Lord Elwyn Jones Memorial Lecture
Nia Griffith (Llanelli MP) - Lord Elwyn Jones Memorial Lecture for the WEA in Llanelli.
This took place in Llanelli Town Hall.
Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen, Noswaith dda Boneddigion.a Boneddigesau
It is a great pleasure and honour to be here this evening, giving the Lord Elwyn Jones memorial lecture. Lord Elwyn Jones, a son of whom Llanelli can be rightly very proud served his fellow citizens as a Labour MP for 29 years, rising to become Attorney General and Later Lord Chancellor. I will return later in my lecture to say a few words about him.
Well, if you are sitting comfortably, then I’ll begin.
So Politicians, saints or sinners?
Which do you want to hear about, the saints or the sinners?
Saints you said – well, that’s obviously because you are hoping to go home early, because of course there’s not much to say about the saints.
The sinners, they are far more interesting – that’s what sells papers, that’s what keeps the soap operas and reality shows going.
In fact we can go right back to the ancient Greeks and the principles of Greek tragedy, and, believe me, they had it all – lust, passion, rent boys, incest, murder…
Their theory was that to make a good story, good entertainment, the hero should be neither wholly good, nor wholly evil, …….. not wholly good because tragic events engulfing the hero would merely provoke indignation nor wholly evil because the tragic events would simply be a just come uppance ….. far too simplisctic.
No, to make a good story, the hero should be neither wholly good nor wholly bad – which pretty well sums up most of us – in other words a human being.
But not just any human being, far better for a good tragedy to be about someone in high office, a fall from grace, a fall from high office makes a much more juicy story - so, you see, celebrity culture was a alive and well thousands of years before the advent of such TV inventions as “I’m a celebrity; get me out of here”
Another essential feature of the tragic hero is, of course, the fatal flaw….. the failing that leads to his downfall. You will be familiar with this concept from Shakespeare – the corrosive, possessive jealousy that drives Othello to kill his beloved Desdemona, the unbridled ambition that drives MacBeth on to his fate – ambition coupled with tragic hubris – that foolhardy arrogance that drives people beyond reason, famously summed up more recently by Mrs Thatcher in her phrase “The Lady’s not for turning”
It is interesting to look at public attitudes. What is certainly apparent is that over the years, we have become a great deal less tolerant of misdemeanours in public life.
Part of this is to do with the growth of democracy – there really was not much you could do against a ruthless chieftain or monarch when supremacy depended on physical force and sending in the troops.
But it is interesting to note too the question of sexual morality.
History is dotted with examples of monarchs and prominent politicians and their mistresses. There are also plenty of examples of dubious, financial dealings but those tend to be forgotten more quickly than a good bit of saucy scandal.
So, whilst, on the one hand, society has become more liberal and secular in its attitudes, we seem to have become more censorious about our politicians – or at least here in Britain – whereas in France President Mitterand’s standing seemed little damaged by the acknowledgement of his illegitimate child.
Well, I thought a good place to start would be with Britain ‘s first Prime Minister in the modern sense of the word, namely Sir Robert Walpole.
He has been described as the most despicable creature ever to have occupied the position of Prime Minister in this country.
He famously stated that everyman has his price and he held the view that you should only advance a man’s career if he could bring you advantage through their networks and connections.
He entered Parliament in 1701, at a time when only a tenth of the male population had the right to vote.
He was renowned for his corruption, embezzlement and bribery, but when he was challenged by his creditors, he pretended that he knew nothing about it. Almost single-handedly he turned the Whig party into a byword for sleaze in the period 1720 – 1745.
But, of course, we need to put all this in the context of his era. An era remembered for its great mansions, fine pictures, fortunes and the fruits of commerce. But it was also a time of 13 public hanging days a year, endemic drunkenness, organised crime rampaging through the streets and ferocious politics.
