Coulson does a Hague

I have decided to invent a new term.  I’m hoping that it will enter mainstream use, perhaps through the initial medium of word of mouth and then into some internet lexicon of frequently used terms, before becoming as popular as the use of the word ‘gate’ after any political scandal.

The phrase will be ‘to do a Hague’. From now on, this will refer to someone who doesn’t think through their actions, despite having every reason to do so. It could refer also to those caught between twin accusations – perhaps that of someone accused of either abuse of a position of power, or incompetence for not having identified a potential conflict of interest.  Maybe there could be a verb form – ‘You’ve been Hagued’.

After my discussion yesterday of the issues that have affected William Hague and his quite extraordinary statement responding to media whispers about his homosexuality, the foreign secretary must surely be glad that it is someone else’s turn in the spotlight.

It seems as though Number 10 communications chief Andy Coulson, former editor of the News of the World, may be questioned again over his role in a 2007 scandal in which royal editor Clive Goodman was jailed for conspiracy to access phone messages left for royal aides.

Coulson maintains, as he has always done, that he had no knowledge of Goodman’s actions.  Indeed, no evidence has ever suggested differently and he has received the full backing of the office of the Prime Minister.  However, without Cameron’s heavyweight presence at the helm due to his paternity leave, the rumours about Coulson’s role in the matter have persisted like a bad smell, prompting Shadow Education Secretary Ed Balls to state earlier this week that Coulson's role at the heart of Number 10 meant that the government's 'integrity' was under question.

For me, Coulson has done a Hague.  While he may well be correct in his assertion that he did not order or have knowledge of Goodman’s activities, the unfortunate question remains of why he did not know what his own staff were doing.  From the detail in the stories that would surely have resulted from such phone tapping, can Coulson not have wondered about the sources of such information?  Should he not have made more effort to find out?

Days pass, the media focus remains and it seems increasingly likely that Coulson will be questioned by Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates about his role in the events that took place three years ago.  Despite their vocal public support, senior Conservatives may well be beginning to get twitchy.  The coalition has quietly built up a decent amount of political capital in the first hundred days since its inception, but Cameron has spoken in the past of 'returning integrity' to government, and with each passing day, Coulson is becoming more and more dirty by proximity.  He will fervently hope that he is not the first high-profile figure to be sent to the coalition’s sacrificial altar.

Share your thoughts in the comments.

An Issue Missed

I read a blog earlier today by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in which she slams Westminster gossip bloggers, particularly prominent rumourmonger Guido Fawkes, for their treatment of William Hague.

In her entry, Ms Alibhai-Brown states that the actions of such bloggers 'deny a minister privacy'. Of course, it would be ridiculous to suggest that Mr Hague should be denied a private life, but the office that he holds in public life surely demands better judgement than he has shown this week.

According to Ms Alibhai-Brown, Fawkes 'makes history' by 'disseminating titbits on politicians, most low and distasteful'. Somewhat confusingly, she then proceeds to qualify this statement by listing instances when Whitehall insider information has uncovered matters of genuine public interest, such as Tessa Jowell's husband's fraudulent interaction with Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi. For Fawkes' part, he makes no secret of the fact that his blog is based on rumour and gossip. He even sells branded merchandise.

I cannot claim to have intimate knowledge of Westminster, so I am reliant entirely on information from the papers. However, what is certain is that Christopher Myers, just 25 years old, is now Mr Hague's former adviser, having resigned when the first hint of potential scandal appeared in the mainstream press. Some commentators have suggested that Mr Myers had no specialist knowledge and that he was too young and inexperienced for the role, while others insisted that Mr Hague already had a full complement of experienced advisers and didn't need more. But in the face of what seems a bizarre appointment in the first place, did Mr Hague seriously believe that sharing a room with this young man was not going to result in gossip and newspaper stories? If so, this is astonishing naivety from a man who first stood for parliamentary office nearly twenty-five years ago.

The fact here is that the issue that the media picked up on, namely Mr Hague's suggested homosexuality, is of supreme indifference when compared to his ability to be head of a high office if indeed his judgement is so remiss.

Ms Alibhai-Brown, while acknowledging the positive role that the internet has played in our democracy, goes onto say that it has led to the end of 'decency, fairness, self-restraint' but that these qualities still apply to journalists who work for newspapers. I am sure that Wayne and Coleen Rooney appreciate the 'self-restraint' that the papers showed in their exposé this weekend. Perhaps the best that we can do as individuals is to set an example, both with the maturity of our behaviour and the sensitivity with which we comment on the actions of others.

