When not all sleaze is created equal…
In a recent post Agent Orange stated that “All it takes is for good people to do nothing…” where he challenged FedEx member and PPC, Duncan Borrowman, to apply his rigorous condemnation of sleaze to his own party:
How about you Duncan Borrowman, you’re a member of the Federal Executive and an active anti-sleaze campaigner. What have you done to ensure our Party is protected from association with alleged criminals and that they are properly investigated?
Agent Orange then sent a follow up email where Duncan swiftly replied that he didn’t respond to individuals “who hide behind aliases…” Agent Orange also forwarded him the planned follow up post where he intended to call Borrowman a hypocrite.In a bizarre post on his own blog Borrowman reprinted Agent Orange’s planned post with a rather disheartening justification of his behaviour:
For the record, my answers are:
1. I am a Liberal Democrat. My public pronouncements on the failings of politicians will always be about my political opponents, not those in the same party as me.
2. Anything I may do internally in the party will remain internal, and confidential. Whatever the issue.
End of story. (P.S. None of his “occasional couriers at Liberal Vision” has been in touch with me, and I am not sure I would give them the time of day if they did!)
The last point is certainly not for lack of trying; here is a screencap of the letter that I sent on the 25th August :
The email must have bounced or something…
Agent Orange then followed up:
It’s not the response I hoped for; Duncan has said whilst attacking others, he will refuse to comment on or condemn sleaze by Liberal Democrats. This is the kind of tribal hypocrisy that drives members of the public mad and I think he’s wrong to take that stance.
Sleaze is sleaze. it is not unique to any party but how parties deal with it is important, and surely the best way forward is for parties to get their own houses in order to ensure people don’t fall into the trap of believing the only crime is to get caught?
The peers in question should be properly investigated internally, and if their answers are not satisfactory they should be expelled for disrepute. We should also assist Parliament and the Police with their inquiries, not engage in cover-ups.
He has also said that anything internal to the Liberal Democrats will remain internal and confidential, which is fair enough, only the Liberal Democrat response to peergate is already public, and clearly inadequate.
One has to feel sorry for the constituents of Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight - they’ve have an MP disgraced over a sleaze row and now they have a PPC that will only fight sleaze selectively.
Ranked no. 56 in the UK
Ranked no.6 in the UK
August 31st, 2009 at 12:18 am
You really don’t have a clue do you?
Your sole aim in life is to attack the Lib Dems in public.
Whereas I have said I won’t attack the party in public.
And you can’t even fathom the point I am making.
I am not in a position to influence what Labour or the Tories do from within. So I have to attack them from outside.
I am in a position to tackle things in the Lib Dems internally, so that is where I will do it. Unlike you, who just seems to want to constantly smear the party that for some unknown reason you are a member of, in public.
And yes, for the record, I will maintain the highest ethical standards as an MP, just as I did as a councillor - never attending mayor’s drinks etc.
So stop peddling your own side of a story that you are creating, just because I don’t want to play your infantile destructive games.
I will fight sleaze, at every turn, but I will do it in the most appropriate way for whatever form of sleaze I meet, not just to meet the requirements of a self appointed undemocratic tin pot pressure group.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:14 am
Re:main post. What a waste of breath!
August 31st, 2009 at 10:23 am
Coming off the back of Clegg’s declaration that we must not let expenses reform be swept under the carpet this is an innappropriate misdirection of a serious issue into one of personal attacks.
Making threats and personal attacks from behind a pseudonym is bad behaviour, and even if we all have some sympathy for the concern that firm action is taken on standards in public life I don’t think it helps the matter by failing to live up to those same standards in our own affairs.
I think Duncan Borrowman is a good person to identify as someone who could comment more explicitly on the processes we have undertaken as a party, although to preempt the outcome of them by mentioning specific cases and instances would be unwise and unhelpful.
There is a sense of impatience and a worry that a positive outcome will be fudged, but I don’t think Sara or Agent Orange have handled themselves as well as they could have in seeking to agitate in the manner that they have.
So, tempers cooled, let’s use this opportunity to have a responsible and mature dialogue.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:40 am
Political parties exist to win elections.
The Conservatives understand that - their party has been a pretty successful election-winning machine over the last century. Labour figured it out in the 1990s and reaped the rewards. Most people in the Lib Dems have worked it out too.
It isn’t about supressing or not suppressing sleaze, it’s about not washing your dirty linen in public. Don’t do it if you can avoid it.
The party has a moral obligation to sort out internal problems and should be rightly criticised if it fails. It does not have an obligation to do it in public, to self-flagellate over it or to voluntarily offer its opponents a gift on a plate.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:44 am
Duncan, a couple of questions on your approach - how are we (ie. those outside the internal structures of the party) supposed to know what action is being taken within - if everything happens surreptitiously, behind closed doors? Should we simply trust those in charge? And should those of us not involved in internal structures (the vast majority of party members) not be able to comment on these issues without being accused of “attacking the LDs in public”?
August 31st, 2009 at 10:49 am
But Costigan, sleaze is rarely an internal problem - it concerns the theft of public money.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:29 am
For those of you who follow rugby as well as politics and have been following bloodgate, which has been the Telegraph’s page filler since expensesgate, you should read Brian Moore in today’s Telegraph (available on line). Some strong comparisons can be drawn about how people can be wrongly treated, lives and careers can be destroyed, in the urge to fill column inches or satisfy rabid libertarian bloggers with nothing better to do than press destruct buttons
August 31st, 2009 at 11:34 am
Julian. The theft of public money is first and foremost an issue for the police and the authorities.
