A police inquiry is trying to establish whether anyone has broken laws that ban the sale of peerages and cover the disclosure of political donations and loans. As the investigation gathers momentum, detectives are quizzing some senior political figures as possible witnesses and it looks increasingly likely that Tony Blair, the prime minister, will be questioned. All those involved have denied any wrongdoing.

A record of an interview at Westminster has come into the hands of the FT.

ADVERTISEMENT
Detective: What was your role in nominations to membership of the House of Lords?

MP for Erewhon: I’m glad you asked me that question. Our party has long campaigned against sleaze in politics. Our rule is: “Not just clean, but seen to be clean.” That is our record, it is in marked contrast to our opponents’ and I am proud to stand by it.

Det.: I see. But can you explain to me your role in nominations for peerages?

MP: I think it is pretty clear from my position in the party that no important decision is taken without me. Except, that is, those politically sensitive ones where I choose not to be involved.

Det.: And were you involved in nominating candidates for peerages?

MP: I’ve already dealt with that in my previous answer.

Det.: Were you involved in nominating candidates for peerages?

MP: Please don’t interrupt. You have asked your question, now do me the courtesy of listening to my answer. I have behaved appropriately at all times. But, obviously, someone caught up in as many important matters as I am cannot recall every detail of every conversation - especially those I prefer to forget. These matters are now in the past. We have all moved on.

Det.: What did you know about party funding?

MP: Look, this may obsess some parts of the Westminster village, but out there in the country, real people are concerned about real issues, like the state of our schools and hospitals and whether our streets are safe. When I meet my constituents they don’t say to me: “What is happening in the cash-for-peerages affair?” They say to me: “We want politicians to focus on the really important questions - such as climate change and security.” And that is what I am doing.

Det.: It would be in your interests to co-operate more fully, you know. We’ve one of your colleagues in another room, singing like a canary.

MP: I am sure my colleagues are maintaining their usual high standards of loyalty.

Det.: Are you? You don’t want to be the fall guy - the one they leave to take the rap.

MP: I have every faith in party unity. In this instance that faith is underpinned by our style of doing business, which means there is little hard evidence of who decided what. And now, you must excuse me, I am due in the corridors of power.

Still, what bothers me more than the vacuous inanities, the sophistry, the (often glaring) partiality and the lack of supporting evidence for many of the arguments, is the total lack of wit, of humour, of mischievious pot-stirring that can make even an article whose contentions damn it to the nethermost reaches of hell readable. They’re so damned po-faced.
And they haven’t yet figured out that they’re out-numbered.
Poor them.

That there is the problem for them, because anyone with a blog on the internet can be a Glenda Slagg, while it certainly isn’t as easy to come up with a detailed analysis of where the Child Support Agency went wrong and how to fix it.

I think the ‘us’ is the ‘intellectuals’ and ‘opinion formers’ of the established media who don’t like it now that people other than the few whose letters are selected by the paper can say what we think and answer back and even point out errors in what they say! (shocking I know)

Oh and sometimes untrue things are said, or people fail to do their research properly, but that is true of the established media. The only newspaper which seems to have decent fact checkers is the Economist…