Toxic Contempt

What's the point of Twitter? Who, other than Stephen Fry, can articulate so many daily aphorisms about their fascinating lives?

Well, Twitter came of age this week, when thousands of Twits ensured the wider world got to know the huge oil trading company, Trafigura, had succeeded in secretly preventing the reporting of Parliament.

Under the terms of an injunction granted by the High Court, the Guardian said in an article on 13 October, it was prevented from reporting Parliament and forbidden for saying why. "Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret."

Such articles are far from usual and attracted intense interest from the Twittering classes. And so a spontaneous, organic response erupted to trace a controversial PQ and publicise it. It was not very long before those Twitters zero-ed in on Paul Farrelly (Lab. Newcastle Under Lyme) who had put down questions for Justice Minister, Jack Straw on current cases of whistleblowing and court injunctions. One question was specifically about the legal suppression of the 'Minton' report commissioned by Trafigura, detailing their illegal toxic dumping of oil by-products in Ivory Coast in 2006. The net was deluged with exchanges on Trafigura and by 2 p.m the following day, the injunction was partially lifted.

Knowledge of this obscene example of insatiable corporate greed has spread exponentially against the efforts by Trafigura to shut down the story through old-fashioned libel bully boys, lawyers Carter-Ruck. They still suing BBC Newsnight for initially reporting, in May, the dumping which effected 10,000s of people in Abidjan, many with serious medical conditions.

Of course, MPs are a very indulgent lot, but their absolute privilege to raise any matter in Parliament combined with the media's right to report those proceedings, without prior restraint, is at the very core of British democracy. So victory is sweet for the sanctity of press freedom and its largely thanks to the new media of Twitter.

The question which the papers are not raising yet, is why was this super-injunction granted in the first place? It would be more understandable for his Honour, Mr Justice Maddison to grant an temporary injunction, pending further submissions, if any report were deemed significantly injurious to a company's trading reputation. But that could hardly be said to apply when the matter rested solely on the reporting of questions raised in Parliament, about a report whose existence was already in the public domain.

Why didn't Justice Maddison simply refuse, on the grounds an injunction would contravene the Bill of Rights which grants privilege? It is impossible to say. But the matter is to be thrashed out in the Commons next Wednesday (21 Oct) in a debate raised by Lib-Dem, Dr. Evan Harris. One presumes the public will be able to watch it on BBC Parliament. At least, if we are faced with blank screens, we will have a good idea why.

______________________________________________________

Friday. Stop Press. Carter Ruck have written to the Speaker, John Bercow and all members arguing there was still an "active" case and so the matters to be debated next week were in effect "sub judice". Again, MPs maintain Parliamentary privilege to discuss these matters, "subject to the discretion of the chair."

If any MP were foolish enough to seriously compromise an ongoing trial in a Parliamentary speech then, of course, Speaker Bercow would be correct in preventing further damage to the judicial process. But there is no trial here with a jury at risk of being swayed. Carter Ruck are only referring to any future hearing, on its own injunction, preventing the release of the details of the Minton report. The debate is about law firms interfering in the Sovereignty of Parliament.

This is Bercow's first big test as Speaker. Stand firm, stout fellow.

Cesspit of Indolence

To Westminster, for a Parliamentary debate in Portcullis House on Electoral Reform. If the organisation of the meeting was any indicator, the Electoral Reform Commission will struggle to achieve the critical mass of support for this vital constitutional change.

They had forgotten to organise a chair, there was no literature, nor nameplates let alone any refreshment. They couldn't even work the lights. The exceedingly lofty Daniel Kawczynski (Con. Shrewsbury) kicked off with Brian Donohoe (Lab. Central Ayrshire) for the First-Past-the-Post lobby. Despite half the Cabinet supporting some degree of modernisation to our thoroughly out-dated system, the reformers didn't manage to come up with one MP to speak in support- only a councillor from Glasgow, Stephen Curran and ex-Bethnal Green MP Oona King.

It was a familiar walk through the old issues. I asked Daniel K, if he could not see the democratic principle in PR, then he must at least be aware of how the system he was defending, had punished his own party. In 2005 General Election, the Tories 'won' England by a narrow 75,000 votes but Labour won 92 more seats. His reply, that under PR the Lib-Dems "would always be in power," hardly sufficed.

