Ali Miraj plays the race card by not playing the race card

I have to admit I'm a little confused by an article in this morning's Sunday Times by Ali Miraj titled "Dave, I didn't blackmail you". What confuses me is this the use of the word "blackmail" for a start.

As I recall Cameron didn't say that Miraj tried to blackmail him into giving him a peerage. He merely said he came to his office and the subject of a peerage was raised and that people should "draw their own conclusions" on his article in relation to that,

"I think listeners will draw their own conclusions about someone who one day asks for a peerage, to be elevated to the House of Lords, and the next minute launches a great attack on the leader of the Conservative party."

The charge of "blackmail" is of course one conclusion from that, but there is also the possibility is there not that he asked for a peerage, the answer was no, and he simply decided he had nothing to lose. Miraj, in his new article says,

No "demand" for a seat in the Lords was made by me, no blackmail tactics were employed and if Cameron perceived these discussions to be a demand then this was an error of his judgment.

Again I'm left a little confused, this time because of the word "demand". Why is it in quotes? And who is it meant to be attributed too? I don't recall the word being used by Cameron in his Today interview, and I don't recall other interviews where it was said. Who said it?

It's also worth noting that in his article today Miraj now admits that the subject of peerages was raised, he also seems to have a rather odd view of politics saying that the only place he could help in this context was "either the green benches or the red ones".

THe next confusing part in his article is a claim that he was approached about being given a peerage in 2005 by someone (a female) who is a current member of the shadow cabinet. As Iain has pointed out, that can only be Theresa May, Caroline Spelman or Sayeeda Warsi. However, again it's worth actually looking at the words Ali Miraj has written, he says,

"What is not commonly known is that I was, in fact, asked whether I would consider accepting a seat in the Lords in 2005 following the 7/7 London bombings tragedy, when the party was seeking to appoint a “Muslim” parliamentarian to that House."

So let's get this straight, he was "asked" whether he would consider an offer of a peerage. He wasn't offered a peerage, he was asked what he would say if he was offered one. Those are two very different things.

What's more the reference to a shadow cabinet member means someone who wasn't in a position to make the offer anyway. Personally it sounds like he's referring to some passing conversation rather than anything substantive. Or what a cynic might call shit stirring.

Miraj says that his response was that if he was offered he would turn it down, as he has "never upheld playing the “race” card". Fair enough, but isn't mentioning, especially in this context, that you don't like playing the race card errr... playing the race card? Rather than saying "you're a bunch of racists" it's essentially saying "you're a bunch of racists because you're only doing this to send the message that you're not a bunch of racists".

Personally if I were in a position to advise David Cameron, I would say he should just ignore Miraj's latest outburst. Let him say who it was that talked to him about a peerage after 7/7, and then wait and point out that the person in question was not someone who had the authority to make an offer suggesting the "approach" was little more than a "what if" conversation between colleagues.

It was pretty obvious the Sundays would try and get Miraj to speak about the incidents of the last week, and also rather obvious that Miraj would agree. After all, he's just had his career in the party effectively put on hold. Best make some cash whilst the story still has minimally short legs, plus you can always play the race card and spark it up a bit.