Share your thoughts in the comments.

An End to Nationalist Violence?

I was reading Guardian reports of Tony Blair's visit to Dublin yesterday, and it seemed to me very much that new coverage escalated as the day went on.  While there were some people on the comment pages foolishly trying to compare the bombs that fell on Iraq to the eggs being thrown at the signing, there were very genuine questions being asked about whether it was reasonable to close a large section of a city centre and incur a large policing bill for what amounts to a commercial book signing.

It set me thinking about why a 200-strong group of protestors would even bother to turn up for such an event.  Blair was one of the main (albeit certainly not the only) politicians responsible for the peace deal that was brokered in Northern Ireland - surely he should be popular in Ireland?  Regardless of his record in other areas, his influence there is generaly regarded as a very positive one, and there are those who would say that without him, the deal would not have been reached.

Some reports yesterday suggested that men with Republican sympathies were heard to shout, 'How many kids have you killed today?' at Blair.  If this is true, it is staggering hypocrisy given the IRA's record of casual violence towards civilian targets during the troubles.  In the last few months, there have been increased numbers of attacks on police stations and officers in the province by Republican splinter groups, and it is fortunate that the response to those attacks has been dignified and measured.  It seems that the political will exists to work with the communities to bring perpetrators to justice without resorting to the tit-for-tat violence that existed in the past, and all involved in those communities should be congratulated for their resilience.

On the world stage, ETA, the Basque separatist movement has announced a retrospective ceasefire and announced in a video sent to the BBC that it is now trying to further the cause of Basque nationalism through a non-violent democratic strategy.

As I touched on yesterday, violence is the anathema of civilised society, and it is obviously very good news that a terror organisation has agreed to end its sustained campaign of violence that has resulted in 800 deaths since its formation in 1959.  However, ETA has previously agreed to this course of action on two other occasions, and both times talks broke down due to incidents of sudden violence.  It is very much to be hoped that this time, ETA will see sense, renounce their past activities and go into dialogue with the Spanish and French governments.

Share your thoughts in the comments.

The Common Enemy

I should probably apologise for giving Blair yet more valuable airspace.  Lord knows how many column inches have already been devoted to him over the last few days as he subtly elbows his way into the spotlight surrounding the Labour leadership campaign, but his comments regarding radical Islam irk me too, and here is why.

Radicals, by their very nature, tend to be idealistic and romantic visionaries, prone to seeing what they want to see rather than what is there.  The irony of Blair using this term to describe others is probably lost on him at this stage, as it has been on a number of other blogs I have read today praising his comments and hysterically spouting Islamophobia.

I have no doubt that there are people out there in the wider world who despise the West and all they feel it stands for.  I should be clear too that I am not simply talking about those liberal-minded types who oppose or challenge an accepted point of view - a true radical will not accept that there are shades of grey in any argument and will accept no other viewpoint than his own.  Furthermore, anyone who uses violence to further their agenda, regardless of their ideology, must be stopped or freedom will inevitably be restricted as a result.

In the face of growing evidence to support climate change, world financial meltdown and continued imperialism from former colonial powers, the threat of radical Islam pales somewhat in its influence upon the daily life of the man in the street.  Fear of an enemy lurking around every corner and living amongst us does, however, have a genuinely corrosive effect on multi-cultural communities within the UK.

The simple fact is that the 9/11 bombers have as little in common with a typical moderate Muslim as the white Christian who bombed Oklahoma City does with any typical white layworker in the street.  Remember that the Allied invasion of Iraq, okayed by Mr Blair, was deemed illegal by Kofi Annan, who was at that time Secretary General of the United Nations.  This illegal war has done more as an incitement to violence and a propogator of bad feeling between the religions than possibly any other act since the Crusades.  For commentators to declare, as some have done, that the world is now a safer place as a result of the war on terror is simply spurious fiction.

The common enemy of all right-thinking people is the man who will lie and cheat others, turning them against one another to achieve his own goals.  I hope you will forgive the poor analogy, but Tony Blair blaming Islam for world insecurity is like blaming wasps for ruining your day after you have spent the morning throwing rocks at their nest.

Share your thoughts in the comments.