Clarke, in an interview with the BBC, went on to say that, "The impression is
left that we are about smearing, investigating and so forth, in a way which is
simply false".This attempt to set the record straight, the truth of which can only be
believed in the hierarchy of the Labour Party surely, comes fast on the heels
of controversy surrounding the recent departure of Stephen Byers.
Having commented earlier on the, now infamous, Jo Moore email suggesting that
it would be a good time to bury bad news in the wake of the September, 2001
terrorist attacks ( admitting that it was a, "shocking mistake" ), and being
equally critical of the circumstances when the government was forced to
to apologise for "digging for dirt" on Pam Warren, the former chairwoman of the
Paddington Survivors Group, Clarke now blames the media for widely
mis-reporting and exaggerating the incidents.
Although Clarke obviously doesn't see it, this is just more spin, and is just
the sort of thing the country is wholeheartedly getting sick of.
That Clarke has blamed "weekend" press officers for putting out
incorrect information about Labour donor Lakshmi Mittal, when they said his
company was British, shows he can spin his own, as that 'fact' was stated as
such by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons.
Of course, this is a totally misleading article, written by a pious and
hypocritical 'journalist', and it really ought to carry a government health
warning. In the interests of democratic fairness; you should read no further,
less I criticise Blair, his minions, and government unfairly.
Clarke may not think that the departure of Moore, Martin Sixsmith and the
belated resignation of Stephen Byers deserves the attention which they received
in the press, but to most people these issues are central to how the electorate
perceive the credibility and honesty of the government they have elected.
This is why they are intrigued about large donations made to the party from
Bernie Ecclestone, the Hinduja brothes, Lakshmi Mittal, Richard Desmond,
Paul Drayson, and many more.
It may be the media who have identified Blair as a control freak, and have
placed the image of "President" before the
people, but if the cap fits, then why not ? It may be that the press have
sought out stories that are detrimental to the government, but it is their
role within a democracy that believes in free speech, and the people want to
be informed. For a government which alleges a belief in transparency, then
this should come as no surprise.
The government is going to do nothing to stop such reporting if all it can do
is answer its critics with spin-doctored retorts that, "There's nothing to see
here", and, "Everything fine; move along, now".
All governments face attack from
their critics, and critics will be digging deep to uncover any sleaze or
impropriety they can for their own political ends, and it is the duty of the
government to answer accusations honestly and openly. That the
government has refused to do either, and now blames the press for all its
woes, is why so many believe the government is sleazy, untrustworthy, and
dishonest.
Clarke's own outburst, immediately after the news arrived that Tony Blair had
dropped his complaint lodged with the Press Complaint Committee against three
publications for alleging that he attempted to interfere with the proceedings at
the Queen Mother's funeral, does nothing to dispel the belief that the
government is all too happy to create news stories to distract the attention
of the press and public away from other events it would prefer were not
discussed.
Blair's dropping of the PCC complaint is the news story of the day, but Clarke
attempts to supplant it by initiating an attack which will leave the press and
papers outraged, rejecting his views, and drawing attention away from the
real issues we need to look at.
Clarke says that the timing of his attack was coincidental, in which case,
he won't mind if we continue where we left off with the PCC story, will he ?
Blair's complaint to the PCC was made after three publications carried stories
alleging that an attempt had been made to increase the importance of Blair's
role at the Lying-In-State of the Queen Mother.
Although none of the reports claimed that Blair had made any attempts himself
to manipulate or change the proceedings, the unusual step of lodging a
complaint with the PCC about the articles in the Spectator magazine, the Mail
on Sunday and the London Evening Standard, was made.
At the time, a spokesman said that Blair had much written about him that was
untrue but, "The idea that he would try to exploit the death of the Queen Mother
is totally without foundation and deeply offensive. Whatever sources they may
claim to have, they cannot escape the fact that the story is untrue and the
Prime Minister is determined they should correct it and apologise".
Some have asked why, if Blair felt so offended by the untruths these articles
held, did he not sue for libel ? The editors' responses have been that
it was because the articles were correct, and that there was hard evidence to
back the reports up. As Boris Johnson, editor of the Spectator, put it, when
it was announced that the complaint had been lodged by Blair's Press Secretary,
"I am very sorry that Alastair Campbell has taken this decision but I can see
that he's got his tits in the wringer".
So was the outcome of the PCC's investigation going to show that Blair was
guilty of attempting to cash in on the death of the Queen Mum, or were the
press just gutter sleaze-balls who fabricated the stories on nothing more than
imaginary evidence in an attempt to discredit Blair ?
Blair has attempted to side-step the issue by withdrawing his complaint on the
grounds that it has been confirmed, and accepted, that he was not directly
involved in the matter.
That is indeed correct, and it has never been claimed otherwise. None of the
articles ever suggested that he was directly involved in this matter, but that
an attempt was made by others to make him more prominent at the Royal event.
