David's
Mental Meanderings 24th February 2001 To
someone from outside the United Kingdom without a working knowledge of the British
political and legal system, it is difficult to understand the role of the Lord
Chancellor. You might think that with such a lofty and ancient title, it must
have been very important in days of yore, but is no doubt reduced to responsibility
for Crown Jewels or something. How wrong you would be. (By the way, the Crown
Jewels are the responsibility of the Comptroller of the Lord Chamberlain's Office,
in case you were wondering.) The
Lord Chancellor is the highest paid member of the Government. He uniquely occupies
key positions in all three branches of the civil government. He is appointed by
the Prime Minister and is a member of the Cabinet, and thus a member of the Executive.
He is the Speaker of the House of Lords and thus a member of the Legislature.
But it is his role in the Judiciary that is the farthest reaching. The
Lord Chancellor is the head of the Judiciary. He appoints the judges. In England
we have someone called the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. The Lord Chancellor
is his boss. The quote from his website, "Broadly speaking he is responsible for:
The effective management of the courts. The appointment of judges, magistrates
and other judicial office holders. The administration of legal aid. The oversight
of a varied programme of Government civil legislation and reform in such fields
as family law, property law, defamation and legal aid." He also appoints the certain
top barristers to the title of "Queen's Counsel" (QC), which enables them to command
even higher fees. The
closest analogy I could draw would be to imagine that William Rehnquist was a
member of the President's cabinet, President of the Senate, appointed the entire
federal judiciary, spearheaded legal reform, ran the legal aid system, and chose
which lawyers would make the most money. Oh, and was appointed because he gave
the President his first job out of school. Quite a powerful position, you can
imagine. Now, imagine
that you are a lawyer trying to work your way up the ladder and you get an invitation
from the Lord Chancellor. You are invited to a dinner at a posh nightclub hosted
by the Lord Chancellor. A very important QC and part-time judge is the guest of
honour. Oh, and she happens to be the Prime Minister's wife. The dinner is free,
but your invitation advises you that "The minimum you will be invited to pledge
is £200 per person, but we know that many of you will take this opportunity to
make a significant contribution to party funds in order to secure a second term."
Would you feel just a little pressure? Even
many Labour MPs and QCs thought something just wasn't right about this. However,
when Paul Boateng, a Government minister got on BBC Radio 5 Live and rejected
allegations of sleaze, called the Lord Chancellor a man of unquestionable probity,
I just about lost it. This is the same man who stole the wife of a fellow Labour
politician, with whom he later served in the Cabinet. This is the same man who
while railroading through the dismemberment of the unwritten British Constitution,
kicking out most of the members of the House of Lords, was also busy re-decorating
his apartments in the Palace of Westminster with wallpaper at £400 per roll, and
ultimately at a cost of £590,000 ($885,000). He is the only cabinet minister entitled
to a salary greater than the Prime Minister. When Labour came to power, the cabinet
voluntarily reduced their salaries and refused cost-of-living increases. But not
Derry Irvine. The only
thing that all colours of the political spectrum find unquestionable about Derry
is his complete arrogance. When he was pressured to make a statement to the Lords
over this scandal, he refused to apologise, and brushed off comments from all
sides of the House. As the official news agency of the Labour Party (also called
the BBC) even said on the evening news (in their characteristically British style
of understatement), "Lord Irvine is not known for his expertise in humility."
Is it surprising that he is the first Lord Chancellor in years who prefers to
be known by his full title of Lord High Chancellor? How
did Derry Irvine achieve his lofty position? That is primarily due to his other
moniker, "Cupid, QC." Not only did he give Tony Blair his first job as a lawyer,
he also introduced Tony and Cherie to each other.
Other cabinet ministers have resigned over much less. Last month the Northern
Ireland Secretary, Peter "Mandy" Mandelson resigned because he may have incorrectly
told another cabinet minister, who told the House of Commons, that a member of
his staff contacted a civil servant to inquire about an application for citizenship
for an Indian businessman. In fact, he made a two-minute phone call to the Government
minister in charge of immigration to inquire about it. But
will Lord Irvine resign over this fiasco? Most definitely not. I wish I could
say that Tony Blair avoided letting Bill Clinton rub off on him when it comes
to character in Government. Neither Irvine nor Mandelson didn't take money and
gifts from a chicken company, nor was he paying off his mistress, or involved
any of the other sleazy shenanigans of recent executive officers of the US government.