Only a generation earlier James II, suspected of conspiring to enforce Roman Catholicism and subordinate England to France, had been driven out by the Whigs. In 1715, his son, the Pretender, had failed to take the Crown by armed force. The new king George I, an intelligent, moderate man, was cursed everywhere as a damned foreigner. James’s followers, the Jacobites, were plotting and were persecuted. In 1720, the South Sea Bubble, an attempt to finance state debt by runaway speculation, collapsed. Ruined people protested at Westminster. Rage and riot were everywhere and the Pretender could be plotting to take over any day.
It was against this background that Robert Walpole, once imprisoned for shady financial dealings, assumed political control. He became chief minister or, to give it its new title Prime Minister. He personally detected a Jacobite plot, and strengthened his position by buying up parliamentary seats with secret service money.
(threats to public security being used to justify political action – nothing new there then)
He was a control-freak, reducing the early Cabinet into a rubber-stamping exercise. He managed everyday financial administration in person and took control of Foreign and Home Affairs through subservient Secretaries of State. He made many enemies, through his cavalier treatment of the press, the short shrift he gave to colleagues who did not conform to his ideas and his assumption that British interests were identical with those of the landed gentry.
When he was dismissed in 1727 on the death of George I, he recruited the new king’s clever wife and bounced cheerfully back. He was married to the wild and unstable Catherine Shorter but he had a long and open affair with Moll Skerrett.
He did however manage to keep Britain out of continental wars for 20 years. His motivation may well have been something to do with his aversion to spending any money that did not bring immediate advantage to himself or his political party.
Pit and Fox
Moving on then to the latter half of the eigthteenth century, we come to the great rivalry between William Pitt the Younger and Charles James Fox. Last year 2006, we celebrated the bicentenary of their death; they both died in 1806.
Willliam Pitt the Younger became Prime Minister in 1783 at the remarkably young age of 24. He soon outwitted his opponents and went on to dominate the political scene for 22 years, 19 of them as Prime Minister.
His rival Charles James Fox was born in 1749, son of Henry Fox. His father introduced his son to the society of the time, including the seedier and immoral side and gave his son the money that funded his growing gambling addiction.
During a two year grand tour of Europe in his late teens, he continued to indulge in womanising and gambling. He acquired friendships and a sense of fashios that marked him out as one of London’s leading “Macaronis” or Dandies, infamous for their tight-fighting and oddly cut clothing.
Charles Fox entered politics when his father bought him the seat of Midhurst in Sussex in 1769. His father Henry Fox had initially entred olitics, as was common at the time, to continue the family tradition, but Charles had the additional responsibility of restoring the family name. His father had been the paymaster general, but was forced to resign in 1765, accused of embezzlement. Henry was regularly referred to as “the public defaulter of unaccounted millions” and looked to his son to defend his name. This burden of responsibility was to shape Charles’s attitude to politics up to his father’s death in 1774. Most of the causes he supported were selected because of the opportunity they afforded him to attack those who called his father’s conduct into question.
But his entry into politics did not lad him to curb his wild living. Far from it. Being a Member of Parliament gave Charles access to all that London society had to offer, and by 1772, Charles asked his father to pay off £20,000 of gambling debts. It was not as if this financial embarrassment tempered his habits – two years later Charles asked his father to pay off a further £140,000 – the equivalent today of £12.5 million.
Most of his political career – spanning 35 years – was spent in opposition to the government. Through his eloquence and determination, he rose to become the leader of the official Whig opposition in the House of Commons.
Fox never gave his life to politics; it was always an aside, that prevented him from spending more time gambling, womanising, socialising and being with his beloved mistress Mrs Armitstead. She was one of a number of 18th century women selling their favours to high society, including at one time the then Prince of Wales. It as he who first introduced Fox to Mrs Armitstead in 1782, and a year later they began their relationship which would last 24 years until Fox’s death. In 1802 Fox shocked his family and friends and London society by announcing that he and Mrs Armitstead had married back in 1795. Apparently in Georgian times it was one thing to have a mistress, but it was embarrassing actually to live with your mistress and it was quite scandalous actually to marry her.
But he was not all evil.
He became Britain’s Foreign Secretary. He did not have a glittering political career and many of the causes he spoke out so vociferously about were not great political successes. However his involvement in the anti-slavery movement had been quite considerable and in 1807, a year after his death, British ships were prohibited from being involved with the Slave Trade, leading finally in 1833 to the abolition of slavery in Britain.
