying.
Their secretaries and staff also lost their jobs too.

What happens to the losers then? Nobody knows. Or even bothers to find out. Many sacked MPs suffer serious problems in getting other jobs. Employers are notoriously wary of setting on staff who may know too much.

Like many other thousands of people who become unemployed they too have the same problems of moving schools, moving houses, getting into debt and applying for benefits.

But so do other people. So there is little sympathy
Unfortunately, in other jobs the skills and professional experience is transferable. There may be vacancies in the same trade just a few miles away.

But for MPs there are no other Parliamentary factories except in London at Westminster. Workers in all other large companies can meet their friends to help each other. Defeated MPs are isolated scattered and rejected they are single unemployed individuals with no prospects anywhere.

Our Association is not about jobs it is about keeping old soldiers of the regiment together, able to give specialist advice and help for their widows too. Our members are from all parties, ranks and titles, ranging from two former Prime Ministers, a former Speaker of the House of Commons, and former Chancellors and Chief Whips.
We have 80 Lords and 40 ex-cabinet ministers in our group. We could, if necessary, form a new government tomorrow and easily run the country.

[…]
Read whole thing

Poor loves, pining away for Westminster and their lost importance. My heart bleeds.

But what a bunch of failed also-rans and losers, salivating for the days when life was good and no-one ever questioned your expenses or the handy little tax dodges that let you maximise your parliamentary income while keeping family and ex-mistresses sweet.

Oh yes, that’s now, isn’t it. No wonder the Association’s so ready to leap into action and form a government should the call ever come. Once a wanker, always a wanker.

Comments of The Day

Some excellent and informative comments today in response to Simon Jenkins Guardian piece on the British Council’s problems with the Russian authorities .

The first makes exactly the point I was about to -the blatant nepotism of it all – and it’s something the BBC in particular seems to think unworthy of notice:

magnolia

January 18, 2008 9:12 AM

In amongst all this diplomatic palarva, it just struck me that isn’t it nice that that nice Stephen Kinnock is the Head of the British Council in St Petersburg and his dad, that nice Neil Kinnock is actually the Head of the British Council and of course, isn’t it also nice that his dad used to also be the nice Head of the British Labour Party and isn’t particularly it very very nice that he also was once Head of something very very big in the EU and isn’t extremely nice that his nice wife also has a nice job as an MEP in Europe for the nice British Labour Party.

It’s always nice to see an honest to goodness working class family thriving together.

Quite.

What is the British Council all about now, after ten years of New Labour? Is it still the stuffy, elitist, worthy soft diplomatic institution many of us remember? What does it do, now, exactly?

musubi

January 18, 2008 7:57 AM

Surely the British Council got itself into this mess because (as explained already by John JT) it has been trying to have it both ways. I.e. it’s been trying to be an arm of the British diplomatic presence in the rest of the world, spreading British language and culture as PR for Britain, AND it’s been trying to get a commercial return for doing this. This paradox has arisen because of the mania (since Thatcherism) of making everything pay its own way in bits and pieces instead of being funded by those who are supposedly benefiting from it (i.e. the British people). Wouldn’t it be fun if core diplomats, military attaches etc. all had to pay their own way by generating income in the land to which they are sent! But being commercialised, the BC must also be expected to honour the income tax laws in the host country. Isn’t it just that that the Russian authorities have been saying? I’ve seen no precise rational counter-arguments to this since the matter came up some months ago, just pathetic neo-coldwarism and anti-Russianism.

If the BC can’t make enough money while honouring the relevant tax laws then it should file for bankruptcy, like any other business. Or it could/should go back to being a fully funded public institution like it was many years ago, and provide cultural services in the interests of the British stake in international understanding. Or it could be an NPO with grants from various sources including the British government and British businesses which have an interest in promoting British cultural activities in areas where they operate. Which is it to be?

Exactly.

Is the British Council in Russia an unaccountable, profit-making language school and marketing bureau that evades taxes while providing safe and well-remunerated berths for out of work, but well-connected children of superannuated New Labour hacks – or is it a legitimate diplomatic mission?

Seems to me the Russians may have a point – and as much as my first, jingoistic inclination is to point to their Stalinist tactics and demand that Johnny Foreigner be taught a lesson so let’s kick a few Rusiian billionaires out of Kenisngton, it’s a point Uk.gov needs to address.

