Stephen Dorrell MP will stand down after 35 years. Photo: YouTube screengrab
Show Hide image

Tory MP and former Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell to stand down after 35 years

The MP for Charnwood Stephen Dorell has announced that he will stand down as an MP at the general election, after accepting a role with accountancy firm KPMG as a health policy consultant.

The Tory MP for Charnwood and former Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell has announced that he will stand down as an MP next May. He has been an MP since 1979, so will have served 35 years in parliament by the general election. He will take a job as a health policy consultant with KPMG, a bit accountancy and consultancy firm.

Dorrell stood down from his position as Health Select Committee chair in June, saying he wanted to approach the healthcare debate from a "less overtly political position". He had chaired the committee since 2010, and was respected among MPs as an authentic scrutinising voice, and someone who knew the health brief very well.

I heard from an MP close to Dorrell at the time that this "less overtly political position" was "code for helping to shape policy". And indeed there were rumours in Westminster that Dorrell was gearing up for being made Health Secretary in the next government reshuffle. After all, he had already served in this position under John Major. However, it turns out he's now taking his desire for influence over health policy out of parliament altogether.

PoliticsHome quotes his resignation letter, in which he refers to his decision as a "bitter sweet moment":

Although I have been a strong supporter of the Coalition, I strongly believe that a majority Conservative Government offers our country the best prospect of building on the achievements of the Coalition during this Parliament.

I interviewed him back in March last year, and asked him his assessment of where David Cameron and his party were, electorally and ideologically. His reply remains poignant:

It was said to me recently that the Conservative Party has spent the last few years fighting UKIP and losing to the Liberals. I think that’s a proposition that we’d do well to reflect on.

It's worth noting that Dorrell is another in a line of the high-profile modern-day equivalent of Tory "wets" (he describes himself as a “a liberal in the 19th-century sense of the word”) to be leaving come the election. Others include David Willetts, Ken Clarke and Greg Barker.


Update 14.01

Here is his resignation letter, reported in the Leicester Mercury:

I am writing to inform you that I have, with considerable regret, decided that my name should not go forward as the Conservative Party Candidate for the Charnwood constituency in next year’s General Election.

As you know, I was very grateful to the association for readopting me as its prospective candidate earlier this year and I do therefore regret that I have since changed my mind.

I have done so primarily because I have been offered the opportunity to work with KPMG in a senior role supporting their Health and Public Service consultancy practice both in the UK and overseas.

I have decided in consultation with my family that this role represents a great opportunity to carry forward the commitment to improve public services which has been a major part of my life in politics.

Unfortunately, I have also concluded that it is incompatible with seeking re-election to the House of Commons.

I shall of course continue to serve as the MP for Charnwood for the remainder of this Parliament, and I shall continue to campaign for the return of a majority Conservative Government, with David Cameron as Prime Minister, in the General Election.

Although I have been a strong supporter of the Coalition, I strongly believe that a majority Conservative Government offers our country the best prospect of building on the achievements of the Coalition during this Parliament.

This is a bitter sweet moment.

While I look forward to working with KPMG, it has been an enormous privilege to serve in Parliament since May 1979, first as the MP for Loughborough and more recently as the MP for Charnwood. I shall always remain deeply grateful for the support I have received; I have formed many friendships which are very important to me and which I shall hope to maintain long after leaving the House of Commons.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496