Last updated at 12:29 AM on 25th October 2008 'Not good enough': Mandelson has refused to answer questions on his connection with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska The influence over the British political system by a relatively small and, in some cases, corrupt group of super-rich individuals is the single most poisonous legacy of Tony Blair's decade in government. It is well-documented that he allowed the corporate elite to dictate government policy and buy access to senior ministers - including the prime minister himself. Shamefully, Blair's priority was to put private greed above public duty. Until 1997, standards of public life in this country were a model for the rest of the world. Traditionally, meetings between business tycoons and ministers were carefully monitored by civil servants. Detailed notes would be taken of these encounters in order to ensure that nothing irregular happened. Whitehall officials would warn ministers about the probity and general reputation of the individuals they met on these occasions. They would also prevent ministers from taking gifts in kind. However, this respected system of government was deliberately destroyed during the Blair years with the reliance on a so-called 'sofa government' of unelected advisers and hand-picked cronies. As a result, civil servants were systematically excluded from many important meetings and the Cabinet Secretary's warnings about issues of propriety were ignored. Also symptomatic of this new approach at No 10 was the way the prime minister himself habitually scrounged free holidays off rich acquaintances. Indeed, the connection between ministers and big businessmen was placed on a uniquely undemocratic footing. 'Poisonous': Tony Blair's decade in government gave a small group of super-rich individuals, some corrupt, an influence in British politics Instead of being regulated through officials, these relationships were often brokered through a new breed of public relations men who, normally in exchange for a large fee, would massage the links between the wealthy and the political class. No one can begin to understand modern British politics without knowing who these individuals are and how they operate. A prime example is Alan Parker, of the Brunswick Group, whose recent wedding was attended by David Cameron and Gordon Brown and who (very significantly) employed the Prime Minister's wife, Sarah, and is thought to be worth £100 million. Another key player is Tim Bell, Margaret Thatcher's former advertising genius, who now advises Russian oligarchs as well as laundering the reputation of a number of extremely unpleasant foreign governments. Roland Rudd, an accomplished former financial journalist, has made an estimated £30million fortune and is said to be close to Peter Mandelson. A newcomer to this trade is Tim Allan, a former Press spokesman for Tony Blair who now has links with the Kremlin. Matthew Freud is the final member of this group - his parties are attended by senior politicians from the Government and Opposition front benches, where they mingle with business magnates. Now, these men are all highly successfully professionals in their own field. But the deals they do are often brokered in secret; they are not accountable to anyone except their shareholders, and the meetings they engineer are normally held in private. This is in stark contrast to the traditional system of British government, where the civil servants who monitored meetings between ministers and tycoons were always acting on behalf of the public good. Worrying: The Corfu meetings of Oleg Deripaska with Lord Mandelson and George Osborne exposes this murky world of tycoons and their client politicians These officials were on hand to ensure that rich men did not get special treatment at the expense of the ordinary man in the street. Most people accept, though I do not, that PR has become a necessary part of modern life. But by the very nature of their business these men are acting for private gain rather than for the public interest and that is why their introduction to the heart of our political system is so damaging. All this brings us to the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, Lord Mandelson and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne. The story of their meetings in Corfu is fascinating because it exposes this murky world of tycoons and their client politicians. The most worrying aspect is the astonishing ease with which Deripaska has been accepted into senior British circles. Imagine, for a moment, that Deripaska had turned up in London a generation ago. Although there are reports that secret British government intelligence files exist on him, I am sure the security services would have kept a much closer eye on him. Gordon Brown called for an investigation into George Osborne's conversation with Deripaska - for the reputation of his government it should be widened to include Mandelson They would have noted that his multi-entry visa was revoked by the U.S. State Department. Quite properly, the American authorities have never made public the reasons for this humiliating decision, but discreet inquiries would have been made in London to discover the truth. The authorities would also have noted Deripaska's rise, in an extraordinarily short space of time, from being a small-time metals trader to one of the world's richest men, thanks to his control of Russian aluminium production. They would have observed, without necessarily drawing any conclusions, that contract killings and gang warfare were routine in Moscow during the time Deripaska was building up his company. They would have remarked upon his business interests in Montenegro. While Deripaska is doubtless an honest man, Montenegro is a notorious gangster state. Also, the authorities would have placed in their file the fact that one of Deripaska's business rivals, Mikhail Gutseriyev, says he fears returning to Moscow. Until our political culture became tainted by links with controversial businessmen, characters such as Deripaska would have been unable to break into London's social or political milieu. I remember that 25 years ago, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, scion of the great banking dynasty, refused every plea to act for disgraced media tycoon Robert Maxwell, who Deripaska, in certain respects, resembles. Yet today, Sir Evelyn's cousin, Nathaniel, is happy to be a close associate of this oligarch. Today, standards of public life have fallen sharply. Money counts, not reputation. It is fashionable to ridicule those who still abide by a moral code. In such a climate, no doubt, George Osborne felt he could casually wander onto the Russian's yacht and talk about him giving money to the Tory Party. Although no law has been broken, Osborne has proved himself to be an extremely naive and foolish young man. However, of much greater significance is the connection between Business Secretary Lord Mandelson and Deripaska. Their private relationship is entirely improper. Every day we are learning new and disturbing information. It now emerges that Mandelson's relationship with the Russian dates back as far as 2004 and continued while he was negotiating huge EU trade deals worth tens of millions of pounds to Deripaska and his various business acquaintances. One of these involved concessions to the Russian aluminium industry, the other trading connections with Montenegro. Disconcertingly, when questioned, some of Mandelson's answers have turned out to be misleading. He has refused to reply to other questions on the basis that his connection with the oligarch is a private matter. This is simply not good enough. On Wednesday, Gordon Brown called for an investigation into Osborne's conversation with Deripaska. That's all very well. But if the Prime Minister cares for the reputation of his government, such an investigation should be widened to include Mandelson's activities. There are many pertinent questions still to be asked - and many of them will shed a troubling light on the debased nature of British democracy. Just like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown treats Parliament with contempt. The most recent proof? This week, the Government revealed MPs will be given their longest ever Christmas holiday: a staggering 24 days. The reason for this is not because there is nothing for MPs to do. Rather, it is because the new Chief Whip, Nick Brown, wishes to suppress debate. A typical example of this was the disgraceful decision to squash a planned Commons debate this week on changes to the abortion law. Abortion is a matter of pressing public interest, and if Parliament has any worthwhile role at all, it is to engage on such issues. Instead, Labour business managers send MPs on prolonged holidays. No wonder voters are increasingly alienated from politics. Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below? Not regarded as "the Prince of Darkness" for nothing then? Why did Crash Gordon invite him back? And then gave him a grand title in double-quick time. Why? - albert hall, hove england, 25/10/2008 08:21 I think the Mail should stay on the case. - grace, scotland, 25/10/2008 08:21Lord Mandy, his murky friends and the debasing of our democracy
More from Peter Oborne...
The young contemptibles
Share this article:
Unfortunately with every new exposure it seems increasingly likely that the whole house of cards could come tumbling down and where would that leave the ordinary person?
Sunday, 26 October 2008
Posts
All true I fear, but unless Cameron rids his party of the sleazebags and deals with issues like the Spelman affair, he will be tarred with the same brush.
When Labour were last in power the tories were led by a strong leader who wasn't afraid to attack them. Why won't Dave? Is the Tory cupboard full of the same skeletons?
Since Gordon gave all our money away and Bliar and Mandy allowed big business to dictate policy we don' have many chips to play with.
Better stock up on jumpers, it's gonna be a cold winter
- Dave Clemo, Kettering UK, 25/10/2008 08:26