But although it may well have a case against the British Council, it is as nothing to ours against Russia itself, which brought its internal business to our shores, conspiring and enabling the murder of one Russian agent by another with radioactive poison, thereby puttiing the innocent public at risk – and which then compoundied the offence by harbouring and protecting the murderer, by now an elected politician.

That makes a bit of ambiguity on taxes and a dose of nepotism look like very small potatoes.

Stalin’s Spinner, Unspun

Gordon Brown may come to regret appointing former adman, quango chair PR supremo and failed telecoms CEO Stephen Carter as No 10 propaganda commissar.

‘What I tell them is nine-tenths bullshit and one-tenth selected facts.” Stephen Carter, special adviser to Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown never lets us down, does he, where duplicity, spin and cowardice are concerned. As usual when faced with trouble, our unelected PM, our Beloved Leader, has turned tail and run away.

In other words (to borrow a Thatcherism) Brown’s frit.

The prime minister may think that by disappearing off to furthest China ( has he never heard of the internet?) that he’s distancing himself from his (*cough* Peter Hain) troubles. He should be so lucky.

While Gordo’s away with the begging bucket, other quietly simmering governmental troubles are coming bubbling to the top. The appointment of Carter was meant to deal with negative publicity while Brown makes himself scarce. But it’s going to prove a little tricky now the spindoctor has now become the story.

Isn’t the whole point about propaganda to never let the pretence slip, to never tell the truth, to be economical with the actualité?

But it seems Carter, who you’d think’d know about spin, once forgot himself and told the truth:

Stephen Carter, Brown’s new chief of strategy, who has given up a lucrative job chairing a City PR firm to take up his new £137,000-a-year government post, was chief operating officer at British cable TV company NTL between September 2000 and 2001. When Carter arrived, NTL had $17bn of debt on its books and the company was struggling to retain customers. He continued to reassure investors and the media that the company was performing well and was expanding its customer base, according to a class-action lawsuit filed in the Southern District Court of New York in 2002. One document alleges that following a teleconference call with investors and analysts in 2001, Carter was asked by his customer marketing director, Charles Darley: ‘How can you … persuade investors to believe that NTL is going to be OK when you know it isn’t?’

According to Darley’s recollection, quoted in the lawsuit, Carter allegedly replied: ‘What I tell them is nine-tenths bullshit and one-tenth selected facts.’

In 2006, the insurance company acting on behalf of Carter and some other NTL directors named in the lawsuit agreed a $9m settlement with disgruntled NTL investors who brought the action through New York-based law firm Milberg Weiss. As part of the agreement, the directors did not admit liability when the lawsuit was wound up.

Not exactly credibility-enhancing, is it?

It seems Brown’s new chief spin doctor’s attitude towards the public that pays his salary chimes with that of his new boss – he thinks we’re so stupid we’ll accept any old bollocks.

Admittedly it wasn’t the British voters he was referring to, rather the hapless investors and customers of cable company NTL, but it’s a pretty good insight into the quality of advice Gordon Brown’s getting at present.

But it’s not just advice he’s giving – this unelected flimflam man is being given the power to make crucial political and governmental decisions, despite never having been elected by anybody:

Stephen Carter has been hired, I’m told by one well placed adviser, to be Gordon Brown’s ‘back of the car man’ – i.e. someone who can grab a few minutes with the boss on the way to an event and take him through a list of 10 pressing political decisions. In addition, the hope is that Brown and his aides will trust Carter to take those decisions when the PM is simply too busy to take them himself.

So now we have a spindoctor and alleged fabricator as our de facto unelected deputy PM. But then Brown was never really elected either, was he? Democracy, schemocracy.

But let’s get back to spinner in chief Carter.

Because the evidence against him was never tested, after the NTL settlement there were no obstacles to Carter’s next appointment as Head of Ofcom, the regulatory body for UK telcoms. Many were surprised, to say the least:

When Stephen Carter was appointed to run Ofcom, the media industry’s first super-regulator, there was little sound coming from the chattering classes – their jaws had universally dropped.

At the time of his appointment, Carter was an unemployed 38-year-old whose last job was presiding over the bankruptcy protection proceedings of NTL, the cable company crushed by £12bn of debt.

What a fantastic idea – to put an alleged market-rigger and failed CEO in charge of regulation of the very same market he failed in! Genius.

