Hain today, gone tomorrow

In the week Peter Hain finally fell on his sword, Iain Dale salutes his fellow blogfather, Guido Fawkes, for breaking and persisting with the funding scandal story: “Bloggers do not exist to get political scalps. But when a blogger reveals possible law breaking and drives the media debate, as Guido has done, let’s recognise that as a good thing and give him the credit he is due.”

Dale was joined in his blog back slapping by scores of posters on Guido’s blog.

Reflecting on Guido's self-congratulation, Cicero revisits the blog v mainstream media debate. Somewhat stoically, he points out: "Perhaps it is fair to say that people are also recognising the limits of blogs. They do not change the world, they may not be very influential, they are merely a medium."

With William Hill having taken 7-1 that Hain would be out of the cabinet before the end of January, and 2-1 he would be the first to leave the cabinet, plenty of political punters were pleased to see the back of him, according to Political Betting. Five-to-one to see him return by the end of 2008 anyone?

Expecting a heady sense of panic in Westminster, Benedict Borgan is surprised to find: "The MPs, Cabinet ministers, junior ministers and political advisers I've spoken to all afternoon report the same thing: regret for Mr Hain, a sense of inevitability about his departure, and confidence in Mr Brown’s integrity. The political markets seem to have discounted this event."

Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray takes a nostalgic look back at the anti-apartheid campaigner who inspired him. While, Paul Flynn MP makes a case for Hain’s defence. This is derided by Nich Starling.

Mirror hack James Lyons expands on what he terms the "Welsh Cabinet curse". Where once Ron Davies fell foul of Clapham Common, read Hain of Scotland Yard. Maguire also reveals: “Now [Hain’s successor as Wales secretary Paul] Murphy is being tipped to head a new department for regions and nations when Gordon Brown carries out a full reshuffle in the summer.”

The cutest line of the day comes from David Lindsay: “We all know that [Hain] stands no chance of being prosecuted. But just to be certain, he should now call for the police to be paid in full.”

This also appears at www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics-blogs.

Blogospherical musings

As the dust begins to settle on the party funding fiasco, other matters are chewed over in the blogosphere.

Over at Burning Our Money, Wat Tyler is firmly behind the government’s plans to go nuclear. A comprehensive, if partial, evaluation of the wind power concludes: “The bottom line is that windmills may be a highly seductive idea from a distance, but once you get up close all you find is another giant dollop of wishful thinking.”

As if in response, Rupert Read, a Green Party councillor from Norfolk and EU candidate, blogs a compendium of his anti-nuclear arguments. He also speaks out against biofuels, claiming the craze for them is destroying rainforests when other sources of fuel are less damaging. He hails Biofulewatch, and calls on Greens to: “Firmly resist the biofuels bubble.”

Cassilis looks back on the persistent party funding revelations and says: “I really, really struggle to see why this should be such a big political issue. It reeks of the sort of problem that 100% of the non-political classes could agree on in five minutes but politicians are determined to offer a multitude of ifs and buts and pretend it’s more complicated than it is.”

Hot Ginger Dynamite takes an interesting look at the reportage of the Russian government closing British Council offices. Western journalists – he states – are feeling nostalgic for the Cold War compared to today’s faceless terrorist enemy. He writes: “Our decades of hostility with the Russians provided a wealth of artistic and romantic allusions, which with each passing year become harder to separate from the reality of years at the brink of horrifying mutual destruction.”

As BA pilots are praised for saving scores of lives, Nick Robinson blogs while being hauled up with the PM’s entourage at Heathrow watching the crashed plane on the runway.

And finally, on the tenth anniversary of Matt Drudge’s web revelations of the Clinton-Lewinksy affair, Guido Fawkes pays homage to the act he feels began to turn the tables on the mainstream media (MSM), leading to the rise of the blogosphere: “Conventional journalists in the MSM have shifted from sneering to fearing, from deriding to envying. Technology means that any talented trouble maker with a modem can achieve Karl Marx’s dream: ownership of the means of production and distribution.” How romantic.

This also appears at www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics-blogs.

