The last days of the Great Driveller

The Times January 22, 2007

William Rees-Mogg

The scandal that threatens to engulf Blair


Last week’s arrest of Ruth Turner is a major political event. The police are now investigating three possible criminal offences that may have been committed in the course of Labour Party fundraising. The first is the sale of honours, which is a criminal offence under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. The second is failure to disclose funding, which may be an offence under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That Act was introduced by this Government. The third is perverting the course of justice, the offence for which Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer were sentenced to imprisonment. Some ninety witnesses have been interviewed, and four of them have been arrested.
From the Government’s point of view the most important potential charge is perverting the course of justice. The 1925 and 2000 Acts provide maximum sentences of two years and one year; in practice, a single breach of these Acts would be unlikely to lead to imprisonment. The only case brought under the 1925 Act, against the notorious Maundy Gregory, did lead to his imprisonment, but in his case there was an element of personal benefit because he took a commission on the sale of honours. Perverting the course of justice can lead to a life sentence; it is a far more serious offence.

The most important arrests have been those of Lord Levy, the Labour Party’s chief fundraiser, and of Ms Turner, who holds the key post of director of government relations. An arrest is not the same thing as a charge, just as a charge is not the same as a conviction, but these two are both significant figures in Labour’s system of fundraising and close associates of Tony Blair.

If either were to be charged there would be a reasonable assumption that he or she was following the Prime Minister’s instructions; the ultimate responsibility must lie with Mr Blair because he alone was in a position to award peerages. In these circumstances it would be difficult for Mr Blair to remain in office if Lord Levy or Ms Turner were to be charged with an offence, particularly if the charge should concern perverting the course of justice.

After Ms Turner’s arrest there was a Labour attack on the police that appeared to be co-ordinated. Lord Puttnam, who may be a better film-maker than politician, probably joined in out of loyalty; Ms Turner had once worked for him. However, the criticism of the police in similar terms by Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, David Blunkett and Denis MacShane does look like a typical and organised spin campaign. Ministers and ex-ministers need to be more careful. It could be regarded as an interference with justice for a minister to criticise a police inquiry into the actions of government. As a former Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett’s intervention was outrageous.

When the police inquiry began last March 21 Labour sources tried to dismiss it as a matter of no importance, an inquiry that would soon be wound up because it had not led to anything. Yet the police do not like to waste their time, particularly on political skirmishes. The depth and thoroughness of the investigation, the number of people interviewed, including the Prime Minister, the four arrests, tell their own story. This has at least proved to be a serious case; the police suspicions must be substantial.

Len Duvall is the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority and is himself a senior figure in the Labour Party. It is natural that he has felt that he ought to reply to the attacks on the police’s conduct, since the officers cannot reply for themselves. He made the essential point that “no one in this country is above the law”. He also observed that the Government’s behaviour was similar to its actions over the Hutton inquiry into the death of David Kelly.

The government evidence given in that inquiry was accepted by Lord Hutton, but struck most other observers as a demonstration of the Government’s habit of manipulation, over the Iraq dossiers, the weapons of mass destruction and its treatment of Dr Kelly himself. The impression left by its Hutton evidence was that this is a government which, when faced with a damaging truth, turns on its accusers, whether they are the BBC or, as in this case, the police.

However, the Labour Party has got one thing right. The police inquiries are indeed doing damage to the party. In 1979, the last few months of the Callaghan Government, during the “winter of discontent”, Labour became unelectable. Those six months put Labour out of office for 18 years. This police inquiry forms a striking part of the progressive disintegration of the Blair administration. If the disintegration goes much further it may be too late when Gordon Brown takes over as Prime Minister. The Blair administration may leave behind indelible memories of spin and sleaze.

After all, Britain is at war. Our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq deserve competent political support, and the proper funding and equipment that they have lacked throughout. Lord Macaulay said of Pitt the Younger that “his military administration was that of a driveller”. Tony Blair’s is worse; he has involved Britain in an Eastern war on two fronts and never has given our soldiers the numbers or the equipment that they need. Now he has to spend much of his remaining energy defending himself and his staff against possible criminal charges.

The remedy is obvious. Mr Blair has lost his authority; a prime minister without authority is useless. At the latest, he should have retired last year, when most people saw that things could only get worse. He is wasting the time of the nation, letting down our troops and damaging the future of his party. For no good purpose. Gordon Brown may or may not prove to be a successful prime minister — no one can tell. But the sooner he becomes Prime Minister, the better for his party and for the Government.