tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/maria-miller-9852/articlesMaria Miller – The Conversation2014-04-15T07:39:03Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/256202014-04-15T07:39:03Z2014-04-15T07:39:03ZWhat is a banker doing as the new Minister of Fun?<p>So we have a new Culture Secretary. I wonder how he rates <a href="http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/cast-and-crew/#/game-of-thrones/cast-and-crew/daenerys-targaryen/bio/daenerys-targaryen.html">Daenerys Targaryen</a>’s chances of snagging the most coveted seat of all, the Iron Throne. And whether he thinks <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004716/">Darren Aronofsky</a> has succeeded in making an old religious story fresh, germane yet fantastical. If he’s wonderstruck by <a href="http://www.tatler.com/news/extreme-jewellery/extreme-jewellery---bulgari-at-the-v-and-a">Liz Taylor’s 23.44 carat emerald</a> hanging from a circle of 16 step-cut octagonal Colombian gems, currently on display at the V&A.</p>
<p>Or if <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26956184">Sajid Javid</a> knows about any of these. Or even if he should. That’s the thing about culture secretaries: they’re not very cultural. Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to give the title its full nomenclature, is a cabinet position whose incumbent has responsibility for the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-culture-media-sport">Department for Culture, Media and Sport</a>.</p>
<p>It was created back in 1992 by the Conservative government of the day and its first occupant David Mellor, a diastemic non-practising barrister, immediately dispossessed the position of any gravitas when he succumbed to weaknesses of the flesh and became known as the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272170/Antonia-Sancha-Has-regrets-affair-David-Mellor.html">Minister of Fun</a>. His scandalous behaviour – mild as it is by today’s standards (toe-sucking while wearing a Chelsea football shirt) – forced him to resign. The office has never truly recovered: it’s still not regarded as a serious political position and, of course, the recent <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/09/maria-miller-quits-culture-secretary-david-cameron">Maria Miller debacle</a> that led directly to Javid’s promotion has hardly lent the office dignity.</p>
<p>At first glance, Javid does not look to the manor born: son of a Pakistani migrant who bootstrapped his way from a penniless bus driver to a small business owner, Javid studied economics and headed for a career in finance until his political peripeteia. He apparently sacrificed a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-11/ex-deutsche-banker-javid-channels-thatcher-to-rise-in-tory-ranks.html">£3 million per year income</a> when he hitched his wagon to David Cameron’s star.</p>
<p>His professional life so far is garlanded with achievements. He was the youngest ever Vice-President of Chase Manhattan Bank in New York, and a director of Deutsche Bank. But nowhere do we find evidence of an interest in the arts, or any aspect of culture, contemporary or historical, for that matter. But perhaps I’m being priggish. This is after all a government position and, as such, requires an unimpaired pragmatic mind, sound decision-making capacities and a sneering disregard for the taxpaying electorate when filing expense claims.</p>
<p>I can hardly contain my indifference over Javid’s appointment. Does being a commendably over-achieving workaholic qualify someone for this job? I am simple-minded enough to expect someone who occupies the position of Culture Secretary to have more links with culture than sharing the same hairdo as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004874/">Vin Diesel</a>. </p>
<p>Having said this, I prefer Javid to the outgoing Miller, even if she did have some experience in advertising, which is, after all, a creative industry and very much part of today’s cultural landscape. But this preference could probably be compared to the way in which I favour a sodium thiopental jab to being broken on the wheel. I doubt if Javid will bring more than an an excessive work ethic and a self-serving determination to climb the greasy pole to a job that teems with promise, but rarely delivers. How many great Culture Secretaries can you recall? </p>
<p>Javid’s department is not exactly a political tinderbox: it makes policies for, among other things, arts and culture, of course; but also for gambling, museums, tourism, sport … Oh yes, and media ownership and mergers. This last area might provide Javid with a lively test. Because <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/richard-desmond">Richard Desmond</a>, who owns Channel 5, has recently put his free-to-air TV channel on the market. </p>
<p>The home of Australian soaps <a href="http://www.neighbours.com/">Neighbours</a> and <a href="http://www.channel5.com/shows/home-and-away">Home and Away</a> in the UK as well as <a href="http://www.channel5.com/bigbrother">Big Brother</a> is already attracting interest from American and Australian media behemoths. At about £700m, the terrestrial, free-to-air channel could be enticing, considering the potential viewing audiences in the UK (its 2013 <a href="http://www.channel5.com/shows/celebrity-big-brother">Celebrity Big Brother</a> drew more than 3 million viewers). </p>
