Thursday 14 December
- 14 Dec 06, 05:09 PM
Dear Viewers,
Tony Blair made political history today, and not in the way he would have hoped. There was a knock on the door of Number Ten, and in came police officers for a little chat.
He is the first serving Prime Minister to be interviewed by the police. Will the combination of the cash for honours scandal and the war in Iraq put a lasting blight on Tony Blair's ten years as leader, and the office of Prime Minister?
Also tonight: the real focus of the Ipswich murder investigations; we reveal more about the Litvinenko murder; and singing Ban Ki Moon.
Comment on here.
Comments Post your comment
Trust me, I'm turning over to "This Week" before Ban Ki Moon starts singing.
The other material seems serious, although you've been following the Ipswich and Litvinenko stories (though not the Blair questioning) for several nights now. Maybe "Newsnight" should try to follow stories spread across a slightly wider spectrum. Daily news coverage will be dealing with these two very unpleasant stories. Newsnight could stick to background and investigative reportage, maybe.
And the 主播大秀 could also make sure that "Question Time" does not, during the rest of the year, overlap with "Newsnight". Both are worthwhile programmes.
Complain about this post
The big story today - the sheer audacity of the news management
Diana
Postoffices
Blair interviewd
then slam dunk
the BAESystems investigation is off - and the world will be the right way up tomorrow. Sooo slick -
'Storm the reality studios - retake the unverse!'
There's a headline for you. Anon I think .. paris 68 graffitti - Situationist in case you weren't with me ;-))
Complain about this post
Cash for honours - or honours for cash, whatever,it provides another example of how this government (and the opposition?)rewards all the wrong things, sending out a bad message that anything but true merit will be rewarded. Thus does society reap what it sows: individual greed before the common good. Forgive me for flogging this point again, but I firmly believe we must get back to encouraging real achievementif we are to re-build our society. Why not try a form of means testing based on one's contribution to society? If such factors as - how many years have you paid taxes and National Insurance contributions? have you done any military service? or voluntary work? etc., were taken into account then perhaps I would not find myself right at the end of the NHS queue for the past 6 months, and I might actually get approval to bring one of my wife's relatives from Philippines on a visit, instead of yet another refusal, meanwhile witnessing thousands of immigrants allowed entry without invitation or sponsorship, and handed benefits and housing having contributed nothing to UK society.
Complain about this post
But BAE are apparently not getting money !
The 主播大秀 says they are being paid in crude (or is it petro-dollars); and it may not be of any quality if the fields are running out as we are led to believe.
Complain about this post
Just been watching Newsnight about the Attorney General dropping the investigation into the kickbacks for the Saudi Arabian (SA) arms deal with the UK. The justification being the French or the Americans would get the deal. Sounds like a bully (SA) threatening to drop the bullied (UK) as a 'friend' if they tell the teacher about the crime (investigate the kickbacks).
Then we have the US (bully) threatening to drop the bullied (UK) as a 'friend' if they don't join in with the crime (invasion of Iraq).
Is it a case that Britain is the abused child of the West?
Just a thought
Complain about this post
Been observing the fuss made about cash for honours with increasing supprise, if the very rich wish to buy useless positions in a neutered house then why should we stop them? The only alternative is that we fund the parties from tax payers money, money which would be better spent on schools and hospitals.
Complain about this post
A HANDBAG?
To adjust the law once might be considered chancy - to be caught blatently doing it a second time is surely carelessness. Another of Blair's Men showing us the real Blair.
Complain about this post
What a fascinating program!
Complain about this post
Can someone from Newsnight please explain why Iain Dale was asked to appear on the show tonight?
Complain about this post
Manjit, not sure what your problem is with Iain Dale. He spoke a lot of sense and balanced up Tony Wright. And he wasn't as partisan as you might have expected.
Complain about this post
What was extraordinary about tonight's programme was its bias. The real peerage investigation story was that Blair is not going to be prosecuted, as he would have to have been questioned under caution to make that a possibility. Any criminal lawyer could tell you that. The questioning of Blair as a possible witness does not mean he has brought disgrace on his office. It means he is doing his civic duty. The cynicism that characterises almost everything Newsnight does these days was manifest.
The "good day to bury bad news" angle presupposs that we were so preoccupied with another episode of the tiresome Diana soap - so Fayed was wrong, big deal - that we would not notice Blair being questioned. Perhaps Downing Street also arranged for Monty to take five wickest for the same sinister purpose! Get real.
