Leading article: Tories should sell up or be sacked
Sunday, 29 June 2008
There is a difference between the two controversies over the financial interests of politicians that we report today. One is serious and the other trivial. That six Conservative MPs, including three frontbenchers, have large shareholdings in companies that are complicit in Robert Mugabe's oppression of Zimbabwe makes meaningless David Cameron's pose as the defender of democracy and human rights. That Wendy Alexander, Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament, failed to put donations that she had already disclosed on the register of members' interests is a bureaucratic trifle. Requiring an apology, perhaps, but a resignation? Surely not.
The big picture is that the Conservative Party is guilty of hypocrisy, while Ms Alexander is not. Mr Cameron said last week: "Businesses and individuals that have any dealings with Zimbabwe must examine their responsibilities and ensure that they do not make investments that prop up the regime." When The Independent on Sunday gave the Conservative MPs the chance to explain how they sought to "examine their responsibilities", they responded differently.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "The Conservative Party has made it clear that companies operating in Zimbabwe must adhere to the highest ethical standards and I fully endorse that view." Those words sit ill with the fact that, as Gugulethu Moyo points out opposite, foreign capital is sustaining Mr Mugabe's regime. Robert Goodwill, shadow Transport Minister, said: "I don't feel particularly proud to be a Barclays shareholder," but added, "It is not a very good time to sell the shares." Anthony Steen said he did not know that Unilever or Shell was involved in Zimbabwe.
The Conservative leader said, after the "whoops-a-daisy" expenses oversight of a Tory MEP: "Anyone who flies under the Conservative banner carries a wider responsibility to the reputation of the party."
Against the moral scale of Mr Cameron's claim that his party is helping to mobilise all forms of pressure on Mr Mugabe's tyranny, Ms Alexander's trouble with donations is neither here nor there. She says that the clerks to the standards committee advised her that donations to her leadership campaign last August, which were already public knowledge, were not registrable. When she was advised that they were, she registered them. So unimportant was this that it has been easily confused with the fuss over another donation, of £950, that turned out to be from an ineligible donor in Jersey – which, as every pub quiz bore knows, is not part of the UK. Neither case was sufficient to warrant her resignation, and she was unwise to use the more recent case as an excuse to give up the thankless task, because it could be read as an admission of more serious guilt.
Mr Cameron's problems, on the other hand, are part of a wider pattern. To be sure, Tony Blair had a terrible record on issues that were lazily labelled "sleaze", but they were to do with raising money for the Labour Party, whereas recent Tory money scandals have been a matter of personal enrichment. Derek Conway's taxpayer-funded family business; Ann and Nicholas Winterton's taxpayer-funded family property; Giles Chichester's European taxpayer-funded family business; Caroline Spelman's taxpayer-funded family nanny – and that is just what has been uncovered this year.
The Zimbabwe issue is, of course, different again, in that we are talking about MPs who happen to be rich – and therefore to have declarable shareholdings worth more than an MP's salary – rather than MPs who seem to assume that the taxpayer should keep them in a style that they think befits their status. But Mr Cameron, who has accepted the description of himself as "wealthy", needs to work much harder to convince people that the Conservative Party will live up to the high standards of transparency, propriety and ethical investment of which he has spoken.
Things seem to be going Mr Cameron's way at the moment. Last week's anniversary of Gordon Brown's premiership was marked with a by-election that was as encouraging for the Tories as it was terrible for Labour. In the only part of the country where the Conservatives do not enjoy a lead in the opinion polls, Scotland, Labour is in disarray against the Nationalists.
The mood of the nation may well be against Mr Brown – although there could be two years before an election – but that has not yet translated into positive enthusiasm for Mr Cameron. He must show that he meant it when he said, of MPs' expense claims: "Any arrangements we enter into are ones we are prepared to protect and defend in a court of public opinion." He should start by requiring his frontbenchers to sell their shares in companies that are propping up Mr Mugabe's despotic regime. Or sack them.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
29 Comments
But they were just two trade unions not THE trade unions and they are not THE labour party. They were just right wing working class people who vote tory or BNP. As I said you have no labour party people who supported Powell. I have a link that the labour home affairs man denounced the statement by Powell. There was no support for the comments by Powell by labour. So why did you make that statement. You provide no evidence for your lies. It is relevant what the tories supported because many tories pretend that Wilberforce was a tory when he was not, and it was the whig party that got rid of slavery. .
