With chants of 'Sean Connery, Sean Connery' childishly, parochially and bizarrely ringing in his ears, Angus Robertson rose at PMQs yesterday to ask his question. The query of whether one of Downing St's staffers "took part in a conference call in July 2008 to discuss the suitability of Steven Purcell?" was met with a reply of 'I'll look into it from the PM'.
Now the really big question - Does anyone really care?
If some Labour colleagues knew of Purcell's woes back then, is it a cover up or merely a show of support that they didn't act on it? Is that even the angle Angus is aiming for?
Maybe it's my short attention span, maybe it's my strong compassionate streak or maybe I'm old-fashioned and just like elections to be about policies, but my level of interest in this red thread is all but extinguished and just think Steven Purcell should be allowed to bow out as gracefully as he can on a personal level.
So I would kindly suggest that the SNP group heed Tom Harris' warning and really soul-search to decide if they are "exploiting a tragic case" as the Glasgow South MP put it in The Herald. I don't think they are, but they'd pay a painful price if the public decided otherwise.
At a council level, the calls from John Mason for an investigation is firmer territory. Yousuf suggested recently that we shouldn't have an investigation because we don't know what the answers are yet. That's not generally the order in which these things happen. Answers follow investigations, not precede them.
There are enough allegations to justify some sort of review at least but until the authorities or auditors pick up the ball that the SNP is clearly desperate to hand off, the risks of this story continually being in the press sit more with the SNP than with Labour.
Does competition help the NHS?
20 minutes ago
20 comments:
Jeff,
Well, we'll have to disagree on this one.
I wish Steven Purcell well at a personal level, obviously. But there are fairly major inconsistencies in the 'story' that we are being asked to accept.
If last weeks investigation by The Sunday Times has any validity whatsoever, then it contradicts - or at least calls into question - the narrative that we are being asked to accept.
Until that, and several other inconsistencies, are resolved, it seems to me that there are legitimate public, as opposed to political, interests in getting to the bottom of this.
The fact that most of the investigative journalism on this story has been done by media at some remove from the West of Scotland is also a concern for the overall health of our body politic.
Anyone know what the "Sean Connery" business was all about? Has he done something notable recently, or does he have some connection to Purcellgate? The only recent story about him on Google News is the Telegraph informing us that women consider him less attractive than Johnny Depp.
Colin...
I think it's because he's a tax exile and gives the SNP some support. Weakly tying him into Ashcroft and Paul.
The Tories have Ashcroft, Labour has Unite and Lib Dems have Michael Brown, I guess Sean was the best they could think of for the SNP.
Jeff
Re the Purcell case
I am reminded of the Jackie Smith mantra when questioned about ID cards, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
As Labour were quite happy to quote that at every opportunity, maybe it is time they practiced what they preached and had a full inquiry into Purcells tenure at Glasgow City Council.
After all "if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear"
I didn't get the Sean Connery thing either - since he doesn't pay tax to the UK, he can't give the SNP any money? :o/
I'm afraid I also have to disagree, Jeff.
This whole episode has shone a light into the darkest recesses of Glasgow Labour and it's not a pretty (or democratic) sight.
The whole corrupt edifice needs a bomb under it and if the route to this destruction seems opportunistic or unsympathetic, that's just tough.
For me, the salient product of this story has been the manifest partiality of the West of Scotland press. Of course we all want to sound reasonable and avoid the charge of paranoia, but to deny the existence (and importance) of a biased Scottish media is now not credible.
Maybe the Labour Westminster MPs should have highlighted the fact Trades Union members are forced to subsidise their party, wether TU members like it or not - despite the fact the Labour Party leadership spends most of its time attacking and undermining Trades Unions.
I can only imagine the synthetic furore if it was the SNP who were in charge of running the SPT and Glasgow City Council - the anti-SNP propaganda in the The Herald is never-ending.
When Clegg asked his question at PMQs the SNP were chanting "Michael Brown, Michael Brown".
When Gus asked his the Lib Dems responded in kind by chanting "Sean..." You get the picture.
The Lib Dems are on shaky ground but I don't think either party is taking it too seriously...
Yes, my understanding was that he can no longer donate to the SNP because he isn't resident here. So I'm still kind of unsure what they were on about.
Hi Folks the Holyrood magazine has an interesting editorial on the matter.
http://www.holyrood.com/index.php?option=com_holyrood&func=article&artid=3479&edition=230&brick=1
Some animals are more equal than others!
The Sean Connery thing was just daft.
When Clegg asked his question at PMQs the SNP were chanting "Michael Brown, Michael Brown". ???
Strange that no-one else is aware of that including the SNP.
Presumably they were chanting it so quietly no-one could hear it.
Maybe they were whispering it? Or miming it perhaps.
Or beaming it telepathically so that only a very select few could hear it.
The BBC alluded that it was the SNP doing the "Michael Brown" when mentioning Purcell................then it was swiftly on.
A bit like you are doing Jeff. There is a vacuum here created by the negligence of the media and the labour party's ongoing failure to speak out. Has anyone heard Grey on the matter or Murphy.
Best not to let the blowhards threats get to you too much Jeff.
Tormod,
Thanks for the link to the Hollyrood magazine. There are some interesting questions being raised there.
Indy, it was the SNP that told me...
Connery wasn't in that movie, it was Roger "Eyebrows" Moore.
Over on Subrosa's blog
they are saying that it seems the 'Sean Connery' chants were actually coming from the Lib Dem benches.
Anyway,
I'm all for compassion and do admire this blog for trying to put humanity into mainstream party politics.
It strikes me as hypocrisy though that Labourites, such as Tom Harris MP, seem to be warning the SNP against exploiting the 'tragic case' of Mr Purcell ( the 'tragic case' still remains to be seen, a state we have to thank the journalistic guardians of public morality and probity in Scotland for).
It wasn't so long ago the Labour Party were exploiting an ill constituent of Nicola Sturgeon's, with grandstanding antics by Calamity Jim Murphy asking for a show of hands, in the Scottish Parliament at FMQ, to see if anyone was willing to help an ill man facing jail.
all the best
ps
Like others, I wish Mr Purcell a speedy recovery.
[URL=http://forums.portlandmercury.com/member.php?u=96620]buy cialis online[/URL]
I'm not particularly comfortable with the SNP using information that seems to have come from the NOTW as well as the Sunday Times in relation to this. I would like to see a less sensationalist approach and I don't think they need to drag the Prime Minister into it, mainly because I would be very surprised if he knew anything about it.
But there are clear grounds for launching an inquiry into what led to Mr Purcell's dramatic resignation and events thereafter. The situation needs to be stabilised, and GCC need to be given a clean bill of health, after any maladies have been treated/removed.
Labour seem to be standing four square against this. We can only speculate why.
If anyone else, having access to billions of pounds, and having executive decision making authority - like a Department Director for example, had left GCC under these circumstances you can bet your life their work would have been audited, and the Police called in if anything was found.
To try and claim that this is a personal tragedy ignores the powerful position that Mr Purcell was in, and the questions which have been raised by his own behaviour.
Jeff
This has to be investigated IMHO because we the public want to know the truth behind GCC and who is accountable for the alleged fraud etc etc. To ignore this is folly and would leave Glesga at the peril of a bunch of professional conmen.
We deserve better.
CD
Post a Comment