M01: Cronyism

User avatar
Barclay A.A. Stanley
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:26 pm
Constituency: Macclesfield
XP: 0
Trait(s):
Discord username: @BarclayCalhoun#5933

M01: Cronyism

Post by Barclay A.A. Stanley »

William Hague: Madame Speaker,

I beg leave to move the following:
That This House condemns the appointment of the Rt. Hon. Member for Hartlepool as CEO of the New Millennium Experience and calls upon the Government to consider merit as the definitive factor in any appointment to a public role.
Lt. Col. Sir Barclay A.A. Stanley, Rtd., KBE
Member of Parliament for Macclesfield

Armed with nothing but a pint of gin, Sir Barclay went to battle against the forces of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism.
User avatar
Barclay A.A. Stanley
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:26 pm
Constituency: Macclesfield
XP: 0
Trait(s):
Discord username: @BarclayCalhoun#5933

Re: M01: Cronyism

Post by Barclay A.A. Stanley »

Betty Boothroyd: ORDER! The Rt. Hon. Lady for Hertfordshire South West has the floor.
Lt. Col. Sir Barclay A.A. Stanley, Rtd., KBE
Member of Parliament for Macclesfield

Armed with nothing but a pint of gin, Sir Barclay went to battle against the forces of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism.
User avatar
Dame Evelyn Redgrave
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:57 am
Constituency: South West Hertfordshire
XP: 8
Trait(s): None
Discord username: redgrave

Re: M01: Cronyism

Post by Dame Evelyn Redgrave »

Madame Speaker,

In all my time as Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, I have learned many things from those in the media, the arts, sport and leisure. As has always been the case, the United Kingdom boasts a proud heritage and culture. Our theatres, our films, our artwork and our landmarks are renowned the whole world over.

Under the last Conservative government, the Millennium Dome project was conceived as a celebration of a new century. Inspired by the Festival of Britain and the World Fair showcases of old, it was intended to provide a tribute to Britain’s history and culture.

However, when this current government came to power in 1997, the Prime Minister chose to greatly expand the size and scope of the project, investing more money in its completion. Indeed, in a speech, the Prime Minister claimed that the Dome would be a “triumph of confidence over cynicism, boldness over blandness, excellence over mediocrity.”

He appointed the Member for Hartlepool, in his then role as Minister without Portfolio, to oversee the delivery.

The Dome under this government was intended to be a symbol of New Labour, the type of bold, grand project that represented their vision for the country in their minds.

And in a rather ironic way, the Dome project did in fact become a lasting symbol of New Labour, but surely not in the way the Prime Minister had hoped it would. Instead of being bold and grand, the Dome ended up as a catastrophic example of the spin and hubris of the New Labour project.

Over budget, chaotically staffed and barely visited, the Dome now stands as one of this government’s biggest failures. In my maiden speech to this House four years ago, I questioned how the Government could prioritise funneling hundreds of millions into this project when it was having to choose between funding one education program or another and now it seems good money was thrown away on a vanity project for the PM.

Barely weeks after the disastrous launch, the Chief Executive of the New Millennium Experience, Jennie Page, was scapegoated and dismissed. Previous to this, in 1998 under the tenure of the Member for Hartlepool in his role overseeing the project, the Creative Director Stephen Bayley resigned and accused the Member of “running the project like a dictator.”

In fact, Mr. Bayley went so far as to compare the Member to an “East German Stalinist” … I know the Member for Hartlepool loves to invite a comparison to the Prince of Darkness but I’d dare say that even his rather large ego was slightly wounded by such a comparison from Mr. Bayley.

So, in light of the very public failings with the Dome project and a vacancy at the top, who has the government now brought in to clean up the mess and secure the long-term future of the Dome Project?

Perhaps they’ve chosen an esteemed former Director-General of the National Trust like Sir Angus Stirling? After all, running the extensive portfolio within the Trust surely gives you experience to run the Dome?

Or maybe they’ve chosen David Dein, the Vice Chairman of the Football Association and an esteemed, long-standing football executive? The complexities of running the biggest sport in the country surely must give one the skills needed to handle the Dome?

How about Sir Hayden Phillips, the former Permanent Secretary of the Department for National Heritage? A well-respected civil servant with decades of management experience, still serving his country now at the Lord Chancellor’s Department, makes him an obvious and compelling candidate.

