Westminster’s Secret Service – Michael Cockerell Preview, 1995

From the Spectator, dated 19th May 1995.    The video was found here.
Very educational, and worth the time to read and watch.

We are the last safe house in Europe — more secure than MI5,’ claims Tristan Garel-Jones, who was a Whip for eight years under Mrs Thatcher. Another recent ex-Whip says, ‘I cannot discuss with an outsider what Whips do; it would break our code of honour and confidentiality.

Westminster’s Secret Service – May 1995

Michael Cockerell has just completed a BBC investigation of the Government Whips’ Office. Here, he gives a preview of the programme’s discoveries

AT THE START of May, the Tory Chief Whip wrote secretly to the Prime Minister: `There is a strong suspicion that there are Cabinet ministers who are defeatist. The party in the country is puzzled by obvious signs of our lack of unity in the Commons. The objective must be to rebuild morale at the centre: every Question Time, every debate must be a victory. We must avoid dropped catches.’

This was another May. The Tory Chief Whip was Martin Redmayne, writing 31 years ago to Sir Alec Douglas Home. Until now his words have remained secret. For a Tory Chief Whip’s papers go with him when he leaves and not into the Public Record Office.

The Whips’ Office is the nerve centre of the Tory body politic. But there has never been a proper discussion of how it works — as discretion is like the calcium in the bones of a Tory Chief Whip.

Since Brigadier Redrnayne, the composition of the 14-strong team of Tory Whips has radically altered. ‘The concept of having clever, tough, congenial people in the Whips’ Office is relatively new,’ Alan Clark noted in his diary. ‘In former times they were just field sport enthusiasts, Whose last and only fulfilment period had been bullying (and in some cases bugger- 198) Lower boys at Eton. Now it is recognised as a nursery for junior ministers.’ And not just junior ministers. Over a third of the Cabinet, including Major, Clarke and Portillo, all served their apprenticeship in the Whips’ Office at 12 Downing Street. It was in that house of secrets they learned where the bodies are buried — and, indeed, how to bury them. Major’s survival skills as prime minister owe much to his Whip’s training. The term ‘whip’ comes from the hunting field — the whipper-in is the huntsman who has to keep the hounds hunting as a pack and round up the strays. The main task of the Whips’ Office is to ensure the government gets its business through the House and maintain party discipline. The Tory Whips prefer to carry out their work away from the public gaze and they say that their system is not designed for exposure to the light.

The Tory Camorra likes to preserve its mystique. ‘We are the last safe house in Europe — more secure than MI5,’ claims Tristan Garel-Jones, who was a Whip for eight years under Mrs Thatcher. Another recent ex-Whip says, ‘I cannot discuss with an outsider what Whips do; it would break our code of honour and confidentiality.’

Since the Whips deal daily with MPs and their problems, a quasi-Hippocratic code about individual cases is understandable but they extend it to every aspect of their work. When the Heritage Secretary, Stephen Dorrell, a Whip from 1987-90, agreed to give me a television interview for this weekend’s BBC documentary, a serving Whip claimed he was ‘a traitor’. Like the grander London clubs, no one can become a Whip unless the other Whips approve — one blackball excludes. ‘It’s a self-perpetuating oligarchy: there is no nonsense about democracy,’ says Tim Fortescue, a senior Whip in Ted Heath’s 1970-74 government: The one group of Tory MPs persistently blackballed from the Whips’ Office again shades of clubland — have been women. Sir Michael Neubert, who became a senior Whip in a five- year term under Mrs Thatcher, explains: ‘I think when men get together they have different interests and priorities from women: that’s the essence of manhood, and mixing the two might get in the way of some of the more masculine activi- ties of the Whips’ Office.’ What does that mean? ‘Well, the general badinage might be more difficult to sustain. Sometimes it was found when Mrs Thatcher was present she might not always appreciate a man’s joke and think it frivolous or trivial.’

Cecil Parkinson, a Whip under both Ted Heath and Mrs Thatcher, provides a glimpse of these masculine activities. Three times a year there are black-tie dinners for Whips only, at the Carlton Club or in Downing Street. ‘These dinners are a chance for the Whips to let their hair down, to have a clubby-type evening, perhaps drink a little bit more than usual and play Whips’ games,’ says Parkinson. ‘These games are not smashing the furniture, but just drawing up lists of people and having a bit of a laugh. But I’d be drummed out of the club if I told you more than that.’

