Wednesday, 3 December 2008

Cameron's candid camera


So, the Conservatives have finally released their tape of Damian Green's offices being searched (above) and finally the Conservative Party is starting to lose it's virtuous shine. Even it's own supporters are turning against it; Benedict Brogan reports this morning of 'nervousness amoung Tory MP's' that the Conservatives are 'overplaying their hand'. Peter Riddell in The Times says;

"contrary to many furious comments since last week, parliamentary privilege applies only to what is said and does not give MPs or their offices within the Palace of Westminster any special protection from the law and police inquiries."

Meanwhile, Iain Dale says;

"I just get the feeling that some people in the Tory Party are getting far too cocky about the the complete misjudgement by the Police and the Government over Damian Green."

Dizzy blasts the release of the video as 'silly' and goes on;

"The result being that the charge of "false outrage" and "political opportunism" becomes more salient."

The release of the video shows that David Camerons first thought upon hearing this news was how to make political capital out of it for the Conservative Party not a sense of impinged honour for 'civil liberties' which is something the Tories are in favour of when they are out of power but never when they are in it. Really, the thrust of the Green affair is to show how bad politics and government is and the problems are manifest in both main parties. This should be an opportunity for us to say how we would change things and not bang the opportunist drums of outraged support for Cameron's Conservatives.


Hywel said...

"contrary to many furious comments since last week, parliamentary privilege applies only to what is said"

This is not true. There are instances where it has been held to apply to correspondence which is a relevant issue to the seizure of correspondence.

Darrell G said...


I think it is fair to say there is some debate over the issue of whether parliamentary privilege actually applies with different constitutional experts feeling different ways...Vernon Bogdanor took exactly the line Riddell did in his article..

One of the point that arises out this is the need for a codified constitution...