He did have another success, the passing of his Libel Act in 1792, which restored the rights of jurors to decide what was libel and what the punishment should be, rather than the decision being made by a judge.
What about the involvement of women in politics?
Politics attracted Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire and her sister Harriet from an early age. As daughters of John, First Earl Spencer, they had been brought up to believe that women should be politically informed and support family interests. The sisters were in their teens when they made brilliant marriages that swiftly turned sour. Disenchanted, they befriended Fox, whose warmth and wit provided a welcome anti-dote to their neglectful husbands. And in 1784 they got involved in helping Fox in his election campaign.
Eighteenth century elections were riotous affairs – opposing factions frequently resorted to intimidation, and all too often heckling spilled over into open violence. Then as now the press was partisan and relished any opportunity to give colour to the debate and denigrate the opposition. As celebrities of the day Harriet and Georgiana offered everything which journalists dream of – looks, money, status and sparkling characters. Thus, when they decided to support Fox’s campaign actively, their presence was guaranteed to cause interest – this, after all, was why Fox wanted them to be involved.
Harriet began her efforts by attending lots of social events, arguing with supporters of Pitt and the King, and dazzling them with her grasp of political matters.
Harriet and Georgiana canvassed for Fox with little regard for personal safety. They went round the streets wearing hats decorated with foxtails, stroking babies’ cheeks and distributing medals. Fights broke out: two people died and many were seriously injured.
To start with, the women had a positive effect and Fox was in the lead. But the pro-Pitt newspapers were swift to condemn Fox’s use of female supporters. The Morning Post wrote
“They ought at least to know that it is usual…..to expect common decency in a married woman, and something of dignity in a woman of quality”
And much worse was to follow:
The sisters were accused of going to improper lengths to secure votes, reporting that Georgiana had not only paid ridiculous sums for bread and vegetables, but had traded kisses for votes.
Georgiana defended herself fiercely. She said
“I did NOT kiss the butcher…... That was Harriet”
Of course they did not have television in those days, but they did have political cartoons.
There was one political cartoon called “Falstaff and the Merry Wives of Westminster” which showed a portly Fox seated on a donkey, with a pair of bear-breasted ladies – no prizes for guessing who they were supposed to be.
Things got so bad that at one point Georgiana left London, and Fox began to trail behind in the election, so much so that his party begged the women to come back
The Duchess of Portland wrote to Georgiana
“There are a great many votes that you can command and no-one else, and now if you only stop at people’s doors it will be quite sufficient”
Harriet and Georgiana did return and helped Fox to victory.
Just another quick word about political cartoons.
The prints were sold individually, not bound into magazines or newspapers as they are today. All along the Strand and Fleet St there were hundreds of tiny kiosks selling satirical prints and pamphlets. If you bought one, particularly if it was hand- coloured, it wouldn’t be cheap, which was why you could, if necessary, hire the print overnight, like a modern video or DVD, to pore over at your leisure before returning it in the morning.
Fox and Pitt have become their own caricatures, far more recognisable in cartoon form than in the flesh. Fox has been immortalised as a slobbery, unshaven almost spherical little man. Meanwhile Pitt’s figure was portrayed as stretched out, emaciated, his nose curling up in the air.
These satirical prints were an integral part of the mass media of the time, In a way, they were the only way many people would ever see pictures of their leaders, so the caricature became the standing template.
Well, we must move on now. I am not going to dwell for long on the nineteenth century, the Victorian age with its many very worthy political characters and reformers, and the growth of municipal politics – leading to great improvements in urban living such as sewers, street lighting and so on. But of course there was also a great deal of hypocrisy.
Nor will I spend time on Lloyd George as I am sure you are familiar with both his tremendous reforming zeal, and his reputation with women, not to forget of course his episode of the cash for honours saga.
Driberg
No we shall fast forward to more modern times, to someone that a few of you may even be old enough to remember, perhaps one of the most notorious MPs in the post-war years, Tom Driberg.