On their little lists at dinner are the Whips’ least favourite MPs, both on their own benches as well as among the Opposi- tion. And, like White’s Club, they nominate an overall ‘shit of the year’. At the first Whips’ dinner Parkinson attended in the Carlton Club in January 1974, the Prime Minister, Ted Heath, arrived, picked up the list and remarked, ‘Still the same old names, I see.’

Heath was the first Chief — as they are known — to move two doors up the road from No 12. But the inspiration for the most notorious Tory Chief turned Prime Minister — Francis Urquhart in House of Cards — was said to be not Heath, but Tristan Garel-Jones. Dubbed ‘the Prince of Darkness’, Garel-Jones became Deputy Chief Whip and reputedly knew as much about the private lives of Tory MPs as their bank managers or their wives — in some cases more.

`Tristan fostered the image that he was up to all sorts of tricks,’ says Parkinson, `and he doesn’t deny the fact that he loves conspiring. He’d sit in the tea-room and say, “I am only in politics so that I can be Chief Whip when Chris Patten goes to No 10.”‘ Garel-Jones has two different faces when talking about the Whips’ Office and his role in it. Privately he explains that the Whips’ sinister public image actually serves their purpose — for once the media’s exaggeration actually helps because it terrifies new MPs.

On the record he is more down to earth: `The only reason you journalists are so fascinated by the Whips’ Office is because it’s the one part of Westminster that does not leak. In fact the essential job of the Whips is a rather dull one — they make sure that MPs turn up for work and they put out the lights after everyone has gone home at night. And they manoeuvre with skill around that no man’s land where the rights of the Executive, the Opposition and Parliament meet.’

But in his more Urquhartish moments Garel-Jones claims that the Whips know more, do more and have more influence than any outsider can imagine. The problem, he maintains, is that if what the Whips actually do is exposed the system will no longer work.

The current Chief Whip, Richard Ryder, says that he cannot possibly comment on his methods — arguing he is only following a well-established convention and adding with a light laugh, ‘And because I am a real bastard.’ The joke about the boyish-looking Ryder is that he wears his watch face inwards because he does not regard the time of day as public information.

One of the Chief’s central tasks is to act as the Prime Minister’s eyes and ears: to sniff out revolting elements in the parliamentary party. ‘You’ve got to be totally straight with your prime minister and very close, and he or she has to trust you completely,’ says former Tory Chief Whip, Lord Whitelaw.

Although not formally a member, the Chief attends all Cabinet meetings and key Cabinet committees. He has regular scheduled meetings with the Prime Minister and can slip in unobtrusively to see him at any other time through the interconnecting corridor from No 12 to No 10. The Whips’ Office is a two-way conduit between the leadership and the backbenchers, and prime ministers rarely attempt to second- guess the Chief’s head-count on a controversial bill.

`We need to know whether an individual MP is likely to vote against or abstain and what are the reasons,’ says Sir Hugh Rossi, a Whip from 1970-74. ‘Some reasons may be political, some may be due to purely personal problems.’ So how do you find this out?”Gossip. I can’t think of a gossipier place than the Commons.’ In their role as intelligence gatherers, the Whips seek to make friends with as many MPs as they can, and an effective Whips’ Office always has its members in the tea-room, bars, lobbies and committee rooms of the Commons.

`If three or four MPs are gathered together, one of them is always going to be loose-tongued,’ says the Eurosceptic Tory MP, Iain Duncan-Smith, ‘and is going to say something which gets passed back to the Whips or will seek to buy favour by telling the Whips what is going on.’ Like the police, the good Whip has a network of informants — from MPs to Commons messengers — who are known as ‘Whips’ narks’.

Once they learn of a potential rebellion, the Whips deploy every weapon in their armoury to quash it. ‘The most widely used method is actually the best one,’ claims Stephen Dorrell: `to persuade on the mer- its of the argument. And if you can’t, then you can always appeal to party loyalty. For a party divided against itself is one that is not going to stand well in public opinion. We’re seeing some evidence of that at the moment.’

