Osborne’s dash for cash raises spectre of ‘sleaze’
THE CONSERVATIVE Party in Tatton certainly knows how to pick candidates guaranteed to cause maximum embarrassment.
Twenty years after Neil Hamilton lost the fourth safest Tory seat in the country to war correspondent Martin Bell following the ‘cash for questions’ scandal, it is back in the spotlight after its current MP George Osborne – the former Chancellor – was appointed by billionaire Evgeny Lebedev to become editor of the London Evening Standard.
Now Mr Osborne’s sixth role, he responded to Labour complaints with this defence: “In my view this Parliament is enhanced when we have people of different experience taking part in our robust debate.”
Time will tell – what happens when the Tory whip for a crucial vote is at variance with the Evening Standard’s editorial stance? Or what will be his view when infrastructure investment in London is at the expense of this region and his commendable work with the Northern Powerhouse Partnership?
No longer regarded as Prime Ministerin-waiting, perhaps such conflicts of interest(s) is George Osborne’s way of making sure he remains the story for the foreseeable future. It should be noted that the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which oversees the roles of former ministers, has still to sanction Mr Osborne’s application. It is not a formality, though this body’s independence is an important safeguard.
Meanwhile the Committee on Standards in Public Life begins a new inquiry today into MPs and whether they should be allowed second jobs, or multiple roles in the case of the multitasking George Osborne,
I, for one, can’t see how Mr Osborne can be an editor and MP simultaneously – this was self-evident when he missed a crucial Commons vote on the triggering of Article 50 because he was undertaking one of his many lucrative overseas speaking engagements. Priorities?
I believe that Mr Osborne is acutely aware that his Tatton seat, which he won in 2001 after the independent Mr Bell stood down, is due to be abolished in the boundary review. At the age of 45, he’s still thinking in terms of personal fulfilment.
I also suspect that his motivation is having an influential platform from which he can lobby for the softest of soft Brexits as Britain prepares to leave the European Union – he clearly has not forgiven Theresa May for so abruptly dispensing with his services.
Yet the fact that there’s been no uprising in Cheshire – and no whitesuited knight like Martin Bell coming forward – suggests that this might not be the scandal Labour would like it to be.
After all, Labour politicians didn’t complain when former minister Dick Crossman was editing the New Statesman in the early 1970s, while also representing Coventry East, or about those backbenchers who – more recently – have found time to become authors.
Equally, Mr Osborne’s new worklife balance does reflect the changing demographics of contemporary politics. Previously newly-elected MPs did not think twice about combining their Parliamentary duties with their career – Tory grandee Ken Clarke makes no secret, in his autobiography, about how he juggled politics with legal work after the 1970 election. Few complained then.
Now, as a result of Britain’s leaders becoming more youthful, they’re looking to maximise their earning potential after leaving the front bench. The question is how does Westminster comes to terms with this? One reason Tony Blair resigned his seat on the day he stepped aside as Prime Minister was to avoid such scrutiny.
Ditto David Cameron – giving up his Witney seat means that he, too, does not have to declare his business interests. The former PM is reported to have referred to his current money-making activities as “putting hay in the barn”.
By comparison, Mr Osborne needs a combine harvester to gather his riches – he’s already earned in excess of £750,000 from speeches as well as a reputed £650,000 a year from US financial giant BlackRock.
And while he is prepared to tough it out, knowing full well that the Parliamentary rules are likely to be tightened in light of his multiple commercial interests, this amount of personal greed is politically and morally indefensible in my rule book and suggests lessons still need to be learned from the ignominy of Tatton two decades ago at the height of the ‘sleaze’ scandal.
Just as Neil Hamilton could not say ‘no’ when asked to table questions on behalf of Harrods, George Osborne seems incapable of saying ‘no’ whenever a new job offer is made – and his arrogant avarice is doing a disservice to not only his reputation, but politics per se, at a time when trust remains so fragile and when many are still paying the price for his austerity.
He believes he can edit the Evening Standard four mornings a week, spend afternoons at Westminster and visit Tatton on a Friday while still being paid £75,000 from the public purse to be a fulltime MP, and still travel the world making speeches or undertaking corporate work.
As such, I await his editorial when one of London’s MPs puts personal profit before the public interest. Oh, silly me, no one else would have the arrogant brass neck to do so on this scale – the reason why Mr Osborne needs to give up at least one of his jobs. Which one will it be? That is tomorrow’s story.