Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Despite lots of things I have always had great admiration for Peter Hain. He proved himself to be a wonderful organiser and the young Hain helped make apartheid unacceptable. Few politicians have done anything like it, it was quite the opposite of the think-tank, special advisor, where are my cuff-links, career of today's younger MPs. Peter then fought notable court battles and was framed by the South African special branch and got himself acquitted - all before he started his Labour party career. And he has written a lot as well, Political Trials in Britain published by Penguins in 1984 was a serious contribution to civil rights literature.
He wanted to be a major political leader and he had the right skill set, so why couldn't he be Britain's Joschka Fisher, a street-fighting militant turned party leader? One answer is that we do not have PR and therefore no third party leader has - or had - much prospect of a national role in high office. Hain left the Liberals therefore and having committed himself to the Labour movement couldn't move back to the SDP, although a moderniser by temperament. His sheer ability and self-confidence was a threat to the New Labour crowd, because he had a record of achievement - something they didn't! But he wasn't someone they could simply toss to the back benches.
Doubtless he went for the deputy leadership because he wanted to be in a position to bid for the leadership itself if the opportunity arose. I think his fatal mistake was not to apologise for Iraq. In the Newsnight hustings I recall watching him say with his uncanny smile that it was then and this is now and we must all move on - as a Cabinet member he took responsibility for what he agreed at the time, but it was not a mistake he was willing to argue over any longer. This was shameful. Iraq will haunt all those who fail to make a reckoning. As he isn't a trusted machine man, so he had to get constituency and membership support and this answer lost it. After all, most party members not only opposed Iraq but knew they were wiser and more far-sighted for having done so.
I assume that, aware of the likelihood of a humiliating defeat, he threw as much money at it as he could, to no avail. Now reports like this from the BBC,
More than £25,000 in donations and a further loan of £25,000 were made by individuals through the Progressive Policy Forum (PPF), which does not have a website and whose registered address is a solicitor's office in London.
A third donor, Isaac Kaye, the former head of a company raided in 2002 by police investigating alleged price fixing of NHS drugs, gave nearly £15,000 through the PPF.
suggest money laundering and mean the end of his political career. Whether he survives or not, he can't be promoted. Interestingly one of the more intelligent and tactically astute unionists working on keeping Wales in the UK is now damaged goods. It is another example of the way the force is with the independence movements.
PS: And see Iain Dale's 'No ifs, no buts...'; and Ben Brogan who strolled over to the PPF office! He also makes the point that if Hain goes Wendy Alexander is put at risk, which reinforces the 'independence' aspect; the lib demish Sound of Gunfire calls for hain to go, hat tip for this to Liberal Democracy's useful Casting the Net by Aaron Heath who makes the point "there is very, very little coverage of the Hain story across the Labour blogosphere"; not so Dizzy who tries to find the Mc behind the Man. PSS and now Paul Linford on Conspiracy, signals Iraq from a different angle.
Comments
Failure to apologise for iraq was indeed one of Hain's big mistakes and it is difficult to see why he took the line that he did and why he thought that he might have a chance for the Deputy-leadership through a mailing campaign.
Just before the invasion of Iraq the IAEA announced its inspections findings and said that Iraq probably did not have a nuclear weapons' programme. Hain was one of the Ministers who went in front of the TV cameras and said that the IAEA was wrong and that there was "other evidence" that Iraq had a nuclear programme. We have seen subsequently that the IAEA was right. However Hain has never apologised to the IAEA for saying that the IAEA was wrong. He has never explained what the "other evidence" was, why this too was wrong and why this had not been given to the IAEA.
It isn;t just that Hain should apologise for what the UK government did, he should have apologised for criticising an important international institution and not apologisiing when he was shown to be wrong. He should also have apologised to the public for saying that evidence existed that either did not exist or was as unreliable as the other evidence the UK Government was relying on.
Hain should stay for the reasons given by Anthony Barnett. The whole matter of where this money came from and why it was not correctly reported is so unimportant compared to the issues that affect us all that the government should be addressing - transport, energy, housing, inflation, for a start.
Er, Charles, sorry to disappoint you but I think he has to go and his career is doomed even if he doesn't.
Anthony
Mr Hain has missed the opportunity of coming out with the usual Labour mantra-'draw a line under it' It always works, see the honours argument and also the lying that took place before and during the Iraq war and inumerable other times it has been used.
There are only 2 ways Hain can have failed to declare £103,000 (56% of fund) - intent or error. If it was intent then he is corrupt and should be sacked now. If it was error then he is incompetent and be sacked now. There should no place in our government for such corrupt / incompetent people.
What a shame he hasn't got the decency to resign.
I expect that the Liberal Party are pleased that Hain managed to find suitable bedfellows in the Labour party.
A system of elections where the candidates scrabble around for money that then gets 'laundered' by a so called 'think tank' is obviously flawed.
An increasing amount of political energy is being expended on either raising funds, or defending their origin... a shade futile.
Raising huge sums to sell yourself to an electorate that by definition should already be reasonably informed about you, i.e. members of a your party, displays the direction we are heading in, that is the U.S. route, and should be deplored. Limited, not politically controlled, funding of political parties out of taxation is long overdue. If not stay tuned for more of the same. This is the run of a farce that Brian Rix would have been proud of.
Hain has obviously forgotten his roots of protest and convinction, and this we all know by his failure to declare such a huge amount of his Deputy Leadership expenses. He is damaged, and has let the people of Neath, and Wales down.
While he was juggling the role of Secretary of State for Wales and Norther Ireland, he always stated that he could cope with the two roles, but now it seems he is trying to use his hectic work schedule for these 'administrative' failures. He cannot get away with this, and if he does, it will not restore anyone's faith in politics. We will be left to pick up the pieces.
Post new comment