Another persuasive weapon is patronage. The Whips pride themselves on their skills as political talent-spotters. A Whip sits on the front bench noting every speech that is made in the Chamber and in committees. At their weekly meetings they compare notes about potential high-fliers and minis- ters who are not cutting the mustard. The Chief passes the assessments to No 10.

Every reshuffle is a Whips’ reshuffle, claims Garel-Jones. And Tim Fortescue admits that the Whips will remind potential rebels of their powers of patronage, ‘Oh, very subtly indeed, we’d say, “You’re ambitious, aren’t you — would you like to be a minister?” I’ll make a note of that.’

Other Whips’ blandishments include the prospect of honours, exotic parliamentary trips and membership of key Commons committees. A ruling tenet of the Whips’ Office is that almost every MP wants some- thing; the few who do not they refer to as `Whips’ nightmares’. Sometimes the desig- nations are less courteous.

`Oh, there is a shits’ Whip,’ says Tory MP Rupert Allason, who himself had the Whip removed for not supporting the Govern- ment on a key Maastricht vote. ‘And in the Whips’ Office in the Commons there is a blackboard with a curtain across it, and on it is the shits’ list. I was once shown it by a Whip just to demonstrate that I hadn’t achieved membership of the list.’

The point of such designations is for the Whips to know where to concentrate their persuasive efforts: they target the potential waverers or ‘wets’ (a term ironically first invented by the Whips during the Heath government) and tend to ignore the long- term shits. The Whips like to match their approach to the individual, varying from the psychological to the physical. Most Tory MPs seem to get on well with their individual Whips. But during the Maastricht debates the Eurosceptics claimed that the Whips went so far over the top that they caused the scars that were to lead to the debacle over the Whipless wonders.

One Whip often fingered by the sceptics is David Lightbown, a formidable figure who weighs an estimated 20 stone. His intimidating presence reportedly reduced some young Tory MPs to tears during Maastricht. In a rare on-the-record comment, Lightbown said, ‘I think most people I deal with understand my powers of persuasion. And they are not all sticking them up against the wall and putting the knee in. I sometimes kiss them better.’

The late Sir Nicholas Fairbairn said openly what many other Eurosceptics claimed privately during Maastricht: ‘I am appalled at numerous reports that the Whips saw fit to threaten to expose extra- marital conduct by backbench colleagues in order to persuade them to abandon their consciences. There has been, so far as I am aware, no denial of these reports.’

The Whips freely admit that they seek to know all about the lives of their members — not for purposes of blackmail, but because they want to understand any political or personal pressure which may affect voting intentions. They enter details about the private lives of Tory MPs in what they call the Black Book or the Dirt Book, which is kept locked in the Chief Whip’s safe at No 12. ‘The Dirt Book is just a little book where you write down various things you know or hear about people that may or may not be true,’ says Lord Whitelaw. ‘I think you could make a very good guess what sorts of things it contains.’

Tim Fortescue is more forthcoming: ‘Oh, scandalous stories. When you are trying to persuade a member to vote the way he didn’t want to vote on a controversial issue — which is part of your job — it is possible to suggest that perhaps it would not be in his interest if people knew something or other -very mildly.’

When I asked the National Heritage Secretary, Stephen Dorrell, a Whip from 1987- 90, about the use of the Dirt Book as a Whips’ weapon, he responded with a half- smile, ‘I think that most Whips know rather less about their colleagues’ lives than their colleagues might think — like all police work it’s based to some extent on a confidence trick.’

Dorrell’s point is well illustrated by the recent spate of Tory ‘sex ‘n’ cash’ scandals. Mellor, Yeo, Hamilton, Hughes and a dozen more members of the Government have resigned, while the hapless PPS Stephen Milligan was found dead in bizarte sexual circumstances.

Willie Whitelaw sees this, and deplores it as a prolonged failure of intelligence by today’s Whips: ‘I feel it’s a great shame the Whips did not know all these things in advance. As Chief Whip I would have been sorry if i hadn’t known. I find it surprising that the Whips did not know. And some of the tragedies that have happened might have been avoided if people had known beforehand; it’s much easier to handle things when you do know — the awful thing is to be caught unawares by a scandal.’