In fact, I’m sure we can look beyond just these three. We could run through a whole host of candidates from the worlds of sport, business, heritage, the arts, the civil service and event management.

I’m sure the government will have chosen a well-qualified candidate…

Oh wait... it seems they’ve gone and appointed the man who was said to have been running the project like a dictator…


I must have missed when the Member for Hartlepool could point to an achievement of running a large project to great success?

I do remember however when he had to resign as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry after failing to declare an interest-free loan from the Member for Coventry North West, whose business dealings were then subject to an inquiry by the Department for Trade and Industry.

I do remember when the Member had to resign as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland after accusations of using his position to influence a passport application for a businessman whose firm sought to sponsor a part of the Dome project.

I do remember when Jennie Page stated she told ministers such as the Member concerned that standing back from the Dome would be for the best interests of the project and I remember such advice being ignored by the Minister at the time.

Maybe, in all of this, I have missed such a great, glittering achievement from the Member for Hartlepool or perhaps, as I rather suspect, he has gained this job not for his experience but rather his connections.

After all, time and time again, this Prime Minister and this government have shown appointments to public office are based on who you know rather than what you know.

Remember when the Health Secretary was found to have appointed 288 Labour activists to NHS Trusts in a two-year period from 1997 to 1999? Members may recall that this stood in comparison to just 49 Conservatives, 28 Liberal Democrats and 2 Scottish Nationalists.

In this, of particular note, Paul Trippett, the bar steward of the Prime Minister’s local Labour club ended up being appointed as Chair of the South Durham NHS Trust and Rita Taylor, his constituency secretary, ended up as a member of another local Durham health authority.

In the judicial world, the Lord Chancellor, a close friend of the Prime Minister, appointed Philip Sales as First Junior Treasury Counsel, a prestigious role representing the Government in the civil courts. At just 35, the appointment raised concern amongst senior lawyers for his youth and relative inexperience. In a legal battle about sex discrimination regarding the appointment, a source of the Observer noted that it was no coincidence that Mr. Sales came from the old law chambers of the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister.

I would say that these two examples, along with that of the Member for Hartlepool, are just the tip of the iceberg.

For far too long and far too often, we have seen this Government make public appointments based on personal connections and old boy networks rather than on merit and suitability.

We move this motion today to make a stand on the issue of appointments to public offices.

On the Opposition benches, we believe that jobs of public importance should be given based on experience, skills and suitability rather than loyalty to a friend or an ally. There are so many roles that are of great, national importance and it is vital that we fill them with the best man or woman for the job. We cannot be a meritocratic country, as New Labour claims, if we do not practice what we preach and make sure that those in public life are there because of skill over social connections.

Furthermore, it is vital that we scrutinise the qualifications of those appointed to high-profile, high-paying jobs given that their salaries are financed by the taxpayer, by the men and women we all represent in this House. We as Members are held to high standards and rightly so, meaning it is only right that we hold all public appointments to such high standards.

Therefore, we condemn the appointment of the Member for Hartlepool as CEO of the New Millennium Experience.

He is ill suited to the post, based not just on personal connection to the Prime Minister but by his disastrous stints in Government and by his grave mishandling of the Dome project from the early days of New Labour, from overspending to heavy handed management.

He is not the man to oversee the long-term future of the Dome.

We further condemn the standard and practice of public appointments by this Prime Minister.

For far too long, we have seen this government make the wrong appointments based on the wrong connections.

We call for change and for merit to be the definitive factor in any appointment to a public role.

We will work to improve how public appointments are made and manage to make sure it is the best candidate for the job over the best charmer.

For the good of standards in public life, let's change the culture of padding the CVs of our friends that we have seen under this Labour government since 1997.


(OOC: To clarify regarding timings and events referenced in this speech, I’ve had confirmation from Barclay that Mandelson’s appointment to the NME and this subsequent motion take place in 2001. It has also been confirmed to me that Mandelson’s two resignations happened as per IRL and he is in charge of the long-term future of the Dome Project)
Dame Evelyn Redgrave MP
Member of Parliament for South West Hertfordshire (1997-present)

Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party (2001-present)
Shadow Home Secretary (2001-present)


Shadow Minister of State for Schools (1998-2000)
Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (2000-2001)
User avatar
Barclay A.A. Stanley
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:26 pm
Constituency: Macclesfield
XP: 0
Trait(s):
Discord username: @BarclayCalhoun#5933

