Dragons led by dragon

Congratulations to Carwyn  Jones the new Leader of Labour Party in Wales. Cheers also to the other candidates.  

I have blogged only briefly on this internal election  I wrote a whole book on the previous battle between Rhodri Morgan and Alun Michael under the title Dragons led by Poodles. The priority this time was to keep the contest venom-free. If deeps wounds were inflicted in the campaign, the healing process would be prolonged.

Tonight's result is perfect. The winner Carwyn Jones secured nearly 52% of the vote. Edwina Hart had 29% and Huw Lewis 19%. There will be no second round. Carwyn won in all three sections of the party. There was no lacerating dog fights between the candidates. As Carwyn said tonight, 'We were friends at the start of the campaign and we are friends now'.

Labour centrally has learned the lesson of their disastrous attempt to dictate the outcome of the last Welsh election and the selection of Frank Dobson for mayor of London.

For once, a potentially divisive election has been beneficial. There are no wounds to heal. Well done!.

Non, M. Obama!

The gulf between opinion in Europe and the U.S. on Afghanistan was exposed in Paris today.  

The information from private meetings and briefings today is that Sarkozy will definitely NOT join the Obama-Brown surge of troops. 68% of the French public oppose the use any additional troops. They already have 4,000 in one province  One dreadful bloody incident in which ten French soldiers were slaughtered shocked the nation. Sarkozy has promised  that he will not accede to Obama's request for a surge.

The French President's instincts are to comply with America's demands. But he will not outrage public opinion before the local French elections in March. His personal ratings have slumped to 38%. He will not risk a further blow by sending French troops to be targets for the Taliban's IEDs. German colleagues tell me that there will no more soldiers from their country either. Canada and the Netherlands are planning exits. So it's up to the UK, Slovakia and Estonia. They will be hard pushed to make 5,000.

Perception or reality?

Published today is the uncorrected version of the minutes of PASC's pre-appointment hearing with Lord Lang the new chairman of the committee that vets retirement jobs for former minister, civil servants and military leaders.

This is part of the exchange:

 Paul Flynn:  Marsh & McLennan, the second biggest insurance broker in the world, of which you have been a director, I understand, from 1997 until now, point out they will pay $400 million to settle a law suit by investors who said they lost money because the company failed to disclose illegal practices.  That was in November, a few weeks ago.  You are identified, “Lord Lang of Monkton, the former President of the Board of Trade, is being sued for his role, as a director of Marsh & McLennan for orchestrating a massive fraud against customers.”  You are a director.  Do you take responsibility for that massive fraud?

Lord Lang of Monkton:  No, I most certainly do not.  I was a director of the company, certainly, but I and the rest of the company very strongly refuted what we regarded as--- 

Paul Flynn:  Why did you pay the $400 million?

Lord Lang of Monkton:  If I could finish my answer, Mr Flynn, I will come to that.  We as a board strongly refuted all the allegations made at a press conference, not actually in the official documents, by the then Attorney General, Mr Eliot Spitzer.  It was a campaign he was launching, not just against Marsh & McLennan, but also against all the other large insurance brokers in the United States, over accepting contingency commissions which he alleged could be illegal but, in fact, which I think it has now been completely established are not.  We resisted all those claims, we have settled our dispute with the Attorney General and, indeed, with other parties, at some cost to the company or to our insurers, as part of the normal process of negotiating civil suit settlements that takes place in the United States.  It involves no admission of guilt, no acceptance of the allegations against us; it simply closes the case off.

Paul Flynn:  You paid the $400 million just out of the goodness of your hearts.

Lord Lang of Monkton:  No, we did not pay it out of the goodness of our heart; we paid it out of the interests of our shareholders, which we considered required settlement of an outstanding issue which could drag on, creating uncertainty, for a very long time.

Paul Flynn:  While you are secure in your belief that you are entirely innocent, do you not think that people outside might consider that there was a cloud over your background which would disqualify you from this appointment? 

Lord Lang of Monkton:  No, I do not.

Mr Prentice:  There were other insurance brokers that did not pay out money but just gave an undertaking that they would not have anything to do with these contingency commissions.  That is the reality, is it not?

Lord Lang of Monkton:  I do not know whether they paid out money or not, I cannot recall - it was some five years ago - but they did undertake not to continue to collect contingency commissions even though other insurance brokers around the world were collecting contingency commissions. 

Mr Prentice:  Has there been any reputational damage to Marsh & McLennan as a result of this?

Lord Lang of Monkton:  There certainly was at the time, but not now, no, because the issue is now seen in perspective and the reality is apparent.

Comments

[insurance tacoma]

business insurance seattle

Its intersting to see how much conflict exist over this film!

[Paul Flynn]

That's a fair point Kay Tie. ut there is a big difference. Lord Lang's firm was sued by Eliot Spitzer for the public good. I was threatened with huge costs by a firm that wanted to shut me up. I was acting in the interests of people who were paying 25% of their compensation to a firm of ambulance chasers.

[Kay Tie]

"While you are secure in your belief that you are entirely innocent, do you not think that people outside might consider that there was a cloud over your background which would disqualify you from this appointment? "

Is this a question to Lord Monkton over settling out of court rather than face a distracting lawsuit, or to Paul Flynn for settling out of court rather than face a distracting libel lawsuit? Hard to tell.

Come on Paul, you of all people should know that caving in to legal threats is not prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.