He was a politician, gossip-columnist, promiscuous homosexual and alleged double agent, a friend of such disparate characters as Edith Sitwell, Nye Bevan and Mick Jagger. He was not only one of the most colourful figures in London’s political, social life for over forty years, but also a mysterious and intriguing man of affairs who embodied many of the contradictions of his time. At Oxford he was the friend of Auden, Betjeman, Hugh Gaitskell and Evelyn Waugh; on Beaverbrook’s Express in the Thirties, under the pen name of William Hickey, he invented the modern gossip-column while simultaneously working for the Communist Party; a close friend of Guy Burgess, he was widely suspected of being a double agent, (serving both British Intelligence and the KGB; as chairman of the Labour Party in the 1950s he was closely involved in the struggles between the Bevanites and the Right. A keen High Churchman, he continually risked prosecution and disgrace by his compulsive “cottaging” in public lavatories; an uncompromising socialist on the left of the Labour Party, he was also an ardent socialite with a Georgian mansion in Essex.
When he died in 1976, by that time elevated to the title of Lord Bradwell, he left behind an unfinished memoir which was published the following year under the title “Ruling Passions”. It created a sensation with its explicit descriptions of his tireless sexual pursuits.
I will read you a short, censored extract – well, we do not want you getting too excited.
This incident took place in 1943 only seven months after Tom had become an MP in a byelection. He had gone to Scotland to help (Tom Wintringham) in a byelection in Midlothian and was staying in Edinburgh.
He writes
“ I was walking along Princess St to my hotel. The war was still on and the whole city was blacked out. In such dim lighting as there was, one could just make out the forms of passers-by – and I bumped into a tall figure in a foreign naval uniform. One of us struck a match to light cigarettes. He was a Norwegian sailor, typically Scandinavian in appearance, flaxen-haired and smilingly attractive. He may have had a few drinks too: he was eager for anything and perhaps lonely. (Loneliness is a s strong as incentive often as lust). I recalled that there was an aid-raid shelter under the gardens a few yards from where we were standing. Neither of us could speak the other’s language, but he readily came to the shelter with me. Down there it was completely dark. There was no air-raid, nor alarm on at the time, so we were alone……”
But NOT for long. Seconds later Tom was dazzled by the beam of a torch. “OCH, ye bastards” a gruff Scottish voice called out, “ye dirty pair o’ whoors” It was a young policeman.
The constable wanted to march Tom – and his friend to the police station at once, but Tom insisted on first producing a card which revealed that the bearer was Tom Driberg, Member of Parliament, also known as William Hickey of the Daily Express. The officer was flabbergasted. “William Hickey! Good God man, I’ve read ye all my life! Every morning!” he told the Norwegian to “Get away oot of it, ye bugger” He introduced himself as PC George Crowford and allowed Tom to argue the case for not being charged. Tom recalled
“ I lied to him as convincingly as I could, swearing that if he would let me off, I would never do such a thing again”
More truthfully, Tom pointed out that his arrest would be tremendous propaganda for the Germans. A British politician arrested in flagrante; just imagine what Dr Goebbels might make of that. Of course PC Crowford had to do his duty, but perhaps one should consider the national interest too…… Crowford was persuaded.
After chatting a few more minutes, mostly about the Hickey column, they parted as friends. Tom like him, “but judged that it would be going too far in the circumstances, to make a pass”
Sadly, for whatever reasons and against the advice of many of his friends, he entered into a meaningless marriage in 1951.The news was greeted in disbelief by many and as a huge joke by others. On seeing a photo of his bride in the Daily Herald, Winston Churchill is allegedly roared “Oh well, buggers can’t be choosers”
Amongst the list of wedding guests and their gifts, along with entries such as Lord Hailsham –set of pyrex dishes, we find Gift from Elwyn Jones – model donkey – so I leave you to interpret that message.
But for all his outrageous lifestyle, he was also an energetic and controversial politician.
I will just recount to you one small parliamentary question from his very early days in Parliament, relevant today as we talk about climate change. You have to remember that this was during the war years when there was strict rationing of fuel.