<p><a href="http://www.discoveryuk.com/">Discovery</a> is the favourite. But what happens should Discovery get together with <a href="https://corporate.sky.com/">BSkyB</a> to launch a joint bid? The British satellite broadcaster’s majority owner Rupert Murdoch has close connections with Discovery’s boss John Malone and BSkyB has a long relationship with Discovery, carrying several of its channels on its pay-TV platform. It also supplies content to Channel 5’s news. </p>
<p>So far, Murdoch’s attempts to set foot on terrestrial broadcasting have been frustrated and, of course, the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/video/2012/apr/25/rupert-murdoch-leveson-inquiry-video">Leveson Inquiry</a> seemed to have slammed the door shut in 2012. Javid’s pulse will quicken if he’s pressed into service on this deal; he’ll surely recall the Business Secretary Vince Cable’s maladroit <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8217253/Vince-Cable-I-have-declared-war-on-Rupert-Murdoch.html">declaration of “war”</a> on Murdoch in 2010 – a declaration that effectively put paid to his grand political aspirations. </p>
<p>And he’ll remember how another ex-Culture Secretary <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/jeremy-hunt">Jeremy Hunt</a> had to fight for his political career after the emergence of a cache of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/27/jeremy-hunt-murdochs-leveson-inquiry">emails</a> between his office and Murdoch’s multinational empire News Corporation over the company’s bid for the remaining part of BSkyB it does not already own. </p>
<p>So maybe an appetite for a down-and-dirty struggle with corporate string-pullers and egotistical politicos is a more relevant qualification than a familiarity with Game of Thrones, Noah, or a <a href="https://theconversation.com/inside-the-vandas-celebration-of-high-end-italian-luxury-and-glamour-24936">Glamour of Italian Fashion: 1945-2014</a> exhibition – though his documented <a href="http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/maria-miller/58083/sajid-javid-more-thatcherite-thatcher-tipped-top">enthusiasm for Star Trek</a> may equip him handily.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25620/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ellis Cashmore does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>So we have a new Culture Secretary. I wonder how he rates Daenerys Targaryen’s chances of snagging the most coveted seat of all, the Iron Throne. And whether he thinks Darren Aronofsky has succeeded in…Ellis Cashmore, Professor of Culture, Media and Sport, Staffordshire UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/252872014-04-09T13:33:29Z2014-04-09T13:33:29ZMiller resigns, but keeping MPs honest is still a messy business<p>The former culture secretary, Maria Miller, is the latest in a series of MPs to have been caught up in an expenses controversy. The issue of what parliamentarians do with their allowances has now embarrassed or damaged a great many MPs, from <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/12/gordon-brown-repay-mps-expenses">Gordon Brown</a> downwards. In a few cases, as with Miller, it has led to resignations. It has also, for a few, led to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8776160/Expenses-MPs-and-their-sentences-how-long-each-served.html">prison</a>.</p>
<p>Since the first revelations in the Daily Telegraph in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5324582/How-the-Telegraph-investigation-exposed-the-MPs-expenses-scandal-day-by-day.html">May 2009</a>, which saw parliament <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8057203.stm">lose its speaker</a>, there has been a continual flow of expenses-related stories. In 2011 Liberal Democrat MP <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/liberal-democrat-mps-expenses/8508349/David-Laws-suspended-over-pages-of-expenses-claims.html">David Laws</a> resigned; in 2012 Labour MP <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9651978/MPs-expenses-scandal-Denis-MacShane-resigns.html">Denis MacShane</a> stepped down (and was later imprisoned); and in 2013, George Osborne (and many others) were exposed over their use of first-class train tickets. </p>
<p>In parallel, there were rows over the MPs’ <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-in-line-for-20000-pay-rise-in-move-likely-to-spark-public-anger-8622556.html">pay rise</a> and the <a href="http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/07/mps-expenses-david-cameron-takes-on-ipsa/">continued existence</a> of IPSA, the independent regulator. Scrutiny of allowances has also been seen in local government, the police and even universities. But expenses revelations don’t always end in resignation or prison. What makes each case different?</p>
<h2>How it gets out</h2>
<p>The first difference is how someone is found out. The chain of accountability is often complicated. Just after the scandal, David Cameron himself <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8119047.stm">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What the Daily Telegraph did – the simple act of providing information to the public – has triggered the biggest shake-up of our political system. It is information – not a new law, not some regulation – just the provision of information that has enabled people to take on the political class, demand answers and get those answers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Actually, finding the information can be trickier than it looks. Far from being a “simple” story of “information provision”, the expenses scandal is a great example of how difficult it can be to bring information to light. </p>
