So McPoison himself has finally been outed. Damian McBride, Gordon Brown’s former spin doctor, along with his friend Derek Draper to whom the incriminating emails about Cameron and Osborne were sent, represent the sewer of modern politics from which the Brown regime, with the ‘moral compass’ of the presbyterian manse as guide, was meant to deliver us. We were promised in 2007 that there would be no more spin, no more digging up dirt against opponents, no more Mandelsonian secret briefing against out-of-favour Government Ministers or targeted MPs. In fact all these elements of the Blair era have actually got worse. McBride, who only six months ago played a key part in engineering the resignation of Ruth Kelly, is now exposed as launching a catalogue of unsubstantiated smears against the two leading Tories in order to destabilise them, regardless of how dishonest the allegations might be known to be. The presence of such persons in No.10 putrefies the whole political landscape around them. Several searching questions need to be asked: was McBride’s outing of Ruth Kelly and dirt-dripping on Cameron-Osborne an act of skulduggery on his own part (in which case are not some parts of No.10 out of control?) or were they orchestrated from above (in which case who was organising them?)? And some exemplary action needs now to be taken urgently to clear the stench of sleaze.

First, there should be a public inquiry into the role and behaviour of Ministerial aides (‘special advisers’). If, as seems very likely, the Prime Minister will not lauch such an inquiry, Parliament should do so itself. This could be undertaken by the Public Administration Select Committee or, better still, by Parliament setting up its own Commission of Inquiry as its Victorian predecessors used to do, with Palriament (not the Prime Minister) choosing the cahir and members of the Commission and its terms of reference. The scope of the inquiry would be to clarify what are the appropriate functions of special advisers, what are the boundaries which they must not cross, and what are the controls and sanctions to ensure they keep within these limits.
Second, those special advisers found to be grossly in breach of accepted public standards, as McBride has been, should not only be immediately fired, but prohibited from holding any comparable position within the public sector for a period of 10 or 20 years, according to the gravity of the offence. Persons found ‘unfit for purpose’ cannot be allowed to degrade standards elsewhere within the public service.
Third, because of the importance of special advisers within the Whitehall decision-making structure, they should be liable to investigation by the appropriate Commons Select Committee on their appointment (as with US Congressional hearings). Whilst it is for Ministers to make the initial choice as to who should work for them in this role, they would only be authorised to function as special advisers if that choice was ratified by the Select Committee. If it was not, the Minister would have to make another choice, and the process would be repeated. Furthermore, it should be a prerogative of the Select Committee to recall the special adviser for cross-examination if they judged his/her performance or behaviour warranted it.

Bookmark to: