It's always the little things in the papers that catch your eye I find. Sometimes you will stick to the main story themes that the editor of the publication is pushing your way, today it seems to be Tory green taxes etc etc.However, what really caught my eye this morning, and seems to have been missed by everyone (even in ConservativeHome's daily review), is what appears to be a throwaway remark by the editor of the Spectator, Matthew d'Ancona, in the Sunday Telegraph. In his article he wrote about the whole "lurch to the Right" stuff that has been going on, and also mentioned the Bercow/Mercer thing. In a comment surrounded by parentheses he said,
"(I am told that Mr Mercer wanted to go "even further into the heart of Labour", but that his offer was politely declined)."Now that's not really something you say as a throwaway given its implication. I mean, lets think about this for a moment, if d'Ancona is right, then the comment seems to suggest that Patrick Mercer offered to defect, and for some reason, he was rebuffed.
Being rebuffed would certainly seem to play with the idea that the whole "all the talents" line is little more than political gamesmanship by Brown. After all, much better to have a Tory in your camp, than someone who used to be one right? It's not nearly as potent otherwise. Plus of course there will be many in the Labour Party who think he's a racist after his sacking (which he obviously isn't I should hasten to add). The Labour faithful probably couldn't stomach a defection because of that.
Now, obviously, d'Ancona is well placed with sources in Government given he's married to Sarah Schaeffer, who is special adviser to David Miliband. However, it's probably not likely that she is the source simply because politics would be - I imagine - banned from the marital abode. Even so though, her access means he has access elsewhere, and I'd be surprised if the editor of a national political periodical would make such comments, especially in a national newspaper, without the lawyers checking over things first (although it's not beyond the realm of possibility of course).
So what is going on? Did Patrick Mercer offer himself up for defection to Labour and get knocked back? Or is the throwaway comment something that deserves to be thrown away in the bin (in which case m'Learned Friend may need to get involved)? The quickest thing that could solve this is for Patrick Mercer to make a statement and either confirm or deny what d'Ancona has alluded too. Silence can speak a thousand words after all, and If it's nonsense he ought to sue.
Of course, at the end of the day, it may just go to show that Mercer has simply found himself to be one of the "useful idiots" that Rachel Sylvester talked about earlier this week. Sunday newspaper comment can often be so intriguing (or possibly libelous) huh?
8 comments:
This is a very intriguing story, Dizzy, and thanks for running it.
Personally, I doubt that Patrick Mercer offered to defect for simple reason that military men (and women) are almost aways conservative people. They believe in protecting and conserving. "Activists", are usually people of the left who want to destroy and reconfigure society according to some weird template that will give them more power.
So, an offer to defect? I don't buy it. My own thinking is, revenge. Act as an advisor to the socialists to cause maximum embarrassment to the very foolish David Cameron who sacked him for a trumped up reason that no one in his old regiment - including black military men under his command - would endorse.
Interesting, though, that the story you have reported, has been slyly outed by D'Ancona.
I wonder why.
I just wonder why.
As I am usually late to comment on these things, I am especially surprised that no one else has hazarded a remark on your hypothesis.
Having seen an interview with Mercer on IainDale TV - sorry, 18 Doughty Street - a few weeks ago I cannot imagine him being attracted to join New Labour, Gollum Brown or, even, Des Browne. He appears to be completely committed to developing his expertise on military and counter-terror issues.
However, I think he will be proved to be naive in his willingness to become a so-called adviser to a Government that has has failed (remember Gollum was part of the Cabinet when Blair created this debacle) and is failing to protect our soldiers by under-funding and lack of action.
If Mercer can make a difference to these failings then he will be thanked by Generals Donnat and Jackson who have clearly failed to persuade the "clunking fist" to change his views. Somehow I doubt it though.
I and many other Conservatives have sent him an e mail calling him a fool.
He has, apparently been buried in such comments and still wont budge! I reckon that the remarks by Mathew may be correct.
There were strong rumours at the time of the Blair-Brown handover that Bercow was planning to defect. I just wonder if d'Ancona has got his would-be defectors muddled up?
Having been in correspondence with Mr Mercer myself when he was sacked without reason - other than for Cameron to big himself up by sacking a military man - I would be astounded if he was prepared to fight for the enemy. Absolutely amazed.
I think he was handing Cameron a public humiliation. If Cameron has any sense, he will invite him back into the fold and offer him a good post and an apology.
I agree with Verity's comment,in the words of Lyndon Johnson "better inside the tent p*ss*ng out than outside the tent P*iss*ng in!"
Thanks,Anonymous 11:09. The other thing we should bear in mind is, the military are, by their nature, loyal individuals.
I believe Mr Mercer was wounded by Cameron's duplicity and desire for a headline that would - he thought - ingratiate him with black people. So he bided his time, and eventually, what he did to Cameron was far more wounding. (Hooray!) If Cameron had any common sense, which he hasn't, he would resolve this and get Mr Mercer back visibly within the Conservative fold.
As a leader,Cameron is the absolute pits. All he cares about is his little coterie. Who are always wrong.
If Patrick Mercer had any real loyalty or trustworthiness one would have expected him to make every effort to attended the forthcoming Conservative Party conference rather than have some soul in Mercer’s Commons office say Mercer may "nip in" but he isn’t going to commit himself because he is too busy with his commitments to Gordon.
I think Patrick Mercer aspires to power and fame and when he rightly was dismissed from his job he knew the Tory party had little to offer him and that his chance of opportunity of elevation within his party were slim at best, so why trouble to rebuild bridges with the Conservative Party or go to the Tory conference if there is little chance they will ever put him on a pedestal of position and great esteem and I think it’s not so much what he can do for the country but what the country and any political party can do for him.
We have already seen what the war in Iraq did for him, and continues to do, and without war and terrorism he would just be another common-or-garden backbencher trying to steal the limelight.
Over the years Mercer caused a lot of bother and unrest for the Tories what with his "crass" and wholly indifferent remarks that so distressed the bereaved families of the Dunblane massacre, what's more he never seems to learn by his mistakes, and so it no surprise, to read that Mr Mercer wanted to go "even further into the heart of Labour" but that his offer was politely declined, because who in their right mind, would want such a troublesome politician, when they think he can do so much more good for them, as a treacherous self-serving disgruntled Tory member.
Time that David Cameron did some weeding.
Post a Comment