Chris Huhne’s resignation last week not only deprives the Government of a strong voice for Liberalism, but also this country and the international community of a voice for the common good, in the fight against climate change. We are treading the weary road of a political resignation got over ahead of time, to save even more trouble later.
Such ‘pre-emptive resignations’ are a slur on the legal system. They render its actions useless, by defying the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. This principle can be abused by criminals anxious to escape justice, but it is a cornerstone of the law of this country. The court may or may not recommend a sentence: the person who resigns has already accepted a punishment, quite often far in excess of the original accusation.
Moral guilt is an important
consideration. Someone who keeps their post in the face of general and sustained opprobrium from public and colleagues alike, as many politicians have, must consider the political wisdom of their actions. Defiantly clinging on is something Huhne has had some practice in, and too much of it can engulf anyone’s career. But the alleged offence at the heart of this affair (though undoubtedly serious) is not on the same page as corruption or misuse of one’s position. These are the types of offences that should, and often don’t, bring about resignation.
When a member of the public loses their job over accusations of wrongdoing before due process has run its course, it is regarded as an injustice. Huhne is a public figure, but he’s in the same position – with the difference in treatment due largely to media attention.
So is the crucial factor in cases involving public figures the worry of being hounded by the press? All politicians work with one eye on the media. But as the Leveson inquiry is presently demonstrating, to allow the media to step in as de facto lawmakers is to placate a bully. And bullies are never satisfied.
This might not be a popular view – or one that a politician in Huhne’s position could adopt – but it is a great pity that many talented people have their careers blighted for the sake of ‘what people might think’. We need to change something in our media culture and our political culture to prevent automatic resignation being the expected option.
* Rebecca Taylor is a Lib Dem activist, Membership Development Officer for Streatham Lib Dems and approved candidate for Parliament (but not the former MEP!). She also serves on the Women Lib Dems Executive.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Protect your children from the National Elf Service
Is the polling changing on immigration? - The Week in Polls
Highland Tigers
Blackness Road of old #dundeewestend
Geoffrey Payne
Tim Rogers
19 Comments
Don’t agree – whilst the position of “innocent until proven guilty” is an important principle, nobody in a high-profile position can really expect to stay in place when facing criminal charges of a serious nature. Ask John Terry.
@Rebecca Taylor
“But the alleged offence at the heart of this affair (though undoubtedly serious) is not on the same page as corruption or misuse of one’s position. ”
Really? Charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice? Against a a legislator? If this had been a Labour cabinet minister you would have written a very different thread.
MacK,
Do you think Dick Crossman should have resigned from the Cabinet when it was shown that he had fraudulently obtained damages from “Private Eye” which had (correctly) accused him of being drunk in a gondola in Venice? As I recall, Crossman continued to function as a leading and lauded member of the political establishment right up to his death.
I think whether we like it or not Chris did the only thing possible in his position and MacK is quite right had he been a Labour or Conservative politician we would have demanded he resign. If he is found not guilty then fine he can then return to the Cabinet. There is one privilege we should allow all high profile accused and that is an early trial, John Terry having to wait until July is unreasonable in view of the media coverage he will have to endure in the meantime..
……………………..When a member of the public loses their job over accusations of wrongdoing before due process has run its course, it is regarded as an injustice. Huhne is a public figure, but he’s in the same position – with the difference in treatment due largely to media attention…………
A judge accused of corruption, a doctor accused of serious malpractice, a politician accused of perverting the course of justice; I would expect every fair-minded person to understand that, these accused, would find their postion untenable until the investigation/trial is over….As ‘Mack’ says, “If the accused was from another party would such tolerance be shown”
I think we just have to accept this is a part of political life. Therefore if you want to fly high in politics don’t break the law and think at least twice before you say anything or use things like facebook. And if you can’t do that are you really as good as you think you are.
I am trying to work out why people think that the question of criminal conviction or not is the issue in this (or any other case). The issue is how the person concerned did or did not behave, and whether this is acceptable or not..
The criminal proof ‘bar’ is set very high. It is quite bizarre that, in any issue where there is not a criminal sanction, including political ‘deviation’, we make our judgement according to a (possibly slightly stronger than?) balance of probabilities. Yet, where there is any possibility of criminal sanction, a large number of people go by the idea: “if they’ve not been found guilty then whatever we feel about their behaviour, we shall turn a blind eye.” Not what happens in employment situations.
“Do you think Dick Crossman should have resigned from the Cabinet when it was shown that he had fraudulently obtained damages from “Private Eye” which had (correctly) accused him of being drunk in a gondola in Venice?”
If he committed perjury to obtain those damages, then not only should he have resigned from the Cabinet, but he should have been prosecuted and jailed, like Archer and Aitken. Do you not think so yourself?
I’m actually quite relaxed about Huhne’s position.
The party has plenty of talented MPs who can step into a frontline role, but lacks some punch behind the curtains. Huhne never quite got a grip on his public image and was therefore always less-suited to a ministerial position, so maybe now he will be freed up a bit to make the most of his undoubted abilities.
I hope he’ll use the affair as a wake-up call to his egotistic ambitions and start tailoring his career for more effective public service.
My advice, stand tall and take it on the chin.
Chris,
“Do you not think so yourself?”