However, both did something improper and then didn't own up to it. Mandelson
only resigned because this was his second bite of the apple. Mandy had to resign
back in December 1998 when received a loan from another Government minister (who
happens to be a very rich man) to buy a house in the very up-market Notting Hill
area of London. There was nothing illegal about taking the loan - he just "forgot"
to mention it in the register wherein every member of Parliament declares gifts,
loans, and other outside interests which might affect their impartiality. Unfortunately,
Blair did something that even Clinton didn't do: fire a cabinet member for sleaze
and then re-hire him into the cabinet 10 months later, only to fire him again
for sleaze. That being
said, when compared to the US, it requires much less of a scandal to cause a member
of the British cabinet to resign. Or perhaps I should say that it requires much
less of an indiscretion to cause a scandal. In the Clinton administration, it
generally took a federal indictment. Presidents
and Prime Ministers, like any other men, are known by the company they keep. The
most striking difference between the Clinton and Bush cabinets is the character
of the individuals. I'm not downplaying the fact that Bush has assembled what
is regarded even by liberals in the press as one of the most capable and qualified
cabinets in history. Competence is a good quality. However, it means nothing without
character. Competence
repeats the mantra of the first Clinton campaign, "It's the economy, Stupid."
But you know what, Stupid? It's not the economy. The supreme thing is not whether
or not you are better off now than you were four years ago. The supreme thing
is not even whether or not you have a job or are reduced to what one of my readers
is fond of calling "gubmint cheese." Solomon knew the supreme thing when he said,
"A good name is to be desired more than riches." Markets rise and fall. Economic
policies come and go. The memory of the just is blessed. For
what will Bill Clinton be remembered: half a dozen years of coincidental relative
prosperity or Monica Lewinsky? Bill's employees showed their character when they
trashed the White House on the way out. George Bush showed his by refusing suggestions
of an investigation and possible prosecutions. This
brings me to John Ashcroft. I have been following the career and politics of Mr
Ashcroft since he was governor of Missouri. Though he will not have been aware
of this, John Ashcroft and I have somewhat diverged theologically since those
days. I probably understand his Pentecostal piano playing better than he would
understand my icons and incense. But the one thing we have in common is the thing
that scares so many of his opponents. John Ashcroft takes Jesus seriously. Washington
has always been uncomfortable around Mr Ashcroft. And here is where the press
gets it wrong. They aren't uncomfortable because he doesn't drink. There are a
lot of reformed alcoholics in Washington who don't drink. They were uncomfortable
because he believes something and isn't afraid to live it in front of them. As
Senator Phil Gramm said, "The plain truth is, we may have 'In God We Trust' on
our coins, but we do not have it in our heart." Nothing
made the difference between Ashcroft and his detractors more clear than the sad
fact that the best person they could find to lead the charge against him was Ted
Kennedy. If there is anyone in the U.S. Senate with less character and integrity
than the junior senator from the State of New York, it has to be the senior senator
from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Do I really need to say any more than
that? Before you think
I'm bashing liberals in general or Democrats in particular, you are wrong. (If
you are a member of my surprisingly large circle of "Liberal Friends and Family,"
I hope you have read this far.) The most important thing a Democrat said on Ashcroft
nomination was not said by a conservative/moderate. It was Robert Byrd who said,
"Although I do not agree with all of Senator Ashcroft's views, I have no cause
to doubt Senator Ashcroft's word or his sincerity regarding his fealty to an oath
he will swear before God Almighty.'' At
the end of the day (and at the End of our days) what matters is not power, position
or lofty titles. What matters is quality of the legacy you leave behind. In all
likelihood, Derry Irvine will be remembered for his pride, Mandy Mandelson for
his lies, and John Ashcroft for his integrity. |