Driberg kept up his gleeful baiting of the rich, demanding a purge on anti-social lunchers at the Savoy Hotel:
Mr. Driberg asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will state the names and addresses of the owners of the private motor-cars whose registration numbers are HPD 849………..(and he continued with a list of car number plates) , all of which vehicles were between 1.30 p.m. and 3 p.m. on Friday, 16 October, outside the Savoy Hotel, a place readily accessible by public transport?
Major Lloyd George: No sir. Such inquiries as I have been able to make in the time available show that there may well be a legitimate explanation of the presence of the cars.
Mr. Driberg: Will not the right . hon. And gallant Gentleman take steps to check this lavish and lazy use of petrol, which is causing the greatest dissatisfaction to thousands of people who have not got any at all?
The Media
The media, of course, has also had a powerful influence on politics, and that is not simply a modern phenomenon.
After the 1st WW the power of the newspaper barons in England and their control of the popular press were considered by many a threat to democracy. The critic Norman Angell wrote in 1922:
“What England thinks is largely controlled by a very few men, not by Virtue of the direct expression of any opinion of their own, but by controlling the distribution of emphasis in the telling of the facts: so stressing one group of them and keeping another group in the background so as to make a given conclusion inevitable”
In the same year Walter Lippmann had warned “news and truth are not the same thing”
And that of course was just the printed word. Now we have TV
So to bring us up to the modern day, I want to consider an immensely powerful media baron who was first and foremost a media tycoon, but having gained control of vast swathes of the media, then decided to enter politics – and all this in a modern European democracy.
Berlusconi, twice prime minister of Italy.
Silvio Berlusconi was born in 1936 in Milan, in the industrial and industrious north of Italy, educated at a Catholic school run by priests where it was noted that whilst studious, he lacked religious conviction and studied law at Milan University.
He went into the construction industry – we are not talking here about a few houses but staring off with blocks of flats, then a complex for 4,000 people and a luxury complex called Milano 2 for 10,000 people – raising money both by getting potential customers to put down money in advance and by going to the banks, including a Swiss company whose proprietors have never properly been identified. A great deal of mystery and conjecture surrounds the issue of where he found the money for his building projects, including the possibility that it was laundered Mafia money.
Milano 2 had cable television with 6 channels 3 for the RAI – the Italian TV channels, two for foreign channels and one for a local news station for Milano 2 itself, Telemilano as it was called. Thus in 1974, Berlusconi began his TV empire.
He complained bitterly about his difficulties in building Milano 2 –
The bureaucrats, or as he called them, the communist bureaucrats who insisted on building regulations, the TUs who make a fuss about working conditions, the profs of architecture who criticised his project and the hassle he had trying to persuade the airport authorities to re-route flight paths for the sake of his residents.
Even by this time B was gaining a reputation for stubbornness, boundless desire to make a name for himself, his spregiudicatezza or lack of scruples, his wiliness in the world of secret deals and his sense of clan.
I dare say he is not the only person who has ever surrounded himself with clever lawyers, tried to see how far he could bend the law in his favour and paid little attention to questions of public responsibility.
In 1974 he bought the great 18th century villa with some 147 rooms at San Martino N of Milan. The circumstances of his purchase aroused more than a little suspicion. He got it for a bargain price – a mere 500million lire paintings and library included– the sort of price of a good flat in central Milan – and, would you believe, once the deal was concluded, the lawyer acting for the vendors then became B’s principal lawyer.
Is entourage included Marcello Dell’Utri, Confaliere and Mangano.
Mangano – supposedly the stable boy – although there was only one horse – later in 2000 died in prison for double homicide, mafia dealings and drug trafficking. He was clearly not just a stable boy.
Then he did a John Prescott or, to be more precise, a Tim Yeo or a Cecil Parkinson – you do remember that twisting of the Tory slogan “ Family values – two families are better than one” but B did things in style, he had an affair not just with a mere researcher or councillor, but in true Italian fashion, with a stunning actress – Veronica Lario – whom he moved into another wing of his Milan business base, whilst his family resided out of town at the villa, only confessing to his family after 4 years, on the birth of his child by Veronica.
He then got divorced and married Veronica – who proved to be anything but the stereotypical first lady – she refused to live out of town at the villa, and in 2003 she voiced her disagreement publicly about Berlusconi’s support for the Iraq war.
Berlusconi’s advertising company Publitalia, founded in 1979 increased its turnover in a spectacular way, going form 12 billion lire in 1980 to 2,167 billion by 1990.
He also got into TV channels. Italian state TV the RAI had at the time three channels, RAI 1, reflecting the Christian Democrat line, RAI 2 the socialist line and RAI 3 the communist line.
Berlusconi managed to buy up his rivals and soon established a near monopoly of commercial TV, running the three major commercial channels Canale 5, Rete 4 and Italia 1.
The law at the time only allowed for commercial channels to be local channels, so at one point the courts ordered Berlusconi’s channel to be partly blacked out – but missing their Smurfs and Dallas there was public outcry and within a couple of days the President called a Saturday morning meeting to reverse the ruling and allow national transmission.
Of course Italy is not the only country where there is a relationship between media ownership and political power…. After Rupert Murdoch threw the weight of his newspapers (The Sun and The News of the World) behind Mrs Thatcher in the 1979elections, she wrote to thank The Sun’s editor Larry lamb, and in 1980 knighted him supposedly for his services to journalism. When Murdoch took over the Times and the Sunday times in 1981, his bid was not referred to the Monopolies Commission. Murdoch went on to control British satellite Tv and 36% or our printed press. Similar patterns emerged in France and Canada.
Berlusconi’s TV was extremely American – variety shows, chat shows etc, very sexist, often salacious and loads of advertising, including advertising slots by programme presenters in the middle of a programme. These channels had 10 times as many adverts as Italian state TV, including huge amounts on children’s Tv. It was a diet of very conformist, repetitive, uncritical, consumer-orientated TV Interestingly, at first, the rules did not allow him to broadcast anything live , so no news.
In addition he also built up a considerable print empire, including Sorrisi and Canzoni , a sort of gossipy TV times with a circulation of 3 million., Il giornale a major daily paper, whose editor left shortly after Berlusconi bought the paper because of his editorial interference and Mondadori, Italy’s largest publishing house.
In 1986 he bought AC Milan, one of Italy’s leading football teams; indeed he often uses football expression in his language and called his political party Forza Italia , Ymalaen yr Eidal, Go for it Italy.
From 1992, there was a determined effort by the Italian judiciary t o clean up some of the corruption which was rife in Italian public life. – this was called the Mani Pulite – clean hands campaign. Initially it was welcomed by the public, but after initial enthusiasm, the public attitude became more luke- warm. Illegalities and “accommodations” were just too much a art of everyday life in Italy – the public were not sure that they really wanted the judiciary to delve too deeply into their dealings.
It was not long before the anti-corruption judiciary began to turn their attention to Berlusconi’s finance company Fininvest – many of Berlusconi’s business associates were already under investigation.
Just a few months before the 1994 elections, Berlusconi formed a new political party Forza Italia, announced he was running for Prime Minister, in alliance with 2 other political parties ( Lega Nord and Allianza Nazionale).
He won the election, but the alliance between the 3 parties was uneasy to say the least and was to last only 2 years until 1996, when there were new elections and the opposition took over from 1996-2001.
He won the 1994 election, but only 6 months after taking office, he was handed papers saying he was under investigation for corruption – ironically just when he was presiding over a United Nations international conference on criminality. The charges against Berlusconi were serious and involved systematic bribing of the Finance Police in return for their turning a blind eye to false tax returns – to the tune of some 330 million lire, which is not actually that much – just a mere £20,000.
The trial of Berlusconi for alleged corruption of the Milanese Financial police was just one of 9 court cases that the Economist listed in 2001 as decisive evidence of the fact that Berlusconi was unfit to govern Italy.