The question must therefore be why Blair lodged the complaint in the first
place ?
If it was to prove there had been no attempt to manipulate the
proceedings at all, then he has failed miserably. The withdrawal of the
complaint infers that he accepts that there was an attempt at manipulation,
even though he may not have been an instigator or a direct part of it.
Given that it has been well reported that Sir Michael Willcocks, who in his
role as Black Rod was the parliamentary official in charge of organising
the Queen Mother's laying-in-state, has told the PCC he is prepared to give
evidence that would confirm the articles as correct, Blair would have been
placed in an awkward position were he to have continued pursuing his complaint.
Instead, he has taken the stance that, he rejected the allegations
entirely but is happy to consider them correct, and drop his complaint,
because the journals agree that they never said he was directly involved in
the matter.
He could have said, "My complaint is, and was, unfounded, and the initial
articles were correct", but that appears to be too much to expect.
Blair's spokesperson demanded that the papers should issue an apology for their
false insinuations; now they have been vindicated, should Blair not publicly
admit that manipulation was attempted and issue an apology ?
No. Instead he sends Clarke off to the front of the room to launch an attack on
the press and their reporting, in an attempt to get the issue off the front
page of the news.
Yet another attempt to manipulate the press, and ironically wrapped in an
accusation that the press doesn't fairly report on what the government is
actually doing.
As Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Tim Collins put it, "What we are seeing here
is a government agenda of suppressing dissent, whether that is Select
Committees, neutering parliament or now attacking the media".
There is so much spin, and spin-upon-spin, coming from Downing Street, it will
only be a matter of time before someone installs a wind farm.
The Original Article
How Tony Blair tried to muscle in on the mourning
Shortly after the death of the Queen Mother a call was made from Downing Street
to an official at the Palace of Westminster about the lying-in-state. The Prime
Minister, it was communicated, was unhappy. In particular, he felt that the
arrangements did not recognise his importance and he wanted them changed. He
felt he should be present at the north door of Westminster Hall to greet the
Queen when she arrived ahead of the coffin.
The request was assessed, considered, mulled over and then rejected. The
presence of the Prime Minister to greet the monarch had not been judged
necessary when the Queen Mother drew up her plans, and nobody was going to
change them now. Tony Blair was forced to accept that his role in the mourning
for the Queen Mother in contrast to his role when Diana, Princess of Wales died
was going to be modest.
In the end he accepted all this with good grace, and conducted himself well. It
would be wrong to say that the government has mishandled the last two weeks ...
Peter Oborne, The Spectator, 13th April 2002
The Saga Continues
In the wake of the PCC complaint being dropped, the publishers of
the original article claimed they had been totally vindicated in their
initial reporting, and Blair has gone ballistic.
Blair took the unprecedented step of issuing a personal statement on the
matter indicating that he is not prepared to sit back as he thought the
matter had been settled.
Blair says he only agreed to drop the complaint on the basis that it was
accepted he had, "Done nothing wrong or improper", but now believes that, "It
is clear that far from accepting that, they continue to publish these false
accounts of what happened during that period".
He maintains that, "The allegation that I tried to muscle in or hijack the
Queen Mother's funeral is as offensive as it is completely and utterly untrue",
but the journalist who broke the original story says that Blair's views are
at odds with the account of the affair given by Sir Michael Willcocks, Black
Rod.
The version of events as seen from Black Rod's point of view have been set out
in a comprehensive memo. These have been described as, "dynamite", but so far
his statements have not been made public.
Spectator political editor Peter Oborne, the author who wrote the original
article, said that the evidence not only proved his version of events but,
"Went much further", containing a, "number of highly embarrassing revelations".
"Downing Street suddenly knew that it faced a choice between the story coming
out, though in a far more Technicolor and dramatic way than anyone had up to
that stage realised, or beating a hasty retreat", he writes in his latest
article in the Spectator magazine.
The ongoing affair has caused Tam Dalyell to support calls for Mr Campbell's
resignation as Press Secretary, describing the decision to initiate the
complaint to the PCC as, "Barmy". Even veteran, stalwart, Labour MP's are
deserting Blair in the aftermath of this incredible affair.
Conservative Party Chairman, David Davis, is equally critical of the
government's approach to the media, saying that, "The whole episode says so
much that is wrong with a government that attempts to bully the press before
trying to hoodwink the British people".
"I had hoped to avoid an unseemly public row about this", says Blair, as he
published details of the information he provided to the PCC on the case.
While his version of the events clearly distances him from the furore,
absolving himself and staff from any wrong doing, by saying that everything
was undertaken without consultation with him, the press and public are eager
to see what revelations may be made by the publication of the evidence
provided by Black Rod.
The nation waits with baited breath to see if the sordid details that Black
Rod's memo contains will be published. If they are not, it is likely that the
affair will continue to drag on, with Blair's version of the events being
treated with continuing disbelief.
