Comment

POLITICS AND SLEAZE

SANDA MILLER

According to Aristotle, the father of politics, man is a political animal. Politics is the backbone of civilisation: this is how we make sense of the society we live in. But history also teaches us that other than in Aristotle's seminal treatise, politics is never pure and unadulterated; it comes coloured by other factors: ideology, economics, culture and of late… sleaze.

Sleaze which is as unattractive a word as its meaning appears to have become a permanent fixture in British politics and although the use of the term 'of late' is vague, it will do for the purposes of this comment, as focus will be on the latest examples of 'sleaze' in British politics: the blunders of Home Secretary Charles Clarke and the amorous shenanigans of Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, which hit the headlines in the wake of another recent cause célèbre, namely Tessa Jowell who performed a monumental volte facei volte facei by publicising in the press her imminent divorce from her husband at that time under investigation for accepting bribes she claimed to have been unaware of.

The facts are simple enough: 1,023 foreign prisoners, some of them highly dangerous were released from prison but failed to be, deported. Instead they were released back into the community and Clarke failed to report the blunder to the Prime Minister who was informed three weeks after the event. The excuse was a 'systems error' to do with lack of proper communication. Simpler still is the case of John Prescott and his affair with his former diary secretary Ms. Tracey Temple. Curiouser, two other women have come since forward with similar stories.

It is however interesting to reflect on the way the press has chosen to report the events and for analytical purposes I have selected a middle class, middle brow broadsheet: The Guardian and a conservative tabloid: The Daily Mail, both published May 2nd, 2006.

To start with there was not a single word about Prescott in The Guardian, focus is on Clarke: still front page but only just (one column) the title of the article signed by Michael White is: 'Pressure on Clarke Grows Over Fate of Prisoners'. This is still hard news and therefore the article sticks to 'facts' as well as the opinion of the opposition: 'It's no good enough for Charles to say some time this week, perhaps after the local elections, I'll come back and tell you. I want to see an urgent statement in the House of Commons tomorrow so the public can know that these people who are putting them at risk are being brought in' stated the Shadow Tory, David Davies. We do have however conflicting reports concerning Mr. Clarke's intention to resign: on the one hand we are told that he offered to resign last week, on the other that he did not. On the contrary he continues - in a rather arrogant manner - to consider himself the best man for the job: 'My own strength of character dealing with the points that are raised, on the support of my own political colleagues, and mostly importantly (sic) on the decisions of the prime minister'

Not surprisingly, The Daily Mail focuses on the 'love rat', choosing however to cover the Clarke affair in a more hysterical style in two articles: James Slack (Home Affairs Editor) writes: 'Prisoner crisis? This is nothing compared with 7/7, says Clarke'. Too true, until somebody strikes; and just such an example was produced by Andy Dolan on the opposite page: 'My son's blood is on your hands, Mr. Clarke, says murder victim's mother'. Highly inflammatory but the interesting issue here is that the murderer, Mark Wright, a Jamaican smuggling drugs from his homeland into Britain. The story however is not recent: thus, we are told: 'it is believed that Wright was stopped at Heathrow Airport in December 2000 and later sentenced to nine months in prison'. Afterwards he moved to Birmingham and then killed Mrs. Dorothy Gayle's (herself born in Jamaica, and a mother of eight who arrived in Britain in l970) son. What the article does not emphasise is that Donovan Gayle himself had stolen cocaine crack off Wright who 'vowed revenge', so what we seem to have here is a typical drug war masquerading as something else.

The Prescott affair however is reported with unashamed gusto: 'Sleaze watchdog attack adds to the pressure on Prescott' writes James Chapman and Benedict Brogan. The photograph shows Mr. Prescott leaving his constituency yesterday in a scruffy 'dented Hyundai'; instead of his Jaguar and the comment is: 'And is this the future awaiting the Deputy PM?' Be that as it may, the allegation here is factual rather than ethical, namely that: 'Mr. Prescott breached the code by giving his lover Tracey Temple free travel and access to his grace-and-favour accommodation' and as a consequence 'women in the party openly criticised his "abuse of power" and called on him to resign'. In Metro, the free morning paper published by The Daily Mail we have an article by Sarah Hills entitled: 'Prescott breaks cover amid new claims' in which we are told that it was not just Tracey Temple, his latest lover but other women claimed to have had liaisons with him: Sarah Bissett-Scott, a former Labour parliamentary candidate, angered by the 'hypocrisy' with which he presented his marriage to the public in a recent biography felt annoyed: 'The word hypocrisy comes to mind. I didn't think it reflected the state of the marriage'. Not enough: Tricia McDaid, an ex-senior Labour aide, recounts how Mr. Prescott 'turned up at her house late at night "looking for sex" a month after they met at a Christmas party in l992'.

Human failure no doubt, but in the wake of the local elections on Thursday, May 4th the 'facts' as well as the 'legends' embroidered around them will no doubt have repercussions. The conclusion however is that little has changed regarding politicians, but not politics itself.