Daily Archives: May 22, 2006

Blair ‘paying the price’ over sleaze

The Committee on Standards in Public Life is embarking on an enquiry into the Electoral Commission and key issues such as voter registration, arrangements for postal voting and standards of propriety in financing political parties, issues that have been of interest on this weblog for some time.

As Blair stalls on appointing a Labour representative to the enquiry the chairman, Sir Alistair Graham, has gone to the media…

From The Scotsman

TONY Blair has made his government seem as sleazy as the previous Conservative administration because he “ignored” the importance of upholding of standards, Britain’s standards watchdog has warned.

Sir Alistair Graham, the chairman of the committee on standards in public life, accused the Prime Minister of not taking sufficient action to mitigate the string of scandals that has tarnished his government.

The Labour government was paying a heavy price, as public confidence in ministers plummeted, he said in an unprecedentedly robust attack.

“I think it’s a major error of judgment,” Sir Alistair said.

“Opinion polls [show] the public think this government is as sleazy as the last.

“He has paid a heavy price for ignoring standards. We would have preferred more positive support from the Prime Minister. We suspect he is pretty lukewarm to the work we do.”

The standards watchdog’s warning was underscored by a poll that showed that more than half of voters want the Prime Minister to face criminal charges over the loans-for-peerages scandal. An ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph showed that

53 per cent of the 1,004 voters surveyed wanted to see Mr Blair prosecuted, and 36 per cent feel he should not face charges.

Reports also surfaced that the Metropolitan Police investigation triggered by the SNP’s complaint was tightening its inquiry around senior Downing Street aides. Although Sir Alistair, a former head of the Police Complaints Commission, has criticised the government before, the severity of his latest attack is unprecedented.


View with comments