The Fetid Stench of Rotting Corruption

There was a time when £280million was an awful lot of money, but our senses are dulled to numbers these days and just over a quarter of a billion pounds no longer seems that much.

That's how much BAE Systems, Britain's largest manufacturer, has agreed to pay to a variety of US and UK authorities to stop legal action against its historic and systemic dodgy business activities. To put it into context, a single contract for BAE Systems in question in Saudi Arabia for 100 fighter planes was worth £43billion. Over the years, it was alleged that BAE Systems greased the hands of a fair number of officials and middle men in order to secure many lucrative contracts, including one air traffic control system for £24m to Tanzania which was antiquated technology and not really fit for purpose, which collectively were equivalent to a small financial meltdown in current terminology.

The company has played down the whole payment claiming they are now a clean and transparent company while the systematic corruption at the heart of their business methodology was never referred to as such. No doubt the terms of the compromise with authorities allows them never to be openly accused of such although Clare Short was swift to point out on Radio Five Live yesterday that this was at the heart of the matter.

And so too was our pious and righteous former leader, Tony Blair. It was he, in his own wise judgement, who halted the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into BAE Systems' dealings in Saudi Arabia, allegedly as it threatened Britain's national security.

I dare say it threatened someone's security. It was the same sort of righteous decision making that made him send our armed forces into Iraq, no doubt. The same sort of knowledge, the same protection of our national interests, the same sound legal reasoning. All we can have no doubt over. As in the peerages for donations scandal, when it comes to his integrity, Teflon Tony Blair was bullet-proof. All was done with a 'Pure Heart', as Cherie Blair was to famously say.

I think the all pervading stench of corruption is washing over us all and £280m was the small price to pay to keep a lot of names out of the headlines and save a lot of careers. In that context, this was a small price to pay by BAE Systems to ensure they have the future cooperation of some very senior individuals in Government and middle ground all over the world.

The £280m is 'marker' on all those names that their careers have been saved by drawing a line under the whole affair. In that context, the £280m is the biggest of all the BAE Systems' bribes yet.

It ensures the business will be as usual for the future.

Short on Credibility?

It was keenly anticipated, but Clare Short's turn at the Chilcot Inquiry has already slipped to the back water pages of the internet news sites.

Despite some stunning revelations which confirmed much of the thinking that Tony Blair did much of his decision making outside Cabinet, ran the country with just a few hand-picked, non-elected advisers, spun the truth and somehow got the Attorney General to change his tune, miraculously in favour of an all-out war when a few weeks before the legal case was nil - despite all this, there was something tawdry and sleazy about Short's evidence.

Part of it was that Alistair Campbell had already laid his marker on her when he gave 'evidence'. He had effectively marginalised her by making her appear 'unreliable', suggesting she was a loose cannon and a potential threat to us all. Further, the whole saga of her resignation was an on-off affair and it appeared she wavered about her decision, loyalty and, perhaps, ambition. Did she go because she could not get what she wanted or because she had a conscience? With Robin Cook it was unequivocal; with Short it was questionable. All the more pity that Cook is not around to give his view, as indeed Dr. David Kelly is also not around too.

Clare Short said a lot of damaging things but her colloquial and slangy style made her sound, frankly, unintelligent and, not a little, vindictive. She came across as having an axe to grind - Campbell's careful depiction of her was at the front of my mind when she referred to the country being run by 'Blair and his mates'. Great pub talk but hardly the accurate description for a major Inquiry. She made the Attorney General's volte-face on the legality of the war sound just like the nation's view of 'how could he move so far in just a few weeks' but there was no substantiation of her view and therefore it was no better testimony than that of you or I in this matter.

But what the whole performance did illustrate, if nothing else, was that the country was in the hands of a very small number of mainly unelected people, that Cabinet was just an 'For Your Information Only' pool, where there was little debate, and Parliament was for mere ratification - with the landslide majority effectively stifling any questions or any chance of democracy.

No matter when and where or for what reason Blair decided to go to war, once he had done so there was no turning back and he just made sure that it looked as though it was necessary. Looking back at the evidence that was presented to the Cabinet, Parliament and the nation, it now looks a laughable attempt to provide an excuse for such action akin to a young school kid making up a story of why it was late to class.

