Former children's minister Tim Loughton. Photo: YouTube screengrab
Show Hide image

Former children's minister: "I'll name and shame Commons paedophiles"

Tim Loughton MP is threatening to name past high-profile “suspected paedophiles” in the Commons unless the government launches a full inquiry into historic MP sex abuse cases.

The former children’s minister Tim Loughton is considering using parliamentary privilege – immunity from legal action for a politician speaking in parliament – to “name and shame” high-profile past members of parliament suspected to be paedophiles.

Loughton, writing in the Daily Mail, is responding to the government’s decision not to implement an over-arching inquiry into the historical allegations of a paedophile ring operating in Westminster in the Eighties. A dossier containing the details of the allegations passed on to the then home secretary Leon Brittan has been lost – a revelation about which Loughton says he’s “gravely concerned”.

Both No 10 and the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have voiced their belief that it’s best for the police to pursue these fresh inquiries, rather than launching a full inquiry into the alleged past ring of MP paedophiles. Clegg has said the police are in the “best position” to deal with the allegations, rather than the government calling an inquiry.

He added:

My view is, given the very serious criminal nature of these allegations, namely that there was a circle of people who hid what they were doing… abusing vulnerable children in children's homes, the only way to deliver justice, even in the years afterwards, is allow the police to get to the bottom of these things.

A spokesperson for the PM said: “If there are allegations or evidence then people should bring them forward to the appropriate authorities… We are saying very clearly that where there is wrong-doing it is absolutely right it should be the police who look into these matters.”

But Loughton, the Labour MP Simon Danczuk who has been at the forefront of fighting for these investigations, and 130 MPs who have been backing Danczuk's call for a “Hillsborough-style” inquiry, will be disappointed by this response.

The Home Office has until Monday to account for the missing dossier under the instruction of home affairs select committee chair Keith Vaz MP. With this development in sight, and Loughton’s threat to name names, it looks like this story – which has so far remained relatively under the radar – will be significantly bigger next week.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Dan Kitwood/Getty
Show Hide image

I believe only Yvette Cooper has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy Corbyn

All the recent polling suggests Andy Burnham is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy Corbyn, says Diana Johnson MP.

Tom Blenkinsop MP on the New Statesman website today says he is giving his second preference to Andy Burnham as he thinks that Andy has the best chance of beating Jeremy.

This is on the basis that if Yvette goes out first all her second preferences will swing behind Andy, whereas if Andy goes out first then his second preferences, due to the broad alliance he has created behind his campaign, will all or largely switch to the other male candidate, Jeremy.

Let's take a deep breath and try and think through what will be the effect of preferential voting in the Labour leadership.

First of all, it is very difficult to know how second preferences will switch. From my telephone canvassing there is some rather interesting voting going on, but I don't accept that Tom’s analysis is correct. I have certainly picked up growing support for Yvette in recent weeks.

In fact you can argue the reverse of Tom’s analysis is true – Andy has moved further away from the centre and, as a result, his pitch to those like Tom who are supporting Liz first is now narrower. As a result, Yvette is more likely to pick up those second preferences.

Stats from the Yvette For Labour team show Yvette picking up the majority of second preferences from all candidates – from the Progress wing supporting Liz to the softer left fans of Jeremy – and Andy's supporters too. Their figures show many undecideds opting for Yvette as their first preference, as well as others choosing to switch their first preference to Yvette from one of the other candidates. It's for this reason I still believe only Yvette has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy and then to go on to win in 2020.

It's interesting that Andy has not been willing to make it clear that second preferences should go to Yvette or Liz. Yvette has been very clear that she would encourage second preferences to be for Andy or Liz.

Having watched Andy on Sky's Murnaghan show this morning, he categorically states that Labour will not get beyond first base with the electorate at a general election if we are not economically credible and that fundamentally Jeremy's economic plans do not add up. So, I am unsure why Andy is so unwilling to be clear on second preferences.

All the recent polling suggests Andy is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy. He trails fourth in London – where a huge proportion of our electorate is based.

So I would urge Tom to reflect more widely on who is best placed to provide the strongest opposition to the Tories, appeal to the widest group of voters and reach out to the communities we need to win back. I believe that this has to be Yvette.

The Newsnight focus group a few days ago showed that Yvette is best placed to win back those former Labour voters we will need in 2020.

Labour will pay a massive price if we ignore this.

Diana Johnson is the Labour MP for Hull North.