Funding and games

Following a proud week for the NS as Derek Pasquill was cleared of breaching the Official Secrets Act, messages of congratulations were posted at Harry’s Place. But the case leads Spyblog to query: “What other politically embarrassing revelations are [the government] keeping secret from the British public?”

While, Obsolete believes the case highlights the injustice of last year’s leaked al-Jazeera memo trial.

In case you’ve missed Peter Hain’s week from Hell, Mark Pack supplies an overview.

Alex Hilton at Labourhome makes a case for the Labour Party to learn from the funding scandals and puts forward a list of eight suggestions for the party to adopt if it is to avoid getting into similar scrapes.

Guido Fawkes suggests the blame goes right to the top. Having received donations totalling £215,705, Gordon Brown must - under Labour Party rules - pay 15% (or £32,335) into central party funds. This he hasn’t yet done, according to the Electoral Commission. Fawkes states this is why Brown has offered his support to Hain, Harriet Harman and Wendy Alexander.

The accusations against Brown mounted. Dizzy Thinks believes he has stumbled upon another failure on Brown’s part to reveal non-cash donations to the Electoral Commission for a website registration and domain name. All of which is angrily refuted by Chris Paul.

As reports emerged of a potential Tory funding scandal, Kerron Cross is quick to drew comparisons between the two parties, for which he is criticised by posters on his own blog.

Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report chronicles the past month in the polls, which makes depressing reading for Labour.

Meanwhile, Hain’s opposite number, Chris Grayling, has been receiving praise from unexpected quarters. Paul Walter at Liberal Burbling notes: “Grayling is the only Conservative politician who does not send me into a rage-fuelled high blood pressure crisis. I actually feel the man might actually be talking some sense and that he's not just saying what he says because he thinks he ought to.

"And of course, he is a member of the organisation of which I am the proud Life Patron - the BOGS (Bald Old Gits' Society).”

A rotten week indeed for the secretary of state for works and pensions.

This also appears at www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics-blogs.

A class A conundrum

The new year began with furore splashed over the middle market front pages over reiterated comments made by the chief constable of North Wales Police, Richard Brunstrom, promoting the legalising of class A drugs. The debate spilled over onto the blogosphere.

Lib Dem AM Peter Black believes it is right to bring the debate to the fore as he also argues drugs are as big a blight as Brunstrom states, but he does not go along with Brunstrom’s methods. He concludes: “My view is that the debate on drugs policy is long overdue but we cannot have it in isolation ... Unless we can argue on the facts and put personalities to one side then we will never make any progress.”

Nick Colbourne, the Labour Wrexham councillor, finds fault with the way Brunstrom calculates ecstasy as less dangerous than aspirin. He argues, if you judge danger based on number of deaths without adding the total usage to the equation, “one could argue that BASE jumping is safer than cycling, given the tragic number of deaths each year. Well of course that’s not true, but then neither is his ridiculous claim.”

Jon Bright at OurKingdom links to a Daily Mail article which attracted a large volume of responses, mainly calling for Brunstrom’s resignation. The more important issue, Bright argues, is not the classification of drugs, but how the public’s perception of democracy is interfering with public debate. He writes: “My point is not necessarily that legalisation would definitely be a positive move - though this is my opinion - but rather that the extension of democracy into the problem of drug use serves to suffocate debate about this issue.”

Meanwhile, as David Cameron announced he would make the Tories the party of the NHS, the next day he came out and declared Andrew Lansley would be Health Secretary of he wins the next general election. As is pointed out at ConservativeHome, Lansley joins George Osborne as the only Tory frontbencher to be publicly offered a job in any future Cabinet. This led to suspicions at UK Daily Pundit that Lansley had threatened to resign were he not offered a top job.

Finally, over at Comment is Free, Rupa Huq chronicles the demise of the word “respect” from the lexicon of razzle-dazzle politics over the past two years. She concludes: “'Respect’ always sounded like a word more suited to an Ali G monologue than a serious political agenda. Today it is a thoroughly discredited term. Like flared trousers, Take That and the Mini Cooper, it may well experience a revival but for now it looks like a prize turkey.”

This also appears at www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics-blogs.