What Clare Short's evidence produced, along with Campbell's and Blair's, is how little real thought went into the whole process of decision making, how little debate was invoked and how trivialised were the thoughts, views and consciences of the British people. We were the last people to be considered and the least. Our vote had been cast long ago and was now a chip in the game of world power. By allying with the US, Britain was at the Top Table of international power and that was vital for Blair's future beyond being Prime Minister. He had suddenly found his raison d'etre, his legacy and his future in one go. He would forever be known as the hero who rid the world of Saddam Hussein.

To use a boxing analogy, Hussein was a former heavyweight who still thought he could fight and was lured into the ring with no training and no fitness. He was a spent force. All he had left was his country's oil, it's proximity to Iran, and that he would make a good butt for the vengeance of the United States for 9/11 even though it was clear he was no more a threat to the US than a defenceless old boxer. The United States had a symbolic war it could win.

But they didn't. Iraq, like Afghanistan, has been a fiasco that has cost $billions and many lives at a time we could afford neither. The legacy will be seen as two zealous, power-hungry fools wanting to make a strike for their faith and their egos.

The only thing Short confirmed yesterday was the image of a dictatorial pseudo-President running our country and that democracy had been suspended. If that is not a case for wholesale electoral reform, then I don't know what is.

Cleaning Up Politics

Cleaning up politics is alleged to be one of Gordon Brown's pledges of the new year - it was a pity he missed the opportunity to fast track legislation in the Queen's Speech to augment this but his latest pledges are seen as the last throw of the dice for his party in the run up to the election.

How bad did politics get?

Well let's not go over old ground but the revelations this year made us all extremely angry at a time when British families were suffering most as a consequence of the credit crunch and recession. It is now alleged that some 6 politicians are under police investigation for suspected fraud, mainly to do with claims on second home allowances for phantom mortgages. To be honest, there should be many more - Tony McNulty and Hazel Blears spring to mind but we get the age-old claim that they did everything within the spirits of the rules at the time, a convenient excuse to hide a flagrant disregard for common decency.

But there is much more at risk than just expense claims. What the whole drama illustrated was the priority of the individuals in politics to look after themselves ahead of acting with true conscience. It makes you wonder what people really thought about major issues like Iraq and Afghanistan but kept quiet as it would upset the gravy train. Surely more individuals other than Clare Short and Robin Cook questioned Tony Blair's decisions, particularly on Iraq? How many were reminded of their 'obligations' to support the party rather than vote with decency in mind?

There are more decisions which could be scrutinised but for many people, trust flew out of the window. How can you back people like Julie McBride when she fails to see that what she did was immoral and should be illegal? We clamp down on benefit fraudsters and tax evaders but these abusers of the taxpayer have played a game with us all forgetting all sense of moral values. Yet it seems that politicians will get away with it; they will sit at the next election and they will likely get voted back in. For those 'Zombie MPs' who have already said they will step down, they hang on for the last milking of the system, the pay off for losing the election - the parliamentary equivalent of the Premier League relegation pay off.

Why do we let disgraced MPs have that opportunity to finally screw us when the very reason they are going is because we have found out that's what they did?

It is at this point that leadership is called into scrutiny. Why have Brown, Cameron and Clegg not acted and simply sacked those individuals who have transgressed and admitted it? Why are they allowed one final shafting of the public when they have been royally doing so for some time?

My point is that if the party leaders cannot see the problem properly, how can we trust anything they do? This is a pretty fundamental issue about trust and they seem to care little about their own sinners, allowing them a final hurrah rather than acting to clean the whole system up and getting rid of the rotten eggs now. Then again, trust is something politicians abuse time and again - they are happy to tell us whopping great lies and justify them later when they manipulate the facts of the time.

It is little wonder that we have them all debating the Green Book, whether they should pay back what was claimed and whether they are bunch of thieving swines. It is in their blood - by definition if you want to be a politician then you are probably not morally strong enough to be one.

It will take far more than talking a pledge to clean up the system - it will take a fundamental overhaul of the political system at all levels of Government. I will bet my tax increases over the next 10 years that it will never happen.