Friday, January 11, 2008

The silence on Andrew Brown explained?

It's been making me wonder over the past few days why there has been absolutely no comment from anyone in the Conservative Party about the fact that Gordon brown's brother is Head of Corporate Communications at EDF Energy. According to an internal memo sent around EDF his primary role is to "lead the communications agenda in the nuclear project" as well.

The potential for raising the possibility of sleaze, however tenuous it might be is there. This is especially the case when you add in the nuclear and energy lobbying link of Labour donors like Sovereign Strategy and Weber Shadwick. On top of which you have a former Labour Chairman (Iain McCartney) being a paid advisor to a nuclear specialist.

Then this morning I think I discovered why there is so much silence about the pontentially smelly EDF links to Downing Street. Between 2003 and 2005 EDF Energy, 70% owned by the French state, donated a total of £43,000 to the Conservatives and Labour. £31,000 and £12,000 respectively. Hardly going to big up connections if the quick answer is "you're connected too aren't you!"

16 comments:

Alex said...

There is the more mundane fact that GB's bro is simply the PR man, a fairly big player, but ultimately just draws a salary from a French government owned utility. If a fuss was made every time somebody connected to the government, however remotely, was affected by government decisions, then nothing would ever happen.

dizzy said...

Think you've missed the point.

Anonymous said...

i don't - actually i think you are losing your edge a bit. you used to be a haven of sense and understatement in the blogosphere and now you're getting all weird and seeing things that aren't there and implying things that aren't proven by the facts you supply.

rufus watertites said...

i think it might be cos it's dull?

dizzy said...

I never had an edge to lose, although I am rather pleased that I;ve reached the point that someone would do a "you're not as good as you used to be" comment. It makes me feel all warm and fluffy inside.

The nuclear decision, something which in principle I don't care about really because I;m not against nuclear, is one that has so many nepotistic and financially iffy links it makes it look dodgy as hell. THe problem is that it's just been the loony Greens that have pointed these things out up until now.

rufus's dad said...

does anyone elser get the sense that dizzy might be writing his own comments? they read like those pirvate eye fake letters to the telegraph from people with names like watertites.

dizzy said...

:rolleyes:

Croydonian said...

I'm Brian and so's my wife....

Man in a Shed said...

Did Enron use to back both main parties in the US ?

anthonynorth said...

Dis might be de National Greed at work.
Forgive the rubbish accent.

Alex said...

dizzy: re missing the point

I saw the other point (Conservatices accepting a £12,000 donation), but the idea that such a paltry sum to either party would have any influence on nuclear policy is a little implausible.

At that level it is probably more to do with establishing themselves as a good corporate citizen, what with being owned by furriners and being a regulated business, dealing with Ofgem etc. They just want to show themselves as part of UK plc, a bit like sponsoring a show at the Royal Academy.

dizzy said...

Oops put the figures round the wrong way. Actually that wasn't the point though, the point was that both parties have accepted money donations from the company so neiother is likely to draw attention to any possible conflicts of interests.

tory boys never grow up said...

"The potential for raising the possibility of sleaze, however tenuous it might be is there."

Quite - but it doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do unless you have some reasonable evidence of it happening. This is the same menatility that led to Witch Trials/Show Trials/Inqusitions etc.etc.

Perhaps the Conservative Party has a little more sense than to go down this road - otherwise perhaps the Labour Party would respond with other very tenuous possibilities (1 in a million is a possibility remember) of wrongdoing - there are many possibilities!

timbob said...

Sovereign Strategy is rotten.

Unsworth said...

Is there not a difference between making a contribution to a party which is in power and making a contribution to a party which may be in power?

In any event, what were those laws about contributions again? Have either of these two parties transgressed?

James Williams said...

why does his biography page keep disappearing from Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Brown_(media_strategist)