Keith Newbery Surely no-one is fooled by these very convenient '˜accidental' leaks
The following year, Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner Bob Quick got out of his car flaunting a document for the world at large to read which led to a suspected operation against Al-Qaeda having to be brought forward.
Ms Flint survived her little embarrassment, but Quick’s indiscretion cost him his job.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThis week, it was chief secretary of the treasury Danny Alexander’s turn to provide fodder for the prying lenses, when he was pictured in the back of an official car with the Comprehensive Spending Review on his lap.
It just happened to be open at the page detailing the fact that almost half a million jobs would be lost in the public sector as a result of the draconian cuts in government spending.
Once is an accident. Twice could be carelessness. But three times? Do me a favour.
This was clearly part of a deliberate ploy by the coalition to release some of the less-palatable details of its spending review into the public domain, thereby lessening the impact of a raw announcement.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThey’ve been operating this drip-drip approach for several weeks now, with the result that George Osborne’s lengthy statement to the House of Commons sounded a bit like one of those audio books you half remember listening to a long time ago.
It may also explain why he rattled along at such a pace he seemed to have scorched his throat. He was obviously as bored with the details as the rest of us.
But all this nonsense brings into focus once again the cavalier manner in which ministers treat the Commons.
David Cameron was the first to whine when New Labour in general – and Messrs Brown and Mandelson in particular – found ever more resourceful ways of leaking information which should have been placed before their parliamentary colleagues first.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdNow he and his front bench colleagues are equally as guilty of treating parliament with contempt.
What can we expect next? Key details of the coalition’s policy in Afghanistan contained in a tattoo on the top of William Hague’s head?