The media rools OK?

It isn't whether or not he's a good minister.
It isn't whether or not he's done something wrong or even criminal.

It's WHETHER IT'S A GOOD STORY!

All we need now is for Gordon to be defeated (as B-Liar was !) when the plan to remove even more of our freedoms comes before Parliament this afternoon.

Lab MPs - IF you have spine (and want to be re-elected) you know what to do !

Come now Jonathan, Hain has not given a sufficiently good expalination of how the donation was not declared. He has simply said it was a 'mistake.' That isn't good enough and he owes an explaination to the elctorate as he is a minister, not a rock star. In not publically giving an explaination as to exactly what happened and why, his position is now unattainable and his resignation is bound up with a legal responsibilty to the country. I'm not suggesting he's a crook, but I am saying he has brought this on himself by not making it crystal clear as to how this mistake came about, nor indeed running his own investigation of backroom staff, whom he blamed for the blunder. Hain simply went to ground and perhaps hoped for the best. A very unwise move for someone in such a high position in government.

Silly mistake - quite possibly - dodgy behaviour - also possible - but the reality is; I don't give a fuck how people raise funds for stupid elections (didn't help him much, did it?) - I simply want decent and efficient government which we ain't got.

And I reckon these drama fuelled stories only exist for one reason - to boost circulation or ratings.

Is it a good story is no reason to wreck decent government.

The media knows this and so do we, the consumers, yet we are happy to be conned into feeling it matters.
It doesn't.
What matters is good government.
Which we haven't got and sleazy little scandals to titillate and excite do not help.

Smoke screen. Keep us occupied with Maddie McCann and Peter Hain stories whilst society is sick to the roots and we don't notice.

chrissy wrote:
Hain has not given a sufficiently good expalination of how the donation was not declared. He has simply said it was a 'mistake.'

chrissy

There were 17 "donations" in all - totally more than

Certainly media pressure led to his resignation,as it has for many others going back to the 50s,or perhaps before.Profumo was a media fuelled scandal,and I went to the same school as Marilyn Rice-Davies,albeit at a later date.
The one point I would like to make here is that he was an active part of the Labour shadow cabinet back in the 90s.That cabinet jumped on any slight lapse in the government,and called for resignations left,right and centre.
Well you cannot have it both ways,and the media sword he fell on was sharpened by himself and his collegues.
I don't think we have good government,bu neither will a change of party bring that about.Simple fact remains that you can survive this type of media controvesy,if you acted competently,which he did not.
I do think however we give too much creedence to media power,it only works if the public believe it has a sound basis.

I think whether he's guilty or not is irrelevant. The press have decided he should resign by printing it and going with it until eventually he is being given no choice but to go.

It's the same press, that have decided you are guilty until presumed innocent, picks the English football team, decided to bore us rigid with the Diana inquest and Maddie McCann (sorry but there are other missing girls and boys out there as well) and generally decides what party is elected for goverment because they realise that most readers just go with the paper they read. rather than make your mind up yourself.

That's just my point of view, JK has got it right though, I just want an efficient goverment and in other senses everybody else has put a relevant point of view as well.

I would suggest that Hain hasn't helped himself, but it should have been dealt with internally. If he clears his name, expect him back in 9 months.

JK, I think you should definitely be concerned how our politicians raise their money.

The (very real) danger is that money buys influence, and this is why absolute transparency is a must.

Otherwise, shady characters like Hain would be able to fill their pockets with cash, whilst themselves ending up in the pocket of some corporate fat cat.

That's why it's important and it is naive to think otherwise.

You can't blame the press for this one. If they are reporting indiscrepancies within government then that's how it should be. If they expose sleaze in government then good. I'm not reallly that interested in Pete Doherty, or Prince William's love life, or if Harry has paraded through Picadilly Circus dressed as Hitler in suspenders, but if members of the cabinet cannot or refuse to explain how a large amount of money (perhaps peanuts to some) was apparently swept under the rug, then they should be exposed as incompetents, thrown out and then investigated.

Solihull Exile wrote:
Certainly media pressure led to his resignation,as it has for many others going back to the 50s,

I think you miss the point slightly. People used to do the decent thing and RESIGN - now they simply carry on regardless ! It doesn't matter what the scandel is - selling peerages / having a "bit on the side" / phoney donations (passed through some organisation that no one else has ever heard of) etc etc .... the plan is "deny it all - until they can prove it" (and only then resign when the call is loud enough and there is simply no other option) !

If the baddies won't go when they are caught out - its a good thing that the media are there to "give them a push" !

In my ignorance it only dawned upon me that this was the same Peter Hain whose career I followed avidly in the late '70s when he was a superb anti-apartheid campaigner.
I particularly remember the dreadful case where he was fitted up for a bank robbery as it happened within one street of where I lived at the time.

He was found innocent and I remember that gave me great faith then in British justice ( somewhat rocked badly lately).

I agree-it's his competance as a minister that should have been judged but this is down to cowardly polies above him who take their cues from newspapers instead of standing strong on principal. Not a good look for Gordon Brown.

My whole point was that the media can only have a big effect on these matters if there is a genuine public interset in the case..as there was here...either a fool,or a liar...Hain had to be one or the other.

Now as for doing the decent thing and resigning,I remember studying both history and politics at A level,and the only real example of this happenning was the groundnut scandal back in 1949,and he only used it as an excuse as he wanted to go anyway.
Certainly there was perhaps more backroom pressure from the pm to make ministers resign before these things became public...but to believe a senior politician could ever do the 'decent thing'..by choice...it's just not in their nature:)

I think this guy says it all.