<p>The FOI request for a selection of MPs’ expenses was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/15/mps-expenses-heather-brooke-foi">first made in 2005</a>. It then took a four-year campaign by journalists using FOI laws, the FOI appeal system and then the courts. The information was finally released by a very old-fashioned mode of disclosure: a leak. Interestingly, according to the original Telegraph story, Miller’s expenses problems appear to have stemmed from a well-placed <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9743909/Maria-Miller-expenses-Telegraphs-side-of-the-story.html">tip-off</a> rather than detailed public scrutiny.</p>
<p>The next step, “demanding answers”, can be just as difficult. Once information is disclosed, holding the MP in question to account requires the right context and environment. The level of media interest and the “amount” of wrong done determines how any scandal unfolds, and what (if any) price the politician pays.</p>
<h2>Who did it?</h2>
<p>The second factor is, of course, the individual politician involved. Who the politician is, how they react, and the media and public view are all crucial. George Osborne was unlikely to suffer more than blushes over his minor <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20008342">train ticket kerfuffle</a>, and was very well protected. It may even have helped that he had history of previous minor “slip-ups”. Miller’s situation was far more precarious. Her very brief <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/apr/03/maria-miller-expenses-apology-video">first apology</a> and apparent attempts to “<a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100266788/maria-millers-leveson-threat-not-her-expenses-is-why-she-must-go/">influence</a>” the press and commissioner worsened the situation. Her actions lost the support of the party; just as importantly, her position at the centre of the Leveson reforms made her unpopular (to say the least) with large swathes of the press.</p>
<p>Five years on from the storm of 2009, the expenses issue continues to bubble away under the surface of Westminster politics, occasionally bursting to the top unpredictably as the result of leaks, tip-offs or assiduous research and throwing up sudden squalls of varying ferocity.</p>
<p>When controversy reappears, the exact effect depends on many things: how the information was obtained, how it is then used and who it relates to. The only certainty is that we haven’t heard the last of expenses yet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25287/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Worthy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The former culture secretary, Maria Miller, is the latest in a series of MPs to have been caught up in an expenses controversy. The issue of what parliamentarians do with their allowances has now embarrassed…Ben Worthy, Lecturer in Politics , Birkbeck, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/254502014-04-09T10:02:32Z2014-04-09T10:02:32ZDear Maria Miller, it really wasn’t all your fault<p>The news that Maria Miller decided to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/09/maria-miller-quits-culture-secretary-david-cameron">resign as culture secretary</a> was not really much of a surprise. The only real surprise was the way that she had seemed to be toughing out the media feeding frenzy and the gradual, but very clear, loss of political support for so long. And yet beyond the sensational headlines the real – and arguably more important issues – remain unexamined. </p>
<p>Politics is a rough and sometimes brutal business. I’m sure that this morning Maria Miller is more aware than most of this fact but it seems too obvious, slightly too clean and simple, to blame just one person for a political saga that has rolled on for some time. In order to learn from this affair it is necessary to step back and examine the bigger picture in order to reveal where blame really lies. Indeed, what this less personalised account reveals is a set of blame-games at three levels. </p>
<p>At the first and most obvious level, Miller really was to blame; if not for the incorrect claiming of expenses, certainly for appearing to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/apr/03/maria-miller-expenses-apology-video">treat the House with contempt</a>. This is a critical point. Politicians at Westminster – irrespective of their party – will generally tolerate many failings and indiscretions on the part of their colleagues, but standing up in the chamber and giving such a brief and curt apology was a terrible error. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lHb3NTKZJek?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Sorry seems to be the hardest word.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And yet Miller’s general attitude to the whole investigation over her expenses seems to have been generally dismissive. The Commons Standards Committee <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10746387/Maria-Millers-behaviour-is-shocking-claims-former-chairman-of-Standards-Committee.html">criticised her attitude</a> during their investigation, which it ruled was a breach of the parliamentary code of conduct. But why would a member of the cabinet adopt an approach that was almost designed to ruffle feathers and prolong and investigation? Humble pie might not taste very nice but sometimes it needs to be eaten whether you believe you are hungry or not. </p>
