Our politics may not be institutionally corrupt. Yet there seems no reason beyond vanity why politicians should cavort with the likes of Berlusconi

Two images reflect everything that has gone wrong with this government in recent years. The first is of the elderly Walter Wolfgang being bundled out of the Labour party conference by bouncers for daring to criticise the Iraq war. The second is Tony Blair getting chummy with the man in the bandanna, Silvio Berlusconi, as they holidayed together. Government as bully and government on the make. An unfair conclusion perhaps, simplistic certainly; nevertheless the lack of self-perception among those who preside over our politics is startling, especially in a supposed age of spin.

It would not have taken much to behave more intelligently. It would be expecting too much even of this Prime Minister, with his links to the Almighty, to prevent his minions from straying, particularly given his penchant for cavorting with the super-rich. But one would imagine that ministers - if only for self-preservation - might learn from others' past mistakes: keep your sexual affairs quiet and your business affairs (and those of your spouse) regular. And if you can- not, or will not, then do not commit your misdemeanours to e-mail. (One would have thought they had learned that from the Hutton inquiry.)

Tessa Jowell is a curiosity. She is a decent person, meti-culously polite. She has been a good culture secretary - a calm steward of the arts, fair referee of the media, pros- elytiser for London's Olympic bid and a brave liberaliser of licensing laws. The only blot on her copybook was the absurd gambling deregulation. And yet . . . the husband, the dodgy Italians and those mortgages. In many instances, attitudes are as important as actions. When one hears friends of Jowell suggesting that hedge funds and tax-avoidance schemes never did anyone any harm, one realises how so many in new Labour have lost the moral bearings they claim brought them into politics in the first place.

At the same time, the sight of the media baying for a politician's blood is unpleasant and demeaning, as Brian Cathcart points out (page 12). There is much hypocrisy in the preaching of a fourth estate that remains little guided by moral rectitude and little accountable for its actions. The public is not guided by the harrumphing of commentators. Nor is it duped by politicians' professions of innocence. The sight of MPs and court journalists clubbing together to get a friend out of a pickle is dispiriting. Ultimately, facts will out, and as long as journalists confine themselves to digging rather than pontificating, they will continue to perform a useful function in this torrid saga, as in future ones.

There is much humbug talked about how the ethical standards of Britain's ruling class stand up well against those of the elite in other countries. Our politics may not be institutionally corrupt. Yet there seems no reason beyond vanity why politicians should cavort with the likes of Berlusconi, Bernie Ecclestone and the Hindujas. If it does them no good, why do it? Ultimately it is as much a question of common sense, guided by tough rules. There is a lot of work to be done. For a start, offshore banking wheezes should be tightened, and regulation of ministers' behaviour should be made the sole responsibility of an independent figure, not Downing Street. Gordon Brown and David Cameron, take heed.

Risky fallout of double standards

With each bellicose declaration, the prospect of a military attack against Iran looms larger. Both its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the hawks in Washington are using the issue of nuclear non-proliferation as a rallying cry. Neither side's version of the truth should be taken at face value, but the prospect of a nuclear arsenal in the hands of a regime such as the one that is dominant in Tehran is disturbing. It may take a decade, perhaps less.

Britain, the United States and other major powers such as France have been consummate advocates of double standards. During his tour of the subcontinent this past week, George W Bush gave India the green light to develop its nuclear arsenal. The Indians will not be required to open up their plutonium-producing fast-breeder reactors to international inspection. As the New York Times put it, the deal "threatens to blast a bomb-sized loophole through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty". In the spirit of fairness, Bush was similarly indulgent of Pakistan, India's foe. Pakistan, for all its human-rights abuses, has been a long-time ally of the US. India is fast learning that friendship brings useful advantages. Both countries officially went nuclear, within weeks of each other, in 1998. Now they can do so with impunity.

The past master in breaking the rules and getting away with it is Israel. Its policy of "strategic ambiguity" amounts to an admission in all but name that it possesses an arsenal. It has refused to sign the NPT, which would open its Dimona nuclear facility to international scrutiny.

In this week's NS (page 18) we tell the story of how Britain helped Israel obtain the bomb during Harold Wilson's government, but unbeknown to ministers. It is a sorry tale of duplicity, but little different from anything that has followed. There is scant prospect of convincing any putative nuclear power to give up its ambitions while we connive with our allies to break the very rules that we apply to our adversaries.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website