Re: M01: Cronyism

Post by Barclay A.A. Stanley »

Betty Boothroyd: Order! The floor is now open for debate. The Hon. Member for...
Lt. Col. Sir Barclay A.A. Stanley, Rtd., KBE
Member of Parliament for Macclesfield

Armed with nothing but a pint of gin, Sir Barclay went to battle against the forces of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism.
User avatar
Amelia Lockhart
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:00 pm
Constituency: Great Grimsby
XP: 7
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croslandfan

Re: M01: Cronyism

Post by Amelia Lockhart »

Madam Speaker,

I am delighted that the party opposite is finally fully and unequivocally committing itself to the importance of merit for public appointments.

I am delighted that after 18 long years of Conservative Party cronyism, they have now turned they backs wholeheartedly on it. Our country is stronger for rejecting Conservative cronyism in two successive elections, and the party opposite has finally recognized they need to change their tune.

Because I remember, Madam Speaker, a Government up to its knees in the stench of cronyism, scandal, and illicit dealings: the last Conservative Government. I understand that members opposite don’t want to hear about this, but let’s go through their record:
  • Under Margaret Thatcher, the growth of so-called extra-governmental organisations, whose boards were directly controlled by ministers with no accountability, grew by 24 per cent;
    Under the same Prime Minister, unelected and effectively unaccountable individuals wielding power at a local government level outnumbered local councilors by a ratio of two to one;
    By 1994, 62 chairs of NHS trusts had clear Conservative Party links, while three-quarters had private business backgrounds;
    And in 1994, Conservative Members of Parliament asking questions in the House of Commons for questions, owning more to lobbyists than to their constituents.
Indeed Charter 88 warned of the growth of unaccountable and secretive government under the Conservative Party.

It was only in the dying, scandalous days of John Major’s Government that they half-heartedly set up a Committee of Standards in Public Life, which set out a new set of rules for public appointments based on merit.

While the Conservatives used these new rules in an attempt to cover the stench of scandal, the Labour Party accepted them wholeheartedly – and continue to do so. Indeed, let’s look at this Government’s record in ensuring appointments are made on merit, making it is more transparent, and ensuring it is held to account:
  • Ensuring appointments are made through a procedure run by an independent Commissioner for Public Appointments;
    Establishing an NHS Appointments Commission which assumes responsibility for making all appointments across NHS boards last year;
    Creating the House of Lords Appointments Commission to vet recommendations made by political parties and to recommendation appointments for non-partisan life peers.
And much more. So for all the talk of the party opposite, it is this government that is doing the hard work of making our appointments system transparent and fair – right across public services and the state.

I am confident that the Member for Hartlepool will be fantastic leader for the New Millenuim Experience Company. He recognizes, as I think we all should, that the next steps taken by the company must be the right ones for our country, and for ensuring the legacy of the dome.

But for those who are concerned, I remind people that there remains – as is right – incredibly strong accountability measures towards the New Millennium Experience Company. As both a limited company, and a non-departmental public body, it is subject to the Companies Act, public sector control, and accountability arrangements. It means the government, this Parliament, and the National Audit Office is ready to scrutinize the work of the company over the next few months and years. This is vital as the company was built on funding provided by National Lottery players in the main.

So, Madam Speaker, we have an opposition finally fully converted to the principles Labour endorsed years ago: merit and probity in appointments. We have an opposition ignorant of all the work this Government has done to ensure that, which they failed to do after 18 years of Conservative cronyism. We have an opposition willing to scaremonger unnecessarily, and forgetful that no matter what this government is holding the New Millenuim Company to account for the work they do.
Amelia Lockhart
Labour Party
Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (2001 - )
MP for Great Grimsby (1992 - )

Deputy Prime Minister (2001 - )
Secretary of State for Business, Transport and Social Mobility (2001 - )


Secretary of State for Health (1999 - 2001)
Minister of State for Public Health (1997 - 1999)
User avatar
Sir Jack Anderson
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:22 pm
Constituency: Southampton Test
XP: 7
Trait(s): None
Discord username: TrashPotato#4034

Re: M01: Cronyism

Post by Sir Jack Anderson »

Madam Speaker,

I have not been in this House for extensive decades, so I am sure more experienced Parliamentarians than myself can testify to times this House has become like a pantomime, but in the time I have been a Member of Parliament I do not recall being so appalled by both sides of the House. The government has once again let itself down with its infighting, leaking and insular politics. The Opposition has let itself down with what appears to be both rank hypocrisy and political manoeuvring.

