The Spectator’s Notes | 8 April 2006

When Bill Clinton was threatened with impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair, I was keen that the Daily Telegraph, which I was editing at the time, should add fuel to the flames. A little earlier, I had edited the Sunday Telegraph and our Washington correspondent, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, had done brilliant work — better than anyone even in America itself — in exposing the shadiness of Clinton’s Arkansas connections. I thought (and I still think) that Clinton was a bad man. It seemed right that he should get his come-uppance. To my surprise, though, our then proprietor, Conrad Black, sounded a warning note. Would it really be a good thing for the presidency, he asked, if its occupant could easily be thrown out because of such allegations? Wouldn’t the partisan temptations be just too great? How could an American president, who governs more by prestige than by untrammelled power, do his job if he can too readily be subject to judicial investigation? Now that Conrad himself faces charges, some might question his motives in taking the line he did, but I think he meant what he said, and that he was right. Although political leaders in democracies should not have immunity from prosecution, there should be a strong presumption against fighting what are really political power battles in the courts. Today there may be a momentary frisson of pleasure at the idea that Tony Blair could do time (see Peter Oborne’s interesting investigation opposite) for selling honours, but it is very hard to imagine that such an issue could be fairly decided by judge and jury. (The Prime Minister is also being pursued, by the way, under the Race Relations Act because he may have exclaimed, ‘F–—ing Welsh’ after their devolution referendum in 1997.) In a free society, the best punishment for a politician is electoral defeat, not handcuffs.