Predictably, Berlusconi denied that he knew anything about what had been going on – how could he know, as the company was so big? My company, he said, pays a billlion lire a day in taxes. You have to understand that 100 million lire represents one thousandth of the daily operations for the group, the sort of financial transaction which takes place every thirty seconds…”
Berlusconi was sentenced to 2 years 9 months imprisonment but he did not actually go to jail, because, in the Italian system you only go to prison when the whole appeal system is exhausted – in other words he had a further two courts to take his case to, where it could be overturned before he would actually have to serve a sentence
(sounds like a good way to reduce the prison population)
In the same trial, they found his brother Paolo not guilty because he had taken all the responsibility upon himself. Later the appeal court expressed its doubts about his innocence, but, because he had been acquitted previously, he could not be re-tried.
Finally in 2001, when he had been elected for a second time, the highest court, the Court of cassation found him not guilty on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to show he had been really responsible
Once in power, not only did he control his commercial TV channels, but he also had indirect control of the state channels the RAI.
In 2002, when he was on a visit to Bulgaria, he announced that 3 major Italian presenters were to be banned form all six TV channels – it would be like Tony Blair banning Jeremy Paxman.
In 2003, he greeted the news that his trial for corruption was to be held in Milan by issuing a video in which he declared that only government MPS could judge him, not an independent judiciary.
Contrast the way he was allowed to continue to own and use his wealth to his advantage with the way the Mayor of NY Bloomberg was forced to sell any shares of his that had anything to do with NY city.
28th April 2003 the front cover of the Economist declared he was unfit to govern given his macroscopic financial interests and his dubious legal record
By Jan 2003, he had spent 500 billion lire on his lawyers to defend himself, most of his lawyers are members of parliament, including the president of the Justice Commission of the lower house.
Berlusconi’s tactic for avoiding trial was to delay things as much as possible so that the expiry date or getting the proceeding through all three layers of justice would be reached , so no trial could take place. In December 2001, Italy tried to block the concept of the European Arrest warrant, introduced to tackle fraud and money laundering and admitted that he was fearful of the Spanish judges who were after him for alleged fraud and illicit dealings by his Spanish TV company Telecinco.
In November 2002, in the face of widespread opposition, he introduced a new law on “legitimate suspicion” – which means that any citizen on trial can claim that there exists a legitimate suspicion of the court’s non – neutrality, and ask that the trail be transferred elsewhere. This could be used as a delaying tactic. Berlusconi objected to the Milanese judges, saying they would be biased against him and asked for the trial to be moved to Brescia – but the judiciary resisted.
In his characteristic sexist and risqué way he talked about the introduction of this law, by giving the example that judges could be biased, especially if you, the defendant, had slept with the judge’s wife. You might well ask what made this example spring to his mind.
He was forever recounting stories about his sexual prowess or saying how he had seduced a secretary to find out about her bosses plans.
In spite of the Economist saying he was unfit to govern, he was re-elected for a second term in 2001, quite possibly something to do with the huge amounts of money that he poured in to campaign – including sending out to Italian households15 million copies of a 127 page book, essentially about himself. There is no restriction in Italian law on the amount that can be spent on an election.
Within weeks of being elected, he had passed measures which effectively made toothless the legal sanctions against accounting fraud, taking the opposite path to the United States in the wake of the Enron scandal. He also created a form of tax amnesty on undeclared capital shipped abroad.
Whereas, during the 1996 – 2001 opposition government, there had been some attempt to clamp down on the he amount of illegal building work that was springing up all over Italy, Berlusconi rescinded the measures, leaving local authorities toothless in the fight against illegal development..
So, as one desperate last measure in June 2003, Berlusconi’s Government pushed through a law, granting legal immunity to the persons holding the top five offices of the Italian State.
One of the cases in which Berlusconi was one of the accused had reached the summing up stage. The verdict was expected before the Summer break. Instead the Prime Minister was granted immunity by his own government passing this law. 60% of the Italian public were against there being any immunity for anyone.
Of the nine trials that Berlusconi has faced since 1997, in six cases time has run out before he could be brought to trial, and in the remaining three he has been found not guilty at one layer or another of the Italian justice system.