Let me be clear, Madam Speaker, the government has let itself down. Having scrutinised the poor financial management of the Millennium Done project myself, I know firsthand the concern many members of the public have over this appointment - and I don't have to go into the details, as the Lady for South West Hertfordshire took immense pleasure in illuminating the history behind such an appointment.

I remember being elected to this House on a platform of transparency, openness and accountability: for us to modernise Britain and create an accountable state fit for the twenty-first century. For us to move on from the questionable actions of the prior Conservative administration. There have been positive developments, such as the Freedom of Information Act, but government at times feels too opaque, too in the past and I have experienced myself the insular culture that can often surround the government. That we are even having this debate speaks to the failures of this government to build an accountable and open state that people may not always agree with, but at the very least they can trust. And trust is the very first thing a government must build.

This opaque, insular government is not, however, a party political point that can be made. Governments of all colours have let us down. The Conservatives are right that simply pointing out their deep failings on this matter is mere whataboutery - but they do miss a fundamental point: they say the Labour government has no trust on this issue. Considering they had failed to act when such issues, of which there were many, cropped up on their watch, they have very little moral leadership themselves.

Parliament as a whole has failed by not taking action then. And in making this a political spat, in being so myopic as to want to throw blame and sling mud, it looks like it may fail again. That would be a real shame. We can work together and put political allegiances aside to build a transparent public appointments process the British people can put their faith in. Or we can continue to have this squabble. Because, at its very core Madam Speaker, this motion is likely to achieve anything at all. Nothing will change. The same culture we have seen will persist, and all the motion will have done in the grand scheme of things is favourable headlines for the Conservative Party, which in honesty as both a Labour politician and a Select Committee Chair seeking to act impartially in the national interest does not interest me particularly.

I know this because I have been on the other side, where Labour politicians put forward similar motions and took great pleasure in seeking to embarrass the Conservative government instead of make meaningful change. And look where we are now. History repeats itself unless someone breaks the cycle, Madam Speaker.

Unfortunately, the Opposition frontbench don't appear to show much if any interest in breaking the cycle. Case in point, Madam Speaker, I simply told the Shadow frontbench this motion was both inadequate and would achieve nothing. I asked them to provide me with real solutions that I could work with. The response I got was completely unbecoming - I was told I was "avoiding answering the question", told I was "abdicating my moral duty to lick boots of Blair", told I 'won't do anything on the issue because Mandelson is "someone else's problem."' The vitriol goes on, Madam Speaker. This charged and divisive approach is completely unbecoming of the frontbench, and they should hang their heads in shame.

But that isn't the worst part. These accusations get worse for other Members of this House. We have clear rules of conduct in this House, Madam Speaker, for a reason: so we can discuss the issues of the day sensibly, and though we may have rhetoric that can be charged and passionate, we do not let bad faith mire debates. Members of this House may be able to display separate conduct outside of this House, Madam Speaker. But I don't see why they should.

And yet we have Members of the Opposition frontbench showing such childish behaviour, and behaviour I will say may have them end up in court if they are not careful. The Shadow Secretary of State for Employment and Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry even accused other members of this House for being "corrupt" - which was wholly inappropriate, Madam Speaker, and if such accusations are to be made, they better be backed up with very firm evidence.

Instead of setting up a Parliamentary kangaroo court that only serves as ammo in a political battle, Madam Speaker, I decided instead that we both get the full facts of this situation before making any completely inappropriate accusations, and we work to actually improve the system. To that end, I wrote to Sir Nigel Wicks, the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life to see if we can build the foundation of meaningful change. For the benefit of the House, I will read out my letter:

"Sir Nigel,

I have no doubt you have been aware of the recent controversy surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson to the role of CEO of the New Millennium Experience. Valid questions have been raised about the conduct, leadership and experience Mr. Mandelson has in this area, and when bearing these facts into account whether his new appointment is appropriate.

As part of this appointment pertains to Mr. Mandelson’s leadership as Minister for the Millennium, where he was tasked with the creation of the Millennium Dome building and therefore holds responsibility for perceived financial mismanagement which damaged public confidence in the Treasury, this is also of interest to myself.