Where, as on this occasion, there’s a case for political parties taking action separately to that, it should be dealt with internally following the proper procedures and the outcome announced publically.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:40 am
Whose life is being destroyed?
August 31st, 2009 at 11:52 am
Mr. Borrowman: stop digging. You do realise this is a public forum, right? Your local newspapers should have a field day… and good for them, I say.
Thank you, Ms. Scarlett, for reminding me why I’m not a member of any political party.
As for “Political parties exist to win elections”: on the contrary, “washing your dirty linen in public” is the only way to win election. Why on earth would an average member of the public vote for such a transparently tribal bunch of people? Building trust with the public is the only valuable long-term strategy.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:55 am
People who are accused of criminal acts expressed in ways that assume their guilt in trial by internet.
But then I may go in for a bit of trial by internet myself soon.
August 31st, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Dear GF
I am sure my local papers will see this. Maybe Liberal Vision should have thought about that before they published the outrageous thoughts of somebody who only has the aim of damaging the party as she demonstrated in her failed attempt to become chair of Liberal Youth
August 31st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I haven’t followed all this business too closely but from what I can tell these pieces have called for the party to investigate and then take action if necessary (and be seen to be doing this) following fair and open proceedings. This is quite different, indeed polar opposite, to a trial by internet.
So if I ask “have the party looked into whether Rennard’s primary home was in Eastbourne?” I’m not saying “STRING HIM UP! IT’S A LIE!” I’m actually asking for the party to do the right thing and investigate the matter. Then, if it’s the case, they can reassure us that no wrongdoing has taken place, and we can all move on and get back to attacking Cameron’s vacuous “policies”.
August 31st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Mr Borrowman (if it’s really you… I can’t quite bring myself to believe that someone looking to get elected would really behave as you are now!),
This is matter of public interest and therefore can be discussed in public. We are discussing particularly your statement
I can assure you that your political opponents include those who misuse public funds, even those in the same party as you. Otherwise, you may find that most of the voting public become your political opponents too.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Duncan, I’m surprised you’re still digging on this:
“I am in a position to tackle things in the Lib Dems internally, so that is where I will do it.”
So bluntly, in respect of peergate, what have you done?
All that is publicly evident is that you prejudged any investigation by publishing a staunch defence of Rennard and accused his critics of being “ungrateful b*$^@%}s”, and have lately been commenting about the different standards you apply to Lib Dem and non-Lib Dem sleaze.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Still digging? Sorry, you started this venom from behind your mask of anonymity. Anyway you take my comments about Chris out of context. I was referring to those bright young things who talk as if the party would have been better off without him.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:35 pm
AO,
no, it’s not appropriate that Duncan describes what he has done at this point. That would preempt due process.
However it would be appropriate for him to use his position to communicate how the process works and what challenges and issues are being faced. Where are we? Is there a list of potential mechanisms worth discussing (such as the rent-only housing allowance mentioned by Clegg)?
Where defensive reactions are provoked it is only natural that some guilt will be assumed, so it is important that communication channels are kept open and used to demonstrate our proactive approach to increasing transparency.
Might I suggest that Duncan could support Clegg’s message from a few days ago by putting a bit of meat on the bones for us plebs. I’m sure LDV would welcome a contribution.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:00 pm
[...] that and some of the comments on this week’s heated row over at LV it seems reasonable to update the About section of this site so people are more clear [...]
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 am
If Duncan thinks his local papers will be interested in this, he is even more deluded than I thought
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Lost in the detail a little on this though is the original point of the inquiry, which was to see whether the perception that the Federal Executive had done nothing about peergate, or the cover-up by Shutt & Scott through a deliberately inadequate and ‘outside the rules’ inquiry, was correct.
Duncan’s spasms of rage about being asked such questions would be more reasonable had he answered with a strong clarification of what the FE or he had actually done and why.
Even now though he hasn’t even responded to Orangjepan’s very modest request for a clarification of what constitutes due process in the party on such matters.
You can judge for yourself whether this is evidence for or against there being a cover-up and nonfeasance.
Is this important?
I think so for two reasons. First on the issue at hand is that the party is now in a very difficult position should external investigations against the accused escalate, which is not improbable given Parliament are investigating Rennard, and the Police other peers.
This is not just a reputational difficulty, although given Clegg’s statements the hypocrisy is stunning, the FE’s inaction already means tens of thousands of the member’s money has been spent paying off Lord Rennard for his ‘resignation’. It is unclear whether more money is now either being spent on defending him in the Parliamentary inquiry or will be spent in future for any peer so accused.
That is the immediate problem. The second issue it raises, is what is the point of the Federal Exeuctive?
Personally I think we need a strong, democratic member’s body within the party to hold the Leader, Chief Executive, and other delegated party bodies to account. The Federal Executive/President as constituted already have those powers, some actual some through influence, and you could not have had a more stark test of how it chooses to use them than the public exposure of the Chief Executive on accusations of fraud.
I think the evidence strongly shows the Chief Whip in the Lords and President have behaved improperly and the FE have let them do it without so much as a whimper of protest.
Which leads us back to problem one, and what would happen should such a situation arise again. That should cause all of us some concern.