Posted by Bob Farrow | | 29.06.08, 20:54 GMT
What about the Dockers who came out for Enoch, or the porters from Smithfield Market. Many Trade unionists supported Enoch Powell.
What the Tories supported 170 years ago is really irrelevant.
Posted by Jonty | 29.06.08, 17:59 GMT
Powell was not supported by labour. I see no evidence for that claim. You just make up lies. The tories supported slavery. Where is you evidence that the TUC or labour supported Powell. I have mentioned numerous Labour MPs who spoke out against him. Now name me one labour MP who spoke for him. You know nothing about this subject.
Posted by Bob Farrow | 29.06.08, 17:34 GMT
The Tories supported Powell by, errr, turfing him out. Ted Heath sacked him the day after the speech and had the full support of his shadow cabinet members. You can lie all you want about the Tories being racist. It does not make it true. As for what a party supported 170 years ago, what on earth does that matter ?
Labour supported Powell, the trade unions supported Powell. Shame on them.
Posted by Jonty | 29.06.08, 17:17 GMT
The tories did support slavery they do and have only ever cared about money.
Guido fawkes is bravely standing up for tory MPs. Well done Guido we now know who pays your shilling. LOL. We need someone outside the law to stand up for the elites.
Grieve is respected but he will lose that all if he keeps these investments. What does he care more about his well earned honour or his easily spent bank balance.
Posted by Mickey Cheese | 29.06.08, 17:16 GMT
I can assure you Enoch Powell was not supported by the labour party.
Labour MP Edward Leadbitter said he would refer the speech to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Baroness Gaitskell called the speech "cowardly".
He was a tory and was supported by tories. Do not re-write history. Your lot supported racism and your lot supported slavery. Enoch was a tory and was in no way supported by labour.
Margaret Thatcher thought that although some of Powell's speech was "strong meat" she sympathised with his overall message.
Do not missinterpret and take out of context what some Labour members said. What Hattersley said was that they should have spoken out even more against Powell. But they did not support him no matter what you may ignorantly think.
Posted by Bob Farrow | 29.06.08, 16:53 GMT
Bob farrow, you are wrong. The Tories ostracised Powell and as a consequence Labour supported him.
On a documentary on the BBC Roy Hattersley reckoned it was one of their biggest errors. even the Unions supported Enoch Powell.
You may think I have no regard for history, you have no regard for the facts. Run along child.
Posted by Jonty | 29.06.08, 16:31 GMT
Own goal for the Indy!
INM holdings plc owns the Indy, INM also 100% owns CCI (pty) who operate poster sites in Zimbabwe........!
So any Zanu PF/Mugabe posters on their sites in Zim then?
So will your reporters be sacked for indirectly propping up Mugabe?
Will Baroness Jay resign from the board of INM for propping up Mugabe?
Really crap smear reporting from a crappy paper orchestrated with Lord Malloch Brown and the BBC.
Oh,and does Lord Malloch Brown, your slimey smear assistant cheerleader, never use the services of Shell. Tesco, Barclays Bank? Or has shares in pension funds that own shares in these organisations?
I hope he will be resigning if he does.
Posted by Stephen | 29.06.08, 16:22 GMT
Jonty Labour did not support Enoch Powell. Are you mad? Enoch was a tory. I know you have no regard for history. But if you know nothing about it mind your own business. The tories did support slavery and I get the impression most of them still do. All that matters is the money.
Posted by Bob Farrow | 29.06.08, 15:39 GMT
The Tories are the party of slavery based on what happened 170 years or so ago. That must make Labour the party that supports racism based on their support for Enoch Powell in the sixties.
What matters is what is happening today, not over a hundred years ago.
Posted by Jonty | 29.06.08, 13:35 GMT
29 Comments