Therefore, I believe it is now in the public interest that you, as Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life –

i. Look into the process of Mr. Mandelson’s appointment.
ii. Conclude whether that appointment meets ethical guidelines and advise if such an appointment meets the Committee’s Seven Principles of Public Life (selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership).

As it is in the public interest, I believe that such findings should be made publicly available to inform both the public and Members of Parliament of this situation.

However, this is only one sorry story in the saga of actions taken by multiple governments which have been considered to have been ‘cronyism.’ Therefore, as Chairman of the Committee of Standards in Public Life, I also believe it would be in the public interest for you to consider launching a comprehensive review into the process of public appointments, identifying strengths and flaws in the system and recommending a clear action plan for the government and Parliamentarians to take into account when considering how to strengthen such a process and ensure it is more in line with the Seven Principles of Public Life.

As always, on such matters your leadership, knowledge and guidance is greatly appreciated, and I hope to hear from you soon."

It shames the government that one of their own have to take this action. But it shames the Opposition that a backbencher in the governing party appears to be doing more in actually getting results than they are, in setting up a motion that they know will do nothing if it passes and a motion that they should surely know will likely fail anyway.

Since the Opposition are interested in knowing how we will vote in the hopes of getting a 'gotcha' moment, I'll be completely clear to them: once Sir Nigel has reported back, and we are told the full facts of the appointment and informed if the appointment breaches any ethical guidelines, I will vote based on the evidence - something the Conservative frontbench cannot commit to as they have decided to reach a verdict without any evidence to begin with. If the appointment breaks the spirit of standards in public life, I will vote for this motion. If it does not, I will vote against it. This may not be an appointment I would personally want, but as long as it fulfils public guidelines it is the government's right to make public appointments. Then it is the Opposition's duty to scrutinise such appointments. It is a shame they appear to be failing in their duty.
Sir Jack Anderson
Labour Party.
Member of Parliament for Southampton Test
Chair of the Treasury Select Committee. (2000-2001)
Chancellor of the Exchequer. (2001-)
First Secretary of State. (2001-)
User avatar
Sir James McCrimmon
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:27 am
Constituency: Chesham and Amersham
XP: 8
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Rick

Re: M01: Cronyism

Post by Sir James McCrimmon »

Madam Speaker,

I would imagine that it is very easy for the honourable member for South West Hertfordshire to “condemn the standard and practice of public appointments by this Prime Minister.” I mean, it’s not hard at all. I’ll do it right now - I condemn the fact that the Prime Minister gave his good friend, the right honourable gentleman for Hartlepool, complete control over a multi-million pound project and did nothing when multiple subordinates resigned their post or were scapegoated to keep the member’s reputation clean.

But to be fair, Madam Speaker, it is easy for the gentlewoman opposite to do so because she has been in this House for only four years. Certainly, I hope it would have been harder for her to make such a claim if she had entered this House in 1992, rather than 1997. Who can forget the tale of Chief Secretary to the Treasury Jonathan Aitken, the parliamentarian-turned-prisoner? And there are other names - Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton, for instance, our former colleagues now gone from this House who took money from lobbyist Ian Greer and Mohamed Al-Fayed. Both major parties in our system, Madam Speaker, are tainted with the tinge of corruption. But as we learned in a certain Scottish play, pretending everything is fine will always come back to haunt us. In the end, both Labour and the Tories say the same - “Out, damned spot! Out I say!”

My friend, the honourable member for Southampton Test, just informed us, although I will disapprovingly note that he informed the press before he informed this house, that he requested an investigation of this appointment by the Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Nigel Wicks. Jolly good, I might say. It’s certainly nice, but it doesn’t go far enough.

A culture of cronyism, a culture of sleaze, does not go away, Madam Speaker. I doubt that this will be the last we ever hear of the issue, even if Sir Wicks finds there was wrongdoing. Let’s take a look at the United States, shall we? The most recent Ambassador to the Court of St James was one Philip Lader, a former businessman with no diplomatic experience, but qualifications of being a “longtime friend,” per The New York Times, of former President Clinton. President Bush’s nominee for the ambassadorship, William Stamps Farish the third, also has no diplomatic experience. He’s a former oil executive and was an aide to President George H. W. Bush, who sees Farish “like family.” Compare that to some other, less “fun” appointments, shall we? Sandy Vershbow, the US Ambassador to Russia, is a career diplomat and currently serves as their Ambassador to NATO. His predecessor, James Franklin Collins, was also a career diplomat. Or for their Ambassador to Oman, where both John Craig and his predecessor, Frances Cook, are both career members of the Foreign Service.