The case was settled out-of-court (I think), so Crossman and the other two could only have committed perjury if they had sworn affidavits. I don’t know if they did that. Even if they had not done, they still obtained a pecuniary advantage by deception (ie, fraud). I think Crossman (and the other of the two who was still living at the time) should have gone to jail, as Aitken and Archer did. (Also, I cannot remember which one it was who bragged about it years later. The other two might have had the defence that they didn’t know they were drunk so sued “Private Eye” thinking they had been sober.)
Sesenco
Certainly online sources refer to Crossman and the others testifying on oath. (It was the Spectator, not Private Eye, that printed the offending article.)
I incline to the view that in a non-public job, he would be suspended until the trial was complete, and would be sacked (none of this “allowed to resign” malarkey) if found guilty.
If found not guilty, then it’s possible that a disciplinary hearing might still find him responsible of gross misconduct and therefore sacked him anyway, but any such hearing would not run in parallel because of the sub judice rules.
I wouldn’t have a problem with Huhne being suspended, Ed Davey being Acting Secretary of State (with the full powers of the office) and then the possibility that Huhne would be reinstated if found not guilty. But that seems to be in effect what has happened – if the court found him not guilty, then Nick’s statement suggests he’d be back in the Cabinet pronto.
@MacK – ” If this had been a Labour cabinet minister you would have written a very different thread.”
I hope I wouldn’t have (though if it had been a Tory there might have been a smidgen more gloating…). My point is that it’s a no-win situation for everyone, regardless of political stripe – if one resigns from a job on an allegation of having done something wrong, this bypasses the legal system. If that allegation is directly related to how one is performing in the job, eg. taking money, favours to friends, suspension while an investigation is proceeding might be appropriate. But to resign over a less serious and unrelated matter, I would argue, does no-one any favours and gives the media a big stick to beat politicians with.
@ MarkG – The reason I didn’t refer to John Terry is that there are substantial differences (alleged video evidence being a key one) but also because I wanted to focus on politics (and don’t follow sport).
@Tony Dawson – the question of criminal conviction is the issue because we have a legal system that needs to be allowed to function without ‘trial by newspaper’.
The rightness or not of Huhne’s behaviour will be decided in a court and the outcome of that is still important, whatever people’s private opinions may be. We’ve decided as a society to put trust in a legal system, including a jury as our representatives. It’s not flawless, but it’s there.
Chris,
Yes, the Crossman/Bevan/Phillips case is on all fours with Atiken and Archer, if they did indeed lie under oath. However, Aitken and Archer are generally (but far from universally) reviled by polite society, while Crossman and Bevan are regarded as these great titans of democratic socialism. I suppose they could have argued that by protecting their reputations and fleecing a right-wing periodical, they were furthering the cause of a socialist Britain. I say fiddlesticks to that. They were lying fraudsters, whatever good they might have done elsewhere.
I guess I misremembered it as “Private Eye” because that’s where I read about it.
@ Sesenco
My position is quite simple: if a Cabinet Minister is charged with a criminal offence he should resign. I understand that Chris Huhne is the first cabinet minister ever to have been charged with a criminal offence. If, Crossman had been charged with an offence I would have expected him to have resigned. But Crossman was never charged with an offence.
@ Rebecca Taylor.
Really Jason, above, makes the point most effectively:
“A judge accused of corruption, a doctor accused of serious malpractice, a politician accused of perverting the course of justice; I would expect every fair-minded person to understand that, these accused, would find their postion untenable until the investigation/trial is over…”.
Rebecca, you seem to have made a value judgement that an accusation of perverting the course of justice against a politician is less serious than a criminal accusation relating to his or her job. But surely it is the responsibility of the politician to uphold justice? By your logic a politician charged with murder might not have to stand down but if he was charged with taking bribes or illegally advancing his circle of acquaintances through his office than he should resign. Curious logic.
@Mac K – as you will have seen in the original post, I state that moral guilt is an important consideration. But my point is that automatic resignation invites an immediate judgement, instead of using the legal system to reach a judgement one way or the other.
The principle is as Rebecca states it. As a matter of practical politics, a minister needs authority and credibility as well as being able to concentrate on the demanding job. It would be difficult for any minister charged with a serious criminal offence to have any of these. Both the media comment and the casual conversations I’ve heard have stressed that Chris might be innocent or might be found innocent, and the consensus is that if he’s acquitted he’ll be as potent a political force as before without any “no smoke without fire” rumour. He would then be invited back into the cabinet at the first opportunity and it would be his choice if he accepted.
The idea of treating it like a normal job problem has some attraction – reading Chris Mullin’s “A View from the Foothills” I thought it would be so much more sensible if junior ministers got regular appraisal meetings with their bosses, feedback on how their performance was seen and a timetabled chance to give their perception – but in this case, the suspension solution would weaken Ed Davey with his civil servants and in cabinet.
British law is absolutely clear: innocent until and unless proved guilty.
This is the nearest thing we have to a constitution. It is what protects British citizens from being locked up or punished in any other way by the state without cause. It is the most precious right we have. It is what makes us citizens, not subjects. Mess with it at your peril! It is why we can go to bed at night without fear. It is what makes Britain one of the best countries in the world.
I have my issues with Sesenco on another thread but my biography of Bevan says that the was on oath when he claimed he had not been drinking (can’t recall if it was testimony or a sworn affidavit). It also goes on to say that the author thought it was an extraordinary risk to have taken.