That probably has something to do with the fact that both Labour and its Tory predecessors in government, had to seriously worry about being electorally hobbled, if not defeated, by a whiff of sleaze (it was partly years of sleaze which brought down the Tories in 1997). Our pro-government media machine does exist, but it’s relatively small and ineffective compared to the pro-government forces in the US media and “think tanks”. So voters actually take these things into consideration.

Whereas in the US, it seems that Bush can be caught red-handed doing nothing about Hurricane Katrina for days, caught red handed lying about his own intentions in the State of the Union Address (although people who only watch Fox News will probably never hear about the latter or will rationalise it away if they do hear about it), can repeatedly be shown up as a liar who took the country to war on false pretences on Iraq, on 9/11, etc. etc. etc. and he will still get a solid 25-30% of the electorate supporting him. The type of people who blather on about how they believe Bush is keeping the country safe or how he’s a strong leader, without any evidenciary basis for these assertions whatsoever, and whose real reason for voting for him is “He’s not a Democract and I hate Democrats”.

He could probably urinate on the Constitution on live TV (he’s been doing that figuratively for some time, anyway) and still get a large chunk of the hick vote, if term limits were abolished and he was up for reelection.

“4. Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State will be given by the GCS the choice of a Rover 45, Ford Mondeo, Vauxhall Vectra or Nissan Primera with an engine capacity in the 1.8 to 2.0 litre category, with a comfortable but not extravagant level of fit, for their allocated use.”

I have to admit to being a bit suspicious of any ‘court’ that has a 100% conviction rate. Is there an example of a UK minister, post-Thatcher, becoming the focus of press attention and remaining in office?

Having the careers of the people who run government made entirely dependant on the whims of the editors who write ‘execute all paedos now’ headlines is not exactly the kind of feature you would design into a consitution.

Of course, a 100% acquittal rate, as in a certain other two-letter country, is hardly ideal either.

The closest Ms Jowell came to being implicated was when it emerged in 2003 that Mr Mills, as the representative of an Iranian trading company, used a dinner party to ask the then foreign trade minister for advice on a £125 million deal to sell British Aerospace passenger jets to Iran. Baroness Symons duly wrote warning him to “tread very carefully”.

Controversy surrounding the exemption was quickly followed by revelations Tony Blair had met a deputation from Formula One, including chief executive Bernie Ecclestone, before the decision.
It also emerged Mr Ecclestone had made a pre-election donation to the Labour Party of £1m, which was returned along with a second donation to avoid accusations they had prompted a change in policy.
Further controversy surrounded the revelation that Tessa Jowell’s husband, David Mills, was a former director of Benetton, a chief racing sponsor.

By the way, you could be missing a word from the end of your fourth sentence: “…a decision that someone else in the parish.” A decision that someone else in the parish makes?

[should have been “than”. fixed now. thanks. CB]

Presumably the newspapers should just have detained them in their homes on the basis of received intelligence. If such behaviour is perfectly legitimate that would explain why Ken’s remarks were deemed so egregiously offensive.