This is one for the Tories.
When the expenses crisis broke (and let’s gloss over the completely biased handling of it by The Telegraph – which published day after day after day of Labour expenses so that it was firmly established in the public’s and the media’s minds as a Labour problem, before going on to finally release details of the far more risible Tory claims), Cameron, no doubt fore-warned by his pals at The Torygraph, acted swiftly and decisively.
In fact, he acted entirely properly. His party came out as one which won’t tolerate those in a position of privilege abusing it for personal gain, even if they are doing so within the letter of the law. A slew of resignations followed, and all was well within the Tory Party.
But what is strange is how some of his inner-sanctum were protected from the hammer blows dealt out to the rest of the party. We’ve already mentioned how Osbourne escaped. Alan Duncan, despite his comments (again, see previous post), was not sacked – perhaps because it would harm Cameron’s bid to open up the party to gays, to sack the first openly gay Tory MP?
It’s instructive to look at DC’s response to the whole Ashcroft palaver this year. I will be writing more on Ashcroft later, and I’m sure you’ve all read the ins-and-outs, the who-said-what’s of the matter. But it remains that Cameron has not acted on Ashcroft, paid back the money, or promised anything more than the same vague assurances over Ashcroft changing his status than Hague had given years ago, when he knew this was not the case.
Reason #16: So my concern, if I were a Tory, would be about a leader who is happy to hang members out to dry to look good to the electorate, while hypocritically defending the apparently indefensible acts of those who he wishes to protect.