I wrote yesterday about George Osborne and my suspicion that he was receiving leaked documentation. I did so before knowing of the arrest of Damian Green.
I do not know sufficient of the circumstances of Damian Green's arrest to pass much comment, but I do reiterate what I said yesterday. Many people, including MPs of all parties who are not members of the government, receive information in the course of policy discussion which they are trusted not to use in public debate. If that trust is breached then government becomes more secretive, not less.
And those with a particular viewpoint do on occasion receive information which is sensitive, which the sender did not have authority to disclose. It has happened to me. But, unless the information indicates criminal conduct requiring investigation I think the obligation is quite clear: you do not use what you have received. At least you don't if you respect the process of government and the importance of civil service integrity.
It is not clear that Damian Green does that.
I am not confident that George Osborne does either.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I guess you don’t know much about parliamentary privilege either? Given that no one is suggesting Green or Osborne are abusing the civil service I would suggest you apologise immediately.
Alastair
With respect, it would appear to be you who does not know much about Parliamentary privilege.
This only applies to statements made within the House.
George Osborne made his comments at the Tory party conference
And I am, in any event, speculating, not accusing, and one is allowed to speculate.
Richard
don’t you know what respect means either?
Politicians make comments all over the shop – it is what they are paid (by us) to do. To suggest that Osborne and Green are somehow abusing civil servants is nonsense, and frankly you deserve no respect for making such an idiotic suggestion.
Alastair
How sweet that you still live in an age where you doff your cap to your elders and betters
I am expressing a speculative opinion that I think in Osborne’s case is an explanation of a series of events that have previously been hard to fathom, building on a widespread belief that the advance knowledge of the budget widely publicised this weekend did not come from the government
I am doing no more
In so doing I am not saying Osborne did do this. I am saying I think he is a man of poor judgement, and such things are, therefore, at least possible..
I think that entirely fair in the real world
Richard
your speculation is quaint but probably wide of the mark. The treasury is only slightly less leaky than the home office! BTW I don’t wear a cap (although when I wallk the dog I am considering a wooly hat in this seasonally cold weather!), and I also don’t believe everything I read, which is probably why I don’t share your view of Osborne’s judgement. If it helps you should take a look at how Mandleson operates.
Alastair
I do wonder why those who comment on this site are so fond of arguing that unacceptable actions con be exonerated because others undertake similar abuse.
The actions of two who abuse do not neutralise each other, they compound each other.
Richard
what are you suggesting is unacceptable? Civil Servants leaking, politicians leaking, or opposition politicians using leaked documents to hold the government to account?
It has been suggested to me that I am endorsing the actions of the police against Damian Green in making these comments
I am not – the use of terrorism police against him was ludicrous, heavy handed and wrong
But I stand by the need for a respect for confidentiality
The 4 cases the press have highlighted appear to represent government hiding incompetence behind secrecy laws. What do you think is more important for an opposition mp to do – respect for confidentiality or holding the government to account?
Alastair
I make a significant distinction between a situation where an MP receives unsolicited in formation which they then use to hold a government to account and a situation where they work with a civil servant to procure information.
I gather that this is the distinction at the heart of this case.
Of course incompetence is to be regretted. But a leaking civil service, to order, makes effective governbment impossible and corruption substantially more likely
There are trade offs in all positions
Richard
Apart from the fact that Mr Green is somehat angrily denying that Met leak, why? Surely the source of the leak is irrelevant, and certainly from a legal point of view the law he was arrested under has been demonstrated to fail.
Really can’t see where you are coming from on this one. Even the press seem quite happy to publish the substance of the leaked document, and no one else has been arrested. The sovereignty of Parliament has been challenged. And pretty much all commentators have acknowledged that Mr Green is the voice of reason. He certainly seem to be getting cross party support (most of the cabinet aside).
Why do you seek to villify him?