Adam werritty

Allegations that Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind were involved in the latest ‘cash for access’ scandal is a reminder of the threat that lobbying poses to both the reputation of parliament and politics. In 2011, as Liam Fox was caught up in the Adam Werritty scandal, The Spectator examined how the lobbying industry works and how it threatens to skew our democracy: Old hands in Westminster are confident that they know what lies behind the Liam Fox-Adam Werritty relationship. With a knowing glint in their eye, they lean forward and whisper: ‘He’s a lobbyist.’ They’ve seen it all before, they say. It explains why Werritty thought it was worth spending tens

Political cultures differ. In Iran, for example, hyperbole is expected in all political conversations. So slogans always call for ‘Death to the US’, and nothing less. In Britain, of course, the use of language is more even-tempered, but other rules apply. Blaming the civil service for failure is considered OK, but charging an individual official, even a Permanent Secretary, for the same is considered off-limits. If a minister were to try it, then he’d be accused of trying to pass the buck on towards defenceless officials. But, as Camilla Cavendish points out in today’s Times (£), failure is often also the fault of senior officials who, despite problems in the

It isn’t over. That’s the abiding impression after reading Gus O’Donnell’s report into the Liam Fox farrago. I mean, the outgoing Cabinet Secretary basically admits as much in the opening paragraph of the document: “more allegations about Dr Fox’s conduct have arisen,” it observes, “many of which will be the responsibility of others to answer, including the Electoral Commission which regulates political parties and their funding.” It goes on to clarify that, “This report looks into allegations relating to potential breaches of the Ministerial Code”. In other words, this investigation was specific, not far-reaching — and it shows. So what does O’Donnell actually conclude? As expected, he does kick Fox

The Werritty case has made everyone who believes that government is controlled by lobbyists and tycoons slaver. The Guardian screams that Ministers held more than 1,500 meetings with corporate representatives in the first 10 months of the coalition, which presumably the newspapers’ readers know to disapprove of. But how many unionists did Labour meet after a year in office — and how many corporations? The party that declared itself “relaxed” about profit-making presumably met one or two profit-makers. Or did Ed Balls, when he was City minister, stay away from the Square Mile? I don’t know the numbers, but I am sure they would reveal that governments from Left and

It is as you’d think: a sea of news coverage and commentary about Liam Fox’s departure. Some of its currents are merciless, such as the Mirror’s front cover. Some are more circumspect, such as an excellent pair of articles by The Spectator’s own Matthew Parris (£) and Charles Moore. But, on the whole, there is a strange absence of finality about this story. A Defence Secretary has resigned – and rightly so, I think – but we still cannot be completely sure why. Maybe it is just the “appearance of impropreity,” as Philip Stephens puts it, that killed this Fox. Or maybe there is something more poisonous waiting to emerge

As soon as the news about G3’s funding of Adam Werritty emerged, it became clear that Liam Fox was going to have to go. Downing Street had no desire to be seen to be pushing this Thatcherite out of the Cabinet, but its test has always been that Werritty could not have been receiving money from companies with any interest in defence. Once that line was crossed, Fox was always going to have to go. I suspect that the former Defence Secretary will not be a problem for Cameron on the backbenches. Fox values loyalty highly and his friends appreciate how the Prime Minister didn’t push Fox at the first

So, who paid for Adam Werritty’s air miles? This is the question going around Westminster this afternoon. James blogged yesterday that No10 has set two tests: was Werritty being paid by defence companies, and did Fox know about it?   From what I understand, the answers to both are “no”. Werritty was not paid by any defence company — or, indeed, any company at all. His funds were provided by individual donors, who do not have even a tangential interest in the defence industry. His job was to network and provide updates about politics in general. His donors are interested in affairs in the Gulf and the Middle East, about energy

Liam Fox demonstrated today why he’ll be staying in Cabinet. He’s a tough, eloquent and effective Commons performer who does not fall to pieces when the going gets tough. George Osborne and Michael Gove were both on the front bench with him. One MP told me he saw Eric Pickles in the corridors, giving Fox a hug that almost killed him. All this reflects well on them: in politics, it’s always worth noting who stands by colleagues, and who scarpers, when it hits the fan. Fox has, finally, made the two steps required to get on top of this scandal: an apology, and full disclosure to stop the drip, drip