Tim Fortescue says that in his days as a Whip, from 1970-73, Tory MPs in financial or sexual trouble would come to the Office and ask for help. ‘And if we could help we would; because if we can get a chap out of trouble, then he’ll do as we ask for ever- more.’ But Rupert Allason claims that today’s Whips’ Office is ‘full of thrusting, ambitious young men — about the last people to whom you would wish to confide some kind of infidelity or indiscretion’.

Tristan Garel-Jones has a different perspective: ‘Never repeated by this loyal brotherhood of Whips are the many acts of kindness to colleagues which are part of their stock-in-trade.’ He goes on to claim that ‘the Whips are the unsung heroes of British democracy’, and adds a quote from Enoch Powell: ‘Parliament without Whips would be like a city without sewers.’

When one has talked to more than 50 current and former Whips, one begins to understand why serving Whips make it a policy to refuse to go on the record about their work. The recent tide of Tory sleaze tends to give the lie to the claim of Whips’ Office omniscience just as the affair of the Whipless Wonders starkly revealed the limits of their disciplinary powers.

The stratagem of threatening to deprive Teresa Gorman and her Eurosceptic band of brothers, of the Whip was devised by Richard Ryder, John Major and Kenneth Clarke. But the rebels called their bluff: the whippy triumvirate had no hidden aces. It was Ryder, increasingly identified as a casualty of the forthcoming government reshuffle, who had to sue for peace. The old and bold were admitted back into the fold without giving any promises of future good behaviour.

When a government has been in power for 16 years, its back-benches are full of those for whom the standard threats and promises of preferment by the Whips have become incredible. There are some 70 ex- ministers on the Tory benches and many others who know now that they will never receive the call to join the executive. It was a problem that Martin Redmayne identified in a memo to the PM over 30 years ago at the fag end of a similarly long period of Tory rule: ‘Inevitably the loyalty of those who stay ion? on the back-benches grows weaker. We have been so long in office; old friends have gone and we have made none new. For that reason the party tends to fall apart.’

Spectator –  19th May 1995

15 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Politics

15 responses to “Westminster’s Secret Service – Michael Cockerell Preview, 1995

  1. Pingback: Westminster’s Secret Service – Michael Cockerell Preview, 1995 | L8in

  2. dpack

    the milligan events deserve a close look.
    the circumstances of his untimely death are unusual ,at the time i thought “embarrassingly dead tory boy”and had a giggle about it but now i have a deep disquiet about how and why he died.

    there are a few similar deaths with unusual and out of character “explanations”that have been suggested over the years including gareth the spy in the bag, i have been told he was” a bit odd and didnt really fit in “but that is normal for technical spooks.the evidence presented as to his nature was described as “unbelievable” based on socialising with him.
    the chap in the nbc suit hanging on a rope is another odd death with some similar aspects.

    hilda murrell could be a complex death to unravel

    some deaths may be more straightforward to explain
    mc keague and billy wright are just the tip of the N I iceberg although they died by the sword they lived by the motives and timings are possibly significant

  3. Just so much in this going on in this Country Who on earth can we TRUST!!!!!! what a Sad State of Affairs…………

  4. Couple of interesting links tweeted by LobsterMagazine…

    Colin Wallace, Kincora, and the CSA Inquiry: http://spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/spying/item/5667-csainquiry-colinwallace – Wallace prepared to give evidence, but makes the case for access to intelligence files:

    Wallace: “What is the point of having Parliamentary oversight of the Intelligence Services, if the appointed Committee cannot have access to the relevant documents? This is going to be an issue for the new investigations into child abuse, bearing in mind that MI5 took possession of police files relating to such abuse.”

    And doubts raised about Don Hale’s handling of evidence in the Downing case: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1422861/Police-demolish-Downing-campaigners-case.html (Hale claimed via the Daily Star this Sunday to be in receipt of Barbera Castle’s vip csa dossier.)

    • dpack

      mr wallace is probably* a vital witness to any proper inquiry into the history of the use of csa to provide assets (as well as to other matters he is aware of) and his call for the paper documents etc held by registry to be made available to that inquiry is extremely important as to whether such an inquiry will be able expose large parts of the truth.