From there Carter then became CEO of massive PR company and Friends of Labour The Brunswick Group:

Brunswick Group is an international PR firm, with almost a third of the FTSE 100 top firms as clients, they are the biggest financial communications consultancy in the UK. They paid more than £5,000 to the Labour Party for ‘tickets for dinners’ in 1999-2000 and gave £9,000 in August 2001. The company also donated the services of an employee to the Government to help work on the Financial Services and Markets Bill – legislation which will regulate business in the City and which would provide invaluable information to Brunswick’s clients.

Oh – you mean that same legislation that’s enabled the subprime meltdown and debacle that is Northern Rock? Well done, thou good and faithful servant.

Now Carter’s in No 10, right at the elbow of the PM. He’s the man whose job, to quote the Times, it is to “sell Gordon Brown to the public”. I hope he’s on a probationary period, because he’s not doing a well so far, is he?

A few of today’s headlines:

Gordon Brown dithers over Peter Hain

This slow death, watched with open glee

Brown denies dithering over Northern Rock rescue plan

Come along, Mr Brown … if Hain is incompetent, just sack him

However, it appears that advising the most incompetent and floundering PM in recent memory and taking decisions no-one ever elected you to take isn’t actually the full-time job – and more – that you’d think it is. No, Carter kept a couple of other sinecures, despite being paid 137,000 pounds a year by the taxpayers:

He resigned from the post of chief executive of Brunswick, and stepped down as non-executive director of Royal Mail and Travis Perkins and as a commissioner of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. He will remain chairman of the Ashridge Business School and a governor of the Royal Shakespeare Company

Carter’s reported to have got the No 10 job through connections of Sarah Brown:

Gordon is married to Sarah, who used to work for Alan, who owns Brunswick, the City’s biggest PR firm. Stephen also used to work for Alan, but now he works for Gordon, who also happens to be godfather to one of Alan’s children.

The appointment of Stephen Carter, former head of media regulator Ofcom, as Gordon Brown’s new ‘fixer’ at Number 10 is testament to the growing power of Brunswick founder Alan Parker, whose sphere of influence now extends far beyond the Square Mile and deep into Whitehall and Westminster.

Parker is close to Brown and his wife Sarah , who ran her own PR company before moving to Brunswick, and the PM is said to have been impressed with Carter, who was chief executive of Brunswick, after meeting him socially. When the 51-year-old multi-millionaire Parker remarried last year, Brown and David Cameron were among the guests and Parker has hired other politicos in the past, including Andrew Hood, a former adviser to former Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, who joined the company as his ‘chief of staff ‘ in a similar role to that carried out, briefly, by Carter.

Nice how they keep it all in the family isn’t it?

In addition to spinning the truth Gordon Brown and New Labour, in their ten years of power have spun a web of unelected, unaccountable connections amongst and between the corporatocracy and the government, of which Peter Hain’s mucky funding scandal is only one loose thread. Whether it can ever be untangled is doubtful. and to extend the metaphor, it may be that the whole dirty tangle will have to be cut down if public confidence in government is ever to be restored. Cutting the Gordian knot, if you will.

Next stop the heart of Gordo’s web: The Smith Institute.

The Man Who Copied His War Protest Got 40 Grand – What Did Brian Haw Get?

A beating from the Met, that’s what:

Government and Police under fire for beating up Brian Haw

Tue, 01/15/2008 – 13:00 – Wire Services

The British government and London’s Metropolitan Police came under heavy criticism today for mercilessly beating up Britain’s iconic peace protester Brian Haw over the weekend.In an unprovoked attack by a police officer, Mr. Haw was assaulted in the face with his own camera and arrested while observing a demonstration against the ban on unauthorised protest under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) which was taking place outside Downing Street.

Mr. Haw, who was bleeding from the assault, was then dragged into the police van where he was further assaulted by policeman, according to witnesses.

“I utterly condemn the aggressive mishandling of Brian Haw during Saturday’s demonstration, and his subsequent treatment while in the custody of police,” Green MEP Caroline Lucas said. “He is a passionate and peaceful campaigner, and a popular hero following his outstanding efforts to publicly oppose the Iraq war.”

According to other protesters arrested along with Mr. Haw, the peace protester was once again badly assaulted before being strip searched and charged under the SOCPA.

“This incident provides yet more proof that police actions taken under the terms of SOCPA are putting a stranglehold on civil liberties and threatening the right to gather in peaceful protest,” Lucas added. “It is a sad day for this country when the face of modern democracy is frightened and bloodied and peering out of a police van on a Saturday afternoon.”

More…