So a two and a half year investigation into bribery allegations from 20 years ago was being abandoned to save tens of thousands of job, and to maintain good relations with a powerful ally in the Mid East. Right decision. It is not Britain's responsibility to police the morals of the Saudi Royal Family.
Mind you I only watched tonight's show after I saw that Paxman wasn't on it, as I have run out of patience with his rampantly insulting interviewing style and can't take any more of it.
And Newsnight used to be worth watching. Now it is just tabloid television.
Complain about this post
I am thoroughly disgusted - and not the slightest bit surprised - that the Saudi Arabian investigation has been halted. What with Son of Trident, Slush funds (SA/BAE - allegedly), Slush funds (= Cash for Honours = Labour = allegedly) Slush funds (Conservatives = allegedly also), Health Service, Road pricing etc ad infinitum, it would appear that it's about the money, only about the money and damn any moral (let alone legal) alternative.
National Interest = what's that then? Does Iraq come under that all encompassing yet curiosly un- or ill-defined miasma?
What about corporate responsibility of Government? Thank you Newsnight as ever for highlighting the big issues -could we have Jeremy for P.M. please?
Maybe I could film a documentary about his leadership credentials - I am sure he would be delighted, and, after all, he only lives just down the road from me . . . . Yours naively
Complain about this post
Lets look at the chronology of these events. diana, then police and Saudi Arabia story.
As Jo Moore once so articulatly said, a good day to burry bad news.
Complain about this post
Would somebody please explain to me why public outcry in Britain is impotent?
I have a theory: the economy has been growing for 12 years.
David Lebor
Complain about this post
hello newsnight
Surprised police did not read the "riot act" to robin hood
and maybe maid marian will defend him
in court ....
Brazil has no extradition treaty with rest of planet and like our dear citizen, ronnie biggs a place of refuge..safe haven.
my cynical mind on overdrive !
peace and love
compton of CHERIN in ENGLAND not scotland ireland or wales
Complain about this post
The program hosted by Kirsty Walk was blantantly biased, misguided and inappropriate against the British Government both in the line of questioning Ms Walk took - and in the disbelieving and adversary attitude.
Specifically during the item on alleged bribes to the house of Saudi by BAe. These totally unfounded allegations were twisted and used by Ms Walk to interogate MP Hoyle, in the manner of a Gestapo operative.
Her lack of cohesive questioning technique and constant interruption to his answers was amateur and annoying. MP Hoyle won the battle against her, his constituency of British workers jobs was more than a match for Walk's ridiculous 'moral high ground' attack. How grating for those in the North West listening to her prattle-on about how he should be more concerned about democracy rather than those worker's poverty. Is she not aware that business 'gifts' are an everyday occurance around the world and especially when huge billion pound contracts are at stake. MP Hoyle consistently pointe dout that the alleged kick-back happened well over 20 years ago in the Thatcher years. She wouldn't respond to that - not in her editorial script perhaps.
Would Kirsty Walk have taken the same stance if all the jobs at risk were located in Scotland?
I think not.
Complain about this post
I'm new to blogging and I'm posting here because I've only just realised that 'blogs go cold' - speaking of which 主播大秀 weather replaced the term snow this morning with 'wintery stuff' more PC? Anyway...
Do my eyes deceive me? With the wealth of discussions on current affairs, class politics and world corruption to contribute to on this site, there are 208 posts about brussel sprouts!!!
C.Eric, do you have any suggestions as to how the blogs could be both less fragmented and more evolutionary? Could specific programme discussions slot into ongoing debates on the same topic? So for example, one could scroll down Ethical Man's blog to track sub-heads such as Food, Wind, etc. Then maybe the 'Comment on last night's show' option could be reserved for comments on the standard of journalism per se?
Complain about this post
Tony Fellows - I don't know which programme you were watching last night, but it clearly wasn't the same one I saw.
Kirsty Wark [check the spelling] - 'in the manner of a Gestapo operative' ?
Do me a favour !
And 'adversary [sic] questioning' ?
It is meant to be adversarial - it is a one to one interview.
You mention her 'interruptions' - the only ones of these I saw were where MP Hoyle was rudely blathering on and refusing to answer her reasonable questions and she wanted to get him back on track.