Cronyism, Madam Speaker, is like any intoxicant. You do it once, and it’s fine. You do it a few more times to get the hang of it, and if you keep ensuring that other people don’t know about it, you start to make a routine of it. In 1920, the publisher George Harvey backed Warren G. Harding for the Republican nomination for President. Once Harding was sworn in, Harvey was quickly named as Ambassador to this Court, where he quickly made a name for himself as an out-of-touch caricature of a 19th century Englishman with an American accent. 18 years after that election, President Franklin Roosevelt nominated his good friend and major donor Joseph P. Kennedy to that position. Over his two year tenure here, Kennedy supported appeasement, attempted to meet with Adolf Hitler, purported that “democracy [was] finished” in England, and was openly anti-semetic.

These smoke-filled backroom quid pro quos became open information, Madam Speaker, when President Richard Nixon’s personal lawyer, Herbert Kalmbach, pleaded guilty to criminal charges for promising a “more attractive” ambassadorship for then-Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago J. Fife Symington if Symington would make a substantial pledge to the Nixon re-election campaign. Similarly, it came out that Kalmbach asked for and received a $100,000 pledge from then-Ambassador to Jamaica Vincent de Roulet for the same prize in return.

These instances, certainly do not have any direct effect on what we are discussing here today. But they paint a portrait - of how cronyism and sleaze lead to a slippery slope. One ambassadorship here, another one there, and suddenly around one third of your ambassadors are political appointees who most likely donated major sums of money for your campaign.

We must make a change. In addition to supporting this motion, the Liberal Democrats will seek to expand the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and other similar bodies to ensure that a situation like this can never happen again.

The Commissioner for Public Appointments must see the growth of his realm of oversight. Instead of appointees to the boards of public bodies, we propose that his position include regulating all appointments to non-ministerial offices, or, for a more precise definition, positions that are not directly accountable to this Parliament.

For example, the Member for Hartlepool was accountable to Parliament in his role as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. But in this position as CEO of the New Millennium Experience, he is not. And that, Madam Speaker, is when we have a problem.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I welcome this turn from the party that is supposedly, “not for turning.” But it’s time that we get serious about corruption and cronyism - and treat this less like an aberration and more like the pattern that this is.
Sir James McCrimmon
Conservative and Unionist
First Secretary of State
Chancellor of the Exchequer and Second Lord of the Treasury
Secretary of State for Transport

MP for Chesham and Amersham (2015-present)
User avatar
Clarice Ashbridge
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:55 pm
Constituency: Eastwood
XP: 3
Trait(s): None
Discord username: LegolasRedbard

Re: M01: Cronyism

Post by Clarice Ashbridge »

Madame Speaker,

May I first begin by thanking my Right Honourable friend, the member for South West Hertfordshire, for her excellent speech introducing this motion today. It is not every day that an Opposition member covering the Culture brief on the frontbench gets to raise an issue of such paramount importance to the running of the government as this one, and she has taken this opportunity to heart, it will certainly be difficult to follower her.

It sort of says it all, Madame Speaker, that it has taken a motion from the opposition on this issue for members on the benches opposite to even offer any sort of response at all to this circus, I suppose I should start by addressing the issue that got us here in the first place: the Millennium Dome. When the idea for the project was first conceived under John Major, far from the Dome sceptic I am now I was a great fan of the project: one which would bring investment to a left behind area, one which would celebrate all this nation achieved as the third millennium approached, one which would stand as a lasting tribute to British excellence long into this new century and beyond. But of course, when the current government first came to power in 1997, they had to go one step better, one step bolder: one step too far in the wrong direction. Like Icarus, they overshot and flew far too close to the sun, with this project standing in Greenwich not as that monument to British excellence, but an over-budget white elephant which stands as a tribute to New Labour incompetence.

