PC 1: Tony's Cronies

[Charles Trevorrow]

I remember the night of the 1997 election. Now, I'm not a Labour Party man, and nor have I ever been, but I felt a level of optimism that night. My party gained, and finally, we got rid of the Tories, after years of chaos, cronyism, and dreadful government. Since then, we have had nothing but disappointment. It proves something to me, something I have always held dear, and why I chose, struggling for a job and on the dole, in a poor rural bit of Britain, to become a Liberal.

Labour and the Tories are both the same - corrupt, cronyist, and only in it for themselves. We have just lost a bloody good man, in Charles. A visionary. A man who led and was willing to work hard for the country. A mate. I miss him dearly. But his shoes must be filled, and we must continue as Liberal Democrats to lead the fight against the stitch-up of a political system that Labour and the Tories both support.

[Dame Evelyn Redgrave]

The House has voted to condemn the appointment of Peter Mandelson as CEO of the New Millennium Experience and to call for merit as the definitive factor in public appointments.

I applaud MPs of all parties who voted for this motion in sending a clear statement about the standard we desire in public appointments moving forward. Ideas for reform were shared by those of all sides during the debate and I believe we can now progress with them.

With the House against Peter Mandelson’s appointment, it is time that Tony Blair and any potential successors commit to removing him from his role as a show of faith that they accept the will of the House.

[Clarice Ashbridge]

Well, there we have it. A clear majority has emerged, a cross-party coalition across all corners of the House of Commons, condemning the appointment of Peter Mandelson to the New Millennium Exhibition, and calling generally for government appointments based on merit, not just who you know and what influence you have. I'd like to thank all those across the House, from Evelyn Redgrave for leading the charge for us on this bill, to the principled Labour backbenchers who took a stand against Tony Blair's stubbornness, to the Liberal Democrats. This well and truly is a victory for openness, transparency and decency in politics.

The message at the top of the in tray of whoever the Labour Party chooses to be the next Prime Minister is clear, and it is sack Mandelson, and sack him now. There has been the growth over the last four years of the failed New Labour project Parliament has helped sack one Prime Minister: if the next one does not respect the will of the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, they may find their career as Prime Minister coming to a similar end soon enough.

[Charles Trevorrow]

It's grand that this motion has passed. But Parliament is a joke when it comes to this stuff. Tories and Labour alike have designed a system of non-binding motions, civil service bureaucracy, and an attitude of letting government after government just get away with it. Well, I'm determined to not let this government get away with it. It is all well and good to pass a motion and gloat - when it comes from the Tories, who were just as bad or worse themselves in government, I'm inclined to feel it isn't genuine, mind. What we really need is institutional change, which only the radical reforming policies of the Liberal Democrats are really anywhere near providing.

[Elizabeth Tanner]

I am disappointed that Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and some Labour MPs have been blinded by the partisan politics of the Conservetive frontbench. Nothing from the Opposition frontbench actually moved towards a solution to the decades long problems of appointments and how they are made. No one in this is blameless and we all have much work to do, however I will not pass judgement on anyone until all the facts are known, and in the case of Peter Mandelson not all the facts were known. On that point I am pleased an investigation will take place and that is the proper course of action to take. We must tackle corruption wherever it is found, but partisan motions in the Commons is a poor way to solve this problem.

[Sir James McCrimmon]

The Secretary of State for Education needs to use her listening ears better. While the motion was presented as something purely partisan, a successful intervention from the Liberal Democrats changed the tone. I can confirm that policy changes are being looked at to stop something like this from happening again, and I look forward to presenting it to the Commons in the near future. When the major parties look at everything like a zero-sum game of "winning" and "losing", it takes the viewpoint of the Liberal Democrats to rise above it and offer the concrete solutions that this country needs.

[Blakesley]

Looking at the text of the motion, I can confirm that the Liberal Democrats changed nothing, despite their delusions of grandeur. Better luck next time.

[Charles Trevorrow]

Labour and the Tories both exist to uphold a corrupt Parliamentary system where they can ignore democratic representatives and voters alike. It is a distain for people outside of Westminster that has led to such a slump for Labour, and led to such a self-destruction for the Tories in 1997. Smug elitist deference to our existing archaic system, like that what the Defence Secretary has displayed, is the issue, not our efforts for radical reform.

[Barclay A.A. Stanley]

If the Hunting debate was the story of a weak Conservative response, then this is the story of a stronger one. Dame Evelyn Redgrave, with style and grace, outlines the debate in a way that largely sticks. This is crucial as it makes this as much a debate about the sheer ridiculousness of Mandy's appointment as it is about the overall approach to patronage appointments (of which the Tories are equally guilty). Jack Anderson is the only one among the Labour crew who really tries to wrestle back control of the terms of debate in a meaningful way and his efforts may well have saved Labour from a disaster. Every other Labour intervention on this point felt like "they do it too" rather than "no, we shouldn't do it, we will take the lead."

If there was one note here from Labour it is that you don't always have to be right to win. Had Labour come out swinging behind Jack Anderson, they probably would have negated the Conservative Party's damage in this, but they chose, instead, to attack the Conservatives. The saying "don't throw stones in glass houses" does come to mind here; and despite the Conservative Party being equally guilty of some shocking patronage appointments, the Labour Party really do come off looking like they are trying to justify what is, ultimately, a bad decision. The mitigating relief comes from the Socialist Campaign Group and a few Brownite dissidents, principally Sir Jack, who did just that. "We can't defend this appointment because it was a patronage appointment, but we can do better in future." That's what the public wanted (perhaps, needed) to hear, and it is what the got but only in very short supply.

The Liberal Democrats were, notably, absent for much of the debate, only coming in at the end to take a few kicks at the two parties and, as they like to put it, "crushing the establishment." They do enough to ensure that people know where they stand, and to create a platform for themselves to march on; but this really feels like a missed opportunity to raise the banner of a third option whose commitment to liberal democracy is unwavering and who want to lead on this issue. Sir Bryant sort of does this but relies on the vague "we made interventions" argument rather than telling the public exactly what kind of interventions they made and exactly how those interventions saved the day. Overall, a missed opportunity.

Momentum:

Labour: 0
Conservative: +2
Liberal Democrat: 0

XP:

Evelyn Redgrave: +2
Jack Anderson: +2