Then from the back sprang Douglas Carswell (above), MP for Harwich. As a Tory with good reason to anticipate imminent electoral victory, I expected him to support the status quo. But our Doug launched into a tirade about the entire electoral system from top to bottom. He called Parliament a "cesspit of indolence," which was, "monumentally useless at instigating any significant changes to itself." He argued the system which promoted only 10% turnover of seats in any election left MPs to "answer only to the whips and not the people."

Carswell, was clearly imbued with a sense of electoral radicalism, following his speech to the Commons that afternoon promoting his 10-minute rule bill on Recall and Primaries. He is, along with Daniel Hannan, a strong intellectual influence on the right wing of the party, in other words someone who I would rarely agree with politically. But Electoral Reform reaches across all political lines, its supporters have one shared political belief which should trump all others; Parliament should be based on a fair system of democratic representation.

Imminent Relapse

Sir Stuart Bell, (left) has happlily accepted the role as defiant defender of the ancien regime of MPs and their entitlement to outrageous expense claims. As one of only four Members of the Estimate Committee, he is, by definition, a pillar of the Parliamentary establishment. However, 25 years in the Commons has resulted in a thoroughly blunted sensitivity to the opinions of the electorate, even to the point of imperviousness.

The investigations by Sir Thomas Legg into how much money MPs should repay have had to rely on clarified criteria on what is reasonable expenditure. Out of the £24,000 additional cost allowance, Legg has placed a limit on gardening for £1,000 and cleaning of £2,000. On balance he appears to have got these figures about right.

But "no!" scream MPs and their chief bully Sir Stuart, "these criteria are retrospective and unfair". Indeed 'Belly' expected constituents to rally round, telling the BBC, "I think the public would accept that some breach of fairness there, is not actually proper for our Members of Parliament. " Perhaps he really believes the public think that, who can say? It is unlikley to be a commonly held view in his own, perennially depressed, Middlesborough seat.

The Old Dinosaur has conveniantly forgotten the rules set out in the Green Book state claims should be, "only made for expenditure…necessary to perform …parliamentary duties.” This over-arching principle was ignored wholesale by 100s of MPs and it is right for it to be re-applied, albeit in a slightly unscientific manner.

If one persuses the list serial offenders on gardening they are almost exclusively Conservative; Michael Howard, Gerald Howarth, Antony Steen, James Clappison. John Gummer claimed over £9,000 on the estate of his rural property and faces a massive bill. But even weeks after the Telegraph's horrow show headlines, John Selwyn still felt arrogant enough to proclaim to the East Anglian Daily Times, “I have had no critical letters or comments from constituents.” I ensured he had at least one by the following day.

Bell may feel it is his duty to protect his members, like the assistant Secretary of a trade union, but his wider duty is to the public taxpayer. Despite his emminent legal background he appears to be somewhat tongue-tied on occassion and stumbles over his words; he would be well-advised to shut up altogether.

United by Fear

William Hague may not sink 14 pints of beer tonight but I'd be surprised if the Shadow Foreign Sec didn't take a little 'Dutch' courage before the Tories' conference debate on Europe tomorrow.

The Conservatives have suppressed their anger over Europe for so long now it is unpredictable whether it will emerge or erupt. Of course, they are the only major party in Britain who were genuine when they said they supported a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. And that was because they knew the British public would have given it the traditional two-finger salute. But by the time the Cons form the Government in May or June, it will be a fully ratified Treaty and the legal strait-jacket will be firmly secured.

But they're desperate to vote about something. Bonkers Jonkers acknowledged the pickle they're in to Paxman last night; he may talk of 'consultation' but that is a world away from a national referendum. He certainly has a unique collection of political expressions; only Johnson would describe himself as, "but a toe-nail of the body politic."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8292650.stm

Cameron had already suggested to Andrew Marr on Sunday there could be a people's vote on social and employment legislation which, "we're not happy about." Such innocent words. If Britain tried to opt out of the social chapter again or take back provisions on criminal justice matters, it would require all the other EU countries to agree. Why should they?

It's rather like a footballer saying he still wants to play for the club but won't come for training sessions or play away fixtures. It amounts to self-destructive ostracism and is guaranteed to enrage all other parties. Such a referendum would rapidly descend into a question of whether Britain remained in the EU at all. It would entangle the new Conservative Government in a monumental Constitutional crisis in its infancy.

Of course, it is not just high politics and principle which is driving the party to the precipice. The imminent prospect of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair being ordained as first President of the EU Council is abhorrent to every Tory. In fact, it's the only thing they all agree on.