This brings me of course, Madame Speaker, to the issue at hand: the appointment of the member for Hartlepool as CEO of the New Millennium Experience. He thought he could do one better than Christ, Madame Speaker, with a third coming following his two previous political failures, and by God it looks like the Prime Minister agreed with him. When choosing a candidate to take over from the flaming ruins of what Jennie Page, the previous CEO, left behind whilst trying to execute the member for Hartlepool's project, I wonder what was going through the Prime Minister's mind. Did he think of what it looks like to the nation that the previous CEO was forced out after burning through taxpayer's money like a wildfire, money that could have been spent on healthcare or education or the fight against crime. Did he consider any of the able candidates for the job that the member for Hertfordshire South West listed when introducing this moment. Or, did he simply, instinctively, just go with his heart over his head, choosing his best mate for the job instead of deciding it based on merit. I think we all know the answer, Madam Speaker

And now that the pressure seems to be on the Prime Minister and the CEO of the NEM over this farce, we see cracks forming in the government already, cracks that betray a deeper problem. The member for Southampton Test has offered his proposal on how to reform our appointment culture, proposals which the opposition must surely welcome from a senior Labour MP. But, he has stopped short of offering a full condemnation of the member for Hartlepool, and it isn't hard to see why. Almost immediately after we published this motion, the government's leading lights formed a guard around the member for Hartlepool, degrading themselves by saying things like "he will be a fantastic leader for the NME Company." Some, bizarrely, chose to blame the last Conservative government for the scandal. It's clear that the Prime Minister is willing to send his cabinet ministers out to defend the indefensible. Time will only tell if the British people will buy their weak defences of perhaps the biggest walking disaster in British politics, but until then, I will be walking through the aye lobby in a vain attempt to restore some decency to government. I hope any principled members on the benches opposite will join me: after years of scandal like this one, that majority isn't looking as healthy as it once was.
The Hon. Clarice Ashbridge MP, Lady Ashbridge
Scottish Conservative and Unionist
Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department (October 2001 - present)
Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities (June 2001 - present)
MP for Eastwood (2001 - present)
User avatar
John Baker
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:19 am
Constituency: New Forest West
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Blake#4431

Re: M01: Cronyism

Post by John Baker »

Madame Speaker,

I do have to imagine that the Member of Great Grimsby surely realizes that the Government is not led by my party, but hers. Sometimes reform of a system has to come from actually taking bold action. I remember when the New Labour's promises where the future. When they promised change. But clearly they just want more of the same. That has led to numerous chances for the Prime Minister's friends. Does the member from Great Grimsby support the appointment? Or are they ready to take bold action like they've promised? I was under the impression that New Labour meant a forward looking Labour party. All I have seen in this debate, is the Government looking back to the past, instead of bringing change. They justify their action, from a Government over a decade ago. Implicitly that kind of argument doesn't make much sense at all. Sometimes sure we can justify our actions based on the past. But to say that the retired Prime Minister did it, so we are going to do it is quite odd if you ask me. Suddenly Thatcher is the standard by which New Labour judges itself?

Madame Speaker,

Like the member from Southhampton Test, I have not been in this house for decades. I quite frankly agree that this Government needs to be more open, and that future Conservative and Labour Governments need to be more transparent as well. I agree with the Honorable gentleman that it is time to reform the system to bring change. This motion was merely the start of a conversation. I commend his principles in agreeing to vote on this motion based on what he finds out from his report. However, merely complaining about it being a "gotcha" motion does not improve the situation either. We are going to need to work on stronger legislation to prevent cronyism. From all parties in the house. I hope that the Honorable Gentleman proposes the reforms should the committee suggest reforms.

Madame Speaker,

I fully submit that I hope that the next Conservative led government will make the changes to political appointments necessary to avoid the cronyism this type of motion. We need to make steps towards real progress. We can no longer keep looking to the pass to justify these kinds of appointments, I hope that the leadership within my party can push beyond this motion to propose a comprehensive reform of the appointment processes. As the member from Great Grimsby stated we introduced reforms in the past, and we can do so again. This time making them stronger to prevent cronies. We cannot serve the British people if they think we are serving our friends first. Whether Labour, Tory, or Liberal Democrat; we have an interest in serving the the British people. We cannot do that without being more transparent. We cannot serve everyday Britons needs first, if we feel so inclined to give our friends, their third kickback job in two governments. We also cannot do that if we always justify our actions based on the governments of the past. Today I hope this motion passes and it's used as a springboard for change.
MP for New Forest West 1997-Present
Shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury 2001-2001
Conservative Party Chairman 2001-2001
Secretary of State for Business, Transport and Social Mobility 2001-2001
TBD
User avatar
Sir Dylan Macmillan
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:27 am
Constituency: North East Bedfordshire
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: DylPickle

Re: M01: Cronyism

Post by Sir Dylan Macmillan »

Madame Speaker,

I would like to begin my remarks by thanking my Honourable Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire for her remarks on this crucially important topic, the British people deserve to know that they can place their trust in their leaders and I thank her for raising a motion that puts that issue to the fore.

