Jumped or pushed?
- 11 Feb 09, 03:48 PM
Downing Street is being rather coy about whether the prime minister or any of his officials was in contact - directly or indirectly - with Sir James Crosby in the 24 hours before his resignation.
The Treasury has told us that their ministers and officials had no contact with him.
Gordon Brown told the Commons within minutes of Sir James's resignation being announced that it was "the right thing to do".
Political historians will note that resignations do have a habit of happening on the day of Prime Minister's Questions. The reason is obvious. The PM's officials are paid to know when their guy risks standing naked in front of an open goal (forgive the horribly mixed metaphor). They're also paid to sort the problem out before their man gets to his feet at noon on Wednesday.
This, incidentally, has been true down the ages
Why, you may ask, does this matter? The reason this story is politically explosive is that it has given the prime minister's enemies their first chance to link Gordon Brown personally with someone who, it is alleged, ignored warnings that brought down the Halifax and cost taxpayers billions of pounds.
It's ironic that the first casualty of yesterday's select committee "trial of the guilty men" of British banking wasn't even there.
PS: Knowing the wisdom of that old and controversial adage about "a good day to bury bad news", I simply note that Yates of the Yard has chosen today to announce that the Met will not investigate allegations that some peers attempted to change the law to the benefit of companies paying them.