You mention 'moral high ground' - when a government comes in promising to be 'whiter than white' is it any wonder that their hypocrisy should be brought to book by interviewers ?
How dare you insinuate that it would be different if it were 'Scottish' jobs - KW is a professional and very impartial in my view. On the other hand the MP's silence on the point about the 'rule of law' - deafening.
Complain about this post
Clifford Longley - I hardly think you are an 'independent witness' in these matters...
Cynicism ? Health scepticism is more like it, and if Newsnight doesn't ask these questions - who will ?
Particularly annoying is condescending to us with your point about the 'Stevens Enquiry'. I am not interested in it.
But I am sure that Downing Street would have been interested in the date of its publication - and would have a view on the amount of news coverage it would get.
You may have a point about it not being 'Britain's role to police the Saudi Royal Family' - so why all the sanctimonious tosh from Government officials - why not just ask them to admit from day 1 that they were going to pay whatever bribes were needed.
Sorry, sir, but it isn't Newsnight that is biased - it is you.
Complain about this post
SAUDI-ARABIA AND GOVERNMENT LED CORRUPTION?
At the time in question, the 1980s and even now, bribery in one form or other was deemed by the many of the multinationals to be to be a necessary form of marketing in countries outside of the developed world. Thus, in Africa, I was personally involved in negotiations between governments and the mining corporations where I was 鈥 legitimately in this case 鈥 offered 10% of a $1 billion deal to act as the middleman. I was, however, informed that the usual means of doing business was for government ministers to be offered bribes to conclude deals with most other countries. At the extreme, I was informed by senior management in the oil industry that they knew that almost all Nigeria鈥檚 oil revenues went straight into numbered accounts in Switzerland. Indeed they cynically referred to such governments as 鈥榢leptocracies鈥!
In the context of BaE, however, my involvement was in a potential scandal which occurred in its dealings with Oman at about the same time, rather than that in neighbouring Saudi-Arabia though the activities seem to have been much the same. Thus, BaE persuaded the Sultan of Oman to buy the wrong sort of Rapier Missile system: the mobile version, rather than the fixed one (or vice versa, after so long a time the details are now hazy), because it had one of these left on the shelf! The way it achieved this sale was by covertly giving an influential member of the Sultan鈥檚 entourage a 拢1 million bribe.
I became involved when a close friend, having by a circuitous route learned of this deal and hence become a threat to the bribed individual, was summarily deported from Oman and his assets seized. On my advice he approached the UK government, having discretely pointed out that his only means of obtaining any financial recompense was to sell the story to Fleet Street. His meeting took place at the FCO, where however the members of his audience refused to identify themselves; but were fairly obviously from the SIS. His personal outcome was that his problems were rapidly sorted out. More interestingly, I presumed at the time as a backup in case the story leaked (which it never did), the press reported that a senior member of the UK military had been arrested on suspicion of corruption in the Middle East. That story, which was headline news at the time, disappeared once the threat of exposure was over!
Accordingly, I suspect the current embarrassment is probably not because BaE gave bribes to obtain business - it clearly was its normal mode of operation at the time 鈥 but because the (then Tory) UK government, specifically in the form of the military and SIS, was then so heavily involved at the highest levels in such corruption with the inner circles of the Saudi royal family.
Complain about this post
They say Blair was not cautioned by the Police ergo questioned as a witness only..& NOT by Yates(that seemed very strange!!) so, as we know that he is not to be charged with any impropriety!or do we?( He's a Barrister so could have decided to act for himself under caution & who at No 10 would broadcast that?)
Whatever, WE all know "cash for peerages" has occurred on Blair's watch so just who is going to be the fall guy/gal( he stated publicly that he would take responsiblity, but then, he's said that repeatedly). Reportedly & very recently "The Great Clunking Fist"has been caught ? with his FIST in the cookie jar... that story develops,or not, as i write..How do Labour MPs explain this alleged sleasy, disgraced (on so many issues & policies) Government actions to their faithfull electorate? It will be very difficult to talk their way out of this mess ..so it's hard work on the doorsteps next year!!New Labour voters are intelligent and increasingly "ever more savvy" with the support of todays media coverages.!
The Saudi deal has been waived through to protect British interests.. so to hell with the Law.. commerce et al can all now engage in the Bungs culture...!!