Whoever wins the Presidential vote (by qualified majority voting) should be largely irrelevant if you dispute the entire structural change to the politics. But 'President Blair' is an itch the Tories cannot stop scratching, in fact in speeches it appears to be inextricably tied to the referendum debacle. Boris said last week, "if we are faced with the prospect of Tony Blair suddenly emerging, suddenly pupating into an intergalactic spokesman for Europe, then I think the British people deserve a say."

Blair may assume office as early as 1 January and is odds-on (4/6) to win. Angela Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy and his old chum Berlusconi want the first incumbent to be a highly prominent figure; when one looks at the other candidates (Juncker, Balkenende) those odds begin to look a bit generous.

If all things were equal, there would be an almighty row at the Manchester Conference tomorrow. Party managers may be able to quell some of the protest and soften the tone. It would be real political theatre to see Norman ' the Polecat' Tebbitt back at the podium, belting out his small-minded, Captain Mainwaring view of the world. I'd like to Cameron smile through that one.

And Stay Out

Jean-Pierre Djimbonge is one of those odd fellows who goes on holiday on his own. As a senior lecturer at a Congolese University he lives pretty well and travels to Europe once or twice a year.

Last month, he landed at Belfast airport as part of his tour of the UK. Eventhough he had all the necessary travel documents, those honourable men at the UK Border Agency cuffed him and threw him in a police cell. After a couple of days, without access to a lawyer, he was transferred by boat to Dungavel immigration centre in Scotland. Thence began a two-week journey to another detention establishment near Heathrow, onto another near Cambridge and then back up to Scotland.
UKBA allege he was planning on entering Eire illegally, a charge they later dropped. I'm not sure that is our business in any case, more for the Irish authorities. In any event, this casual brutality meeted out on this visitor to this country is a disgrace, borne of institutional racism.
Naturally we would condemn, out of hand, any country who treated a British citizen similarly. UKBA said without irony this was an "intelligence-led operation" and in the same breath referred to stopping the movement of "drugs and weapons" thereby smearing Mr Djimbonge's good name.

Unsuprisingly, the Immigration Agency feels it is struggling to get good PR these days and so over the summer embarked a series of roadshows (I'm not making this up). The problem, they perceived was the public didn't think they were being tough enough.

So UKBA set up several displays at county fairs across England where pensioners could learn what it felt like to be handcuffed, children were fingerprinted and whole familes locked into the cold steel of a detention vehicle. Although this may sound like a satirical sketch, but UKBA really believe the tyrannical and pitiless treatment of people can be treated like some attraction at a leisure park.

I am sure Mr Djimbonge will not be returning any time soon to enjoy this country's idea of hospitality and fun.

Nation Shall Rant Unto Nation

Rupert Murdoch's long telegraphed decision to transfer the allegiance of the Sun newspaper to the Conservative Party was not the death knell of Labour's chances of electoral victory. It was merely symptomatic of Labour's steep popular decline and Murdoch's huge projected ego.

Senior Labour figures tried to appear relaxed about the decision and doubted its significance but they didn't half go on about it. Alistair Campbell, on the Daily Politics, expressed the simple truism that newspapapers do not have the same clout they had even 15 years ago. Harriet Harman added, "The press does not decide who will govern this country. The people do."

It is undeniable the printed word holds less popular sway as digital communications have begun to revolutionise opinion forming. Newspapers are but one medium; the power bases are media groups like MGN and Associated but they are still owned by the same tyrants. If we look to US to see how the revolution is progressing, we are confronted with a chilling image of the future of news broadcasting.

Murdoch has a hugely powerful media group in Fox. Its US News channel has massive reach and has formed the main bulwark against Obama, exerting more opposition force than the entire Republican party.

It is a different kind of journalism; one where adherence to the truth is hardly the main consideration and sometimes a source of intense irritation. That old BBC hack, Richard Dimbleby (above) would have thought it was some kind of tawdry satire and could not possibly be considered news reporting.

Obama's progressive agenda has rolled over these celebrity broadcasters at Fox and they have screamed back in collective hysteria. Here is Fox favourite, Glenn Beck, reviewing with Bill O'Reilly his 'beyond-apoplexy' rebuff of a supporter of a public healthcare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if3wVXSMw4M

Of course we don't have anything like this nonsense in UK. Broadly speaking BBC, ITN and Sky are fairly balanced and maintain journalistic integrity. But yet Murdoch appears to have persuaded Cameron of the need to break up this cosy cartel of news gathering and bring our own version of Fox News to these shores.

Tomorrow belongs to them.