By contrast two of his closest allies, Cesare Previti and Marcello Dell’Utri have received heavy prison sentences, one for corrupting a senior judge to the tune of some half a million dollars, and the other for collaboration with the Mafia.
In 2003, in his final report, Freimut Duve, who had for six years been Head of the OECD office for the protection of freedom of expression in the mass media said:
“I have to state here and now that I am leaving the OECD after six years, taking with me an uncomfortable memory. In certain of our member states, the present situation regarding the freedom of the mass media is more problematic now than it was when I took up the position in 1997.
He went on to criticise the situation in Russia, and then said, referring to Berlusconi,
“ And who would have been able to predict that the PM of one of the founder members of the EU would have promulgated a ,aw on mass communications, tailored precisely to foster his own political programme and the economic interests of his family”
To sum up:
Berlusconi’s years in office and the model of politics that he has tried to establish are a kind of warning signal for the future of democracy. His rise to power in Italy is a highly significant expression of trends which have become ever more marked in modern democracies – new ways of marketing politics, the conditioning of the electoral process through blatant control of the media system, and the affirmation of personal charismatic control at a time when representative democracy is in crisis. He tries to centralise power to his own figure, to bring the independent judiciary to heel and to destroy the checks and balances which mark the peculiar divisions of democratic power. He gains an over-riding control of TV news – most people’s single source of what is happening in the world, and through the activity of his media team, he conditions the overall daily TV diet of publicity, sport, soap operas, variety and chat shows. His daughter takes control of the country’s largest publishing house.
The new leader tries to behave with great magnificence, building up palatial abodes and bestowing gifts here there and everywhere.
I cite his case as a warning, that however good we may feel our democratic system to be, we always need to be vigilant.
I would say that, by and large, most politicians do start off with honourable intentions but inevitably as they become more powerful, so there is an increase in the pressure from both good and unscrupulous individuals who want to try and use and manipulate politicians to the own ends.
Given that even within highly developed democratic systems, there are dangers and there are opportunities for what we might call undue influence, we need to be continually vigilant and we need to consider ways of ensuring transparency and independent checks on what our most powerful politicians do.
One such issue is the role of the Attorney General.
The Office of the Attorney General
The Attorney General, assisted by the Solicitor General, is the chief legal adviser to the Government. They are responsible for ensuring the rule of law is upheld.
The Attorney General is responsible to Parliament for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office, the Treasury Solicitor’s Department and the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland.
There are a number of offences which cannot be brought to trial without the assent from the Attorney General including offences under the anti-corruption and race hatred legislation.
The Attorney General and the Solicitor General also deal with questions of law arising on Government Bills and with issues of legal policy. They are concerned with all major international and domestic litigation involving the Government and questions of European Union and International Law as they may affect Her Majesty’s Government.
In recent times the Attorney General has been under attack for
- His advice on the legality of the Iraq War
- the decision to end a Serious Fraud Office inquiry into corruption in arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
- whether he should have a role in deciding whether prosecutions should be launched in the cash for honours inquiry.
(- not to mention of course a little extra marital affair that has emerged)
It is a contradiction to have an accountable office holder whose advice is not published. The advice should be public with the usual exceptions of an individual’s personal privacy, matters under criminal investigation, commercial confidentiality and national security.
The fact that he is appointed by the PM and is a member of the government – even if he acts independently, the public will doubt there is genuine independence.
The manner in which the Attorney General stopped the criminal investigation of alleged corruption in the BAE arms sales to Saudi Arabia raises serious concerns about our present constitutional arrangements.
It is a demanding role. In its early days the role of Attorney General was likened to that of a Bulldog to the Crown – or the Welsh version that Lord Elwyn Jones used – the corgi of the community.
It should also be remembered that Lord Elwyn Jones favoured extending ‘freedom of information; and to this end steered through Parliament the Public Records Bill to provide wider access to information in Whitehall.
I feel it is fitting to end this Lord Elwyn Jones Memorial lecture with a pledge to support and work for the constitutional reform of that role of Attorney General that he so admirably and honourably carried out, in order to provide greater safeguards against its misuse and a greater public trust in its office.
Comments