Complain about this post
Kirsty mentioned the Stephens' Report on last night's Newsnight so can I offer my twopenn'orth about it on the Newsnight blog?
It is being well discussed on the Main News "Have Your Say" stream.
So, surely this might be be a good time for the Palace to consult their learned friends on arraigning the Harrods' boss Mr. El Fayed on some charge of bringing the name of Prince Philip into some state of disrepute?
I've always had great respect for the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards scheme and find it hard to believe without good evidence that he is a nasty plotter.
Or, as we are a constitutional monarchy, should the Government consider whether El Fayed's continued wild accusations of the Monarchy and MI6 collusion in Murder could possibly be damaging to the security and well being of the State and invite him to sojourn elsewhere at the very least and run Harrod's from some offshore residence.?
I was sorry that we had to call the Stuarts back but glad that we got rid of them in 1688 and found we could put up with most of the Georges.
( I thought that Victoria had a good innings and, in my heart, hoped that Tony Blair would have followed her example in the number of years' service. )
Perhaps now we should recognise that the Windsors are closely entwined with our State and we should make some defence of their personal reputations if they are being irrationally besmirched.
Complain about this post
Very compelling programme.
Astonishing the number of individuals who seemed to suggest that British politicians are or should be 'holier-than-thou'. I have always thought of jobs in politics and defence as one of the most corrupt or at the very least corruptible, largely because any involvement with these is highly profitable and thus secretive.
In my experience, the issue of corruption in the developing world vs. corruption in Western democracies is not so much about morality as it is about common sense: the 'West' never really had the moral high-ground on this, as anyone who knows a little about colonial history is aware. Examples such as comment #20 (and there are many, many more like that) only serve to further illustrate this.
Success in eradicating corruption in developing countries does not depend on how 'clean' Western donors are but on how determined they are to reign in or even get rid of governments whose personal interests outstrip their duties. While there may very well be (large-scale?) corruption in this great country of ours, the vast majority of us are relatively healthy and economically secure (schooling, health care, social welfare net, accessible judicial system, etc). In the developing world the link between corruption, misery and death is obvious, direct and undeniable to anyone who has eyes, ears and a brain. You don't need 'moral high-ground' to deal with that, you need guts and above all strong and unrelenting collective pressure.
Complain about this post
It's simply "realpolitik" and probably dawns on the innocent domestic politician as he/she gains experience on the international scene.
Unlike poster no. 23 I disagree that politics is a corrupt business. My personal experience of politicians of ALL parties is that they are NOT corrupt but rather individuals driven by a desire to help others and contribute to society. Many of them have a personal interest, say in education, business, health or the environment. Often it's only when they become involved in foreign/defence/international trade that they begin to see the bigger picture.
The idea that we can make nice democratic domestic laws and expect all other countries to answer to them is laughable. The kind of naieve posturing by the Liberal Democrats contributes to their being regarded as politically immature.
It wasn't that long ago that a UK government supplied arms to Saddam. That was for wider political reasons and the hope and expectation would have been to secure a moderate ally in the troubled Middle East or at least neutralise a possible enemy. And for that governments are often denounced as unprincipled as though politics was static. But that's the chance politicians take. Sometimes they need courage to take such steps. But they know the competition is using such tactics. For example, see this Australian Broadcasting Corporation report from last month:
LOCATION:
"Broadcast: 28/11/2006
Bribery widespread in international trade: former diplomat
'While AWB may have been the biggest rorter of the UN oil for food scheme, it was one of 2,253 foreign companies that paid illegal surcharges and kickbacks to the Iraqi regime.'"
In an ideal world, and eventually more of the world WILL become "ideal", things will be different. But until we get to that blissful state, we need to depend on our leaders to have an eye on the balls being juggled on the international trade and political scene for the sake of security of all kinds. To do anything less would be a dereliction of duty.
Tony Blair is still able to touch the parts other politicians cannot reach, even, and perhaps particularly, at this stage in his career. His experience has brought him a wide understanding of the issues. Wonder how long it'll take the next prime minister, if ever, to get up to speed.
Complain about this post
BlairSupporter - you are entitled to your positive opinions of Tony Blair, and I will concede he does have many leadership qualities.
But what I would like you to do is explain why he has sought to portray himself as above all that realpolitik?