Madame Speaker we have seen much prevarication from Labour, much equivocation, and much distraction. Don't look at the Member for Hartlepool they said, he's God's gift to politics and an excellent leader for all mankind. Don't look at the Member for Hartlepool they said, look instead at the last Government. Don't look at the Member for Hartlepool they said, let's have an independent inquiry so we can bury the issue for months and all forget about it. Madame Speaker we are not here to assess the leadership talents of a man who helped lead his party from a 179 seat majority to a 43 seat majority, we are not here to try the crimes of previous Governments of any persuasion because they have themselves been tried and evicted by the electorate, and we are not here to body block for the Member for Hartlepool so that we can bury his indiscretions under the sands of time. Madame Speaker we are here to take action because a wrong has been committed by the Prime Minister and his Prince of Darkness, one that must be rectified and prevented from ever occurring again if the public are to have faith in our political system or those of us who espouse it ever again.

Madame Speaker it is patently clear that the position of the Member for Hartlepool in relation to the Millennium Project is untenable. His recent history of dealings make him wholly unsuitable to any public role which does not come with extensive and unavoidable Parliamentary scrutiny, the Millennium Project comes with no such scrutiny so Parliament will be unable to keep its eye on the Prince of Darkness for the public good, so he must not be allowed to proceed in that way.

Madame Speaker many on the Government benches may believe that I am over-stating my case when I say that I believe that the Right Honourable Member in question should not be trusted in scrutiny-free public roles but I would remind them that this is a man who has had to resign twice, and been accused of lying to the Commons to cover his own back. When he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland he was forced to resign because he used his position to influence passport applications, now as Minister Without Portfolio he has been caught in a loan scandal which has cost a Civil Servant his job. How can it be fair for the unconnected to lose their job while the Prime Minister's personal fixer fails upwards into a cushy new job far away from the prying eyes of MPs and Peers who could hold him to account. Madame Speaker that is why the explicit naming of the Rt Hon Member for Hartlepool in the motion is so important, so that the House can prevent this injustice from occurring, and it is shameful of some from the party opposite to attempt to put their bodies in front of the Rt Hon Member to protect him from this scrutiny.

But Madame Speaker what this motion and the last General Election have shown us is that New Labour sleaze is no longer accepted by the people of this country. Ministers resigning in disgrace only to be reappointed months later, MPs failing upwards into cushy new jobs, but enough about the Rt Hon Member for Hartlepool Madame Speaker because the system is broken and in need of reform. Public bodies must, as this motion my Rt Hon Friend has laid out says, rely on merit for appointments not political patronage. Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party have been guilty of unsavoury practices in this regard with the 1997 landslide becoming the public's rebuke of my party, and the stunning reversal of that landslide last month becoming the public's rebuke of the Labour Party. It is clear that an independent appointments system must be established across party lines so that it enjoys the support of this entire House. I urge the Prime Minister to meet with the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, and the leaders of other political parties to establish this independent process. But beyond that Madame Speaker we need an adequate deterrent against corruption, because as the case of the Rt Hon Member for Hartlepool has shown it is possible to use your powers for questionable means and motive yet still hold considerable power, if not increase that power as the Rt Hon Member appears to have with all the shameless toadying that has been committed by some here today. Madame Speaker it is time for the powers of the Committee of Standards in Public Life to be extended. I would propose that they be given the power to investigate public officials, including MPs, Peers, and Privy Councillors for corrupt practices and misuse of power, and should they render a guilty verdict against an MP that MP should be forced to submit to a by-election, resign any public offices, and barred from standing for or being appointed to any further offices for a period of time consistent with the nature and severity of the indiscretion. Likewise for peers it would lead to a period of time where they could not sit in the Other Place, I would also have this principle extended to allow the rescinding of honours or disqualification from standing in any future Hereditary Peer election.
Sir Dylan Macmillan
MP for North East Bedfordshire 2001 - Present

Shadow Chancellor 2016
Chancellor 2015
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 2014 - 2015
Leader of the House of Commons 2012 - 2014
Secretary of State for International Development 2010 - 2012
Conservative Party Chairman 2008 - 2010
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury 2005 - 2008
Locked

Return to “Hansard”