      *note
      although from the little i have learned about the nature of secrets and lies there is a history of “whistleblowers” being a mixed bunch.
      some are decent honest folk who tell what they know of things they feel wrong.
      some are conduits for a further level of confusion and intended to divert attention from an even bigger wrong than that which they reveal.
      some whistle blowers are set up to fail and so discredit a line of inquiry, even though they point to the correct target they point to the wrong place .
      some are deliberately sharing disinformation.
      *end of note

      my personal opinion of mr wallace is that he is a honest and honourable witness who at great personal risk and discomfort , in the face of a serious attempts to discredit and prevent him doing so , has told the parts of truth he knows of.

      i know nothing about don hale but the timing of the report questioning his methods and accuracy in the downing case is interesting in relation to the timing of him mentioning the castle file.

      having had a think about untimely deaths that may be relevant even from the small amount of research i have done over the last couple of years there is quite a long list of deaths with “dubious”explanations and/ or disturbing unanswered questions.

      the new cross and brighton fires?
      the death rate from accident,suicide and violence among ex residents of kincora?
      the lad (“tricker’s chicken” is a disrespectful way to identify you , im sorry i do not your name)shot dead in amsterdam?
      quite a few ex residents of a variety of “care” homes ?
      cookes victims?
      quite a few “paramilitaries”?

      this is only a partial list that from my limited research that have caused me to think of disturbing questions to which i have no answers,i am certain that a much longer list of potentially directly relevant deaths (and disappearances)could be collated and prepared for a proper review into the circumstances of each case.
      the “collateral damage” list would be huge and perhaps distract from the matters in hand

      any way back to the original theme of this thread at the moment im listening to this again.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sfwwr

      the first two parts are interesting and show how mr portillo has developed the views that he explains in part three.
      a little of part three has direct relevance to the nature of whips and the nature of the westminster parts of government but the whole is a very interesting listen.

  5. chrisb

    Disgusting performance by Ken Clarke this morning on BBC fivelive speaking to Nicky Campbell between 8 and 9am. Clarke described the stories of abuse as ‘silly’. To be fair to the BBC and Campbell, he could have avoided asking Clarke the question about the child abuse inquiry and they got a child abuse survivor on the programme pretty quickly to give some balance.

    Good to see that Hague will have more time to help with the inquiry. And that Gove will no longer be in a position to block compulsory reporting of child abuse.

  6. Mike W

    MP Peter Bone – 2011 speech (part) Hansard

    We should be acting on behalf of our constituents and, using our “’unbiased opinion” and “mature judgment”, scrutinising every piece of legislation that comes our way to hold the Government properly to account, regardless of party politics. But Burke could surely not have foreseen how difficult it is today for a Member of Parliament to live up to his ideal. Sadly, all too many of us do indeed succumb to pressure from a very particular “set of men living”—that is, the flatterers, cajolers and sometime bullies who make up our party Whips.

    “Such behaviour is an insult to our constituents and to British democracy. It was particularly bad under the last Labour Government, when the Whips, working in secret, skilfully used flattery, enticement, patronage, threats and downright bullying to get Members of Parliament to ignore their better judgment and, in many cases, the opinions of their constituents, and vote in whichever way the former Prime Minister wanted. The ways of the Whips Office are, by their very nature, secretive. After all, what party would want the public knowing precisely to what lengths a few men and women will go to secure what they arrogantly assume to be the best option for the country?”

  7. dpack

    this
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03mj8lz

    is an interesting insight into some of the background of events in the 1980’s

  8. INCUBUS

    ‘James Rusbridger, who died the same month as Stephen Milligan, was an ex-MI6 agent and respected investigative journalist specialising in intelligence matters.’

    http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/autoerotic_deaths_in_uk.htm

  9. dpack

    from a quick google scholar search on the name the pathologist in the rusbridger case appears to be primarily an expert in gynaecological tumours and has/had an interest in other similar hormonal factor medical problems( and has/had sudden cardiac related deaths as a minor interest ).if the rusbridger pathologist is the same person as in the gs search ( the gs one was associated with truro hospital cornwall in 1994 if i understood the references properly) it seems a bit odd if a tumour specialist was asked do the autopsy in relation to a sudden and bizarre hanging.

    i dont know much about forensic pathologists but maybe a medical type could help explain the protocols?

  10. Pingback: British Conservative politician boasted about child abuse cover-ups | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  11. Pingback: Tim Fortescue from ‘Westminster’s Secret Service’ BBC 1995