You may think what is happening to him is unfair, as another leader, of say the Conservative party, might have acted in a similar way for 'security interests'.
Or whatever other fig-leaf reason he or she would have come up with. But by TB setting himself up to be 'purer than pure' and his self - styled mission to 'clean up politics' he has been hoist by his own petard.
So his protestations that he is hard done by ring as hollow as Jonathan Aitken [remember him] promising to 'cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism'.
If it wasn't for that journalism, this might still be 'under wraps'.
Complain about this post
The only surprise about Tony's halting of the SFO investigation of BAe bribes is that more programmes like 'Newsnight' are not asking if it could have anything to do with the fact that New Labour, like the Tories before them, have been benefiting from all this largesse?
Since the SFO are no longer involved, the only way viewers will be able to find out is to examine the results of my own 18 year investigation into arms corruption of the British body politic - an investigation which began, ironically, with a D-Notice slapped against 'Newsnight' in 1989...
Complain about this post
Blairsupporter: I was referring to the mix of politics and defence activities when talking about 'most corrupt(ible)'. I was not going to question politicians' (initial?) personal motivations although it seems slightly ironic to raise such considerations for a sector that trades in commodities which are inherently destructive. Politics is heavily involved, if in doubt google for the likes of 'defence sector corruption'. Generally, governments/officials are at least in the know; more often than not they are directly implicated.
Complain about this post
BLAIR POLITIQUE CRITIQUE
I have a 29 陆 鈥渋nside leg and therein lies the root of poor governance, which leads on to cultural decline. You doubt me? Let me take you into a gents toilet; hold your nose, the stench is right off the Richter scale.
OK. Look at the natty little bowls for catching the streams of urine emanating from a row of men 鈥 legs somewhat akimbo, emptying their bladders. The place is called a 鈥渃onvenience鈥, but the only convenient pot, for me, is the one 鈥 just one 鈥 down the end; for children. I have to admit I do not know if there are EU regulations for the height of urinals, but I hold the suspicion that only men with long legs fit them, and they do it by rule of - 鈥渢humb鈥.
Just suppose very short men designed houses. We know the suffering that ensued when the sons of Nippon began shipping us cars they had developed for their own diminutive strutting-gear. Binoculars were devised by sadists with two good eyes.
They never thought to ask me my tally; nor the 3D coloured-lens-glasses brigade - come to that.
Are you getting my drift? A bunch of Anoraks will never tailor a good lounge suit.
And that brings me to my nub.
Politics is now the product of multiple distillation over centuries. Although we have parties, they all work to the same blueprint. They all take in new recruits to the same criteria of mentality; only dogma is different. So today, each and every party is a machine that looks to gain power and hold on to it by applying the one technology; government is secondary. This defines politics.
Political deliberation and chicanery steer our culture. As politics becomes more dirty so does our culture. As politics says 鈥渁nything goes鈥 culture mirrors. In short, those party-machine-chosen functionaries build us a world that suits them 鈥 and only them.
A 鈥淕reat Parliamentarian鈥 is a person who knows how to insult with style, put down with a skill that would make a vet cower in embarrassment, and praise from the depths of his head, leaving heart undisturbed. (All the things we would be embarrassed to witness in our children.)
Current events in government have plumbed the depths of decline, and our society is aping as fast as decay can spread. The world looks on as our core rots while we declare our moral superiority, and one can only wonder what they are thinking.
Soon the urinals will be so high, I shall have no option but to piss on Britain, conforming to the New Culture of nest-fouling.
Complain about this post
After Esther Rantzen's rave tonight I wonder where she really stands. My wife works with children and has had to be checked by three different local governamnt authorities (as they don't seem to talk to each other) how mnay of Ms Rantzens family has been checked ? As most child abuse takes place by relatives or those known to the child I hope anyone person who has ever had contact with her children has been checked.
Her stupid attitude has made me concerned about Child Line and whose care it is under.
Complain about this post
C Edwards - spot on. We started off with some good ideas in the 1970s/80s but they have been made a mockery of by an inability to implement them with any common sense - policy today is based on 'possibilities' and 'averages' whereas we should be focusing on 'realities' and 'reasons'. Convicted paedophiles, who by their own admission are unable to control their behaviour, are returned to the community and yet we invest vast sums in bureaucracies to screen people who show no sign of mental / genetic dysfunction.
Complain about this post