<p>I can’t help wondering what her ministerial aides and advisers – her spin doctors – were whispering into her ear as she adopted such a strident approach to the issue of her expenses. </p>
<h2>System is broken</h2>
<p>Although far less sensational – and therefore by modern media standards less newsworthy – the bigger issue in the “blame game” that needs to be unravelled is not so much “Media Maria” or her team, but the whole issue of <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/04/will-reforms-to-self-regulation-of-mps-be-enough-to-distract-from-miller-row/">parliamentary self-regulation</a>. The principle that MPs should make the final decision over the disciplining of their errant colleagues has been stretched to breaking point and it seems hardly fair to blame Miller for the outcome of a self-regulatory system that has been the source of ridicule and concern for some time. </p>
<p>The system is to blame for much of the chaos and confusion that has surrounded the former culture secretary. The big question does not relate to Miller, or how £45,000 became £5,800, but to how we stop this situation happening again. Self-regulation is incredibly tricky, for the simple reason that not only must justice be done but it must also be seen to be done – and the public simply do not trust politicians in this sense. It really is as simple as that. And yet the relationship between MPs and the <a href="http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/">Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority</a> remains at a simmering heat and the idea of giving the parliamentary watchdog increased powers is unlikely to attract support within the house. “Create a new body!” I hear the readers cry, but this in itself creates new challenges over appointments, control, legitimacy and control. But something needs to be done.</p>
<p>So, Mrs Miller … Maria (if I may), it really wasn’t all your fault. I have no idea about the advice you received from your ministerial aides and advisers, but in many ways it doesn’t matter as you’ll all fall from grace together. You were, however, a victim of a system that has let everyone down. Your resignation is not a triumph for democracy or a victory for the media, but yet another example of the need to drag parliament into the 21st century</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25450/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Flinders does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The news that Maria Miller decided to resign as culture secretary was not really much of a surprise. The only real surprise was the way that she had seemed to be toughing out the media feeding frenzy and…Matthew Flinders, Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics , University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/253972014-04-09T05:13:01Z2014-04-09T05:13:01ZMaria Miller’s downfall shows how personal British politics has become<p>Maria Miller has resigned as Culture secretary. Until today, she was one of the most powerful women in the Conservative Party; she has been described as “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26910173">efficient and low-key</a>”, and rapidly climbed the ranks since she was first elected in 2005. But she’s now the victim of a political storm over an investigation into her parliamentary expenses, originally publicised in a Daily Telegraph article in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9743909/Maria-Miller-expenses-Telegraphs-side-of-the-story.html">December 2012</a>. </p>
<p>So, what is the substance of the controversy? What is its significance for Miller and the government? And what does it tell us about the importance of public probity in today’s politics?</p>
<p>Miller’s problems arose over what was alleged to have been a breach of the rules in force between 2005 and 2009, when her questionable expenses claims were made. In essence, MPs were at the time allowed to claim back the costs of having to maintain a second home near Westminster so they could more easily perform their parliamentary duties.</p>
<p>Miller was cleared of having abused the system to advantage her parents, but did find that she had made unjustified mortgage interest claims, and recommended that the minister <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10746022/Maria-Miller-expenses-report-rights-and-wrongs-of-ministers-claims.html">repay £45,000</a>. The recommendations were then passed for decision, to the House of Commons <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/standards/news/press-notice-about-the-maria-miller-report/">Committee for Standards</a>, which reduced the repayments required to £5,800.</p>
<p>The committee also deemed Miller to have broken the MPs’ code of conduct by being less than co-operative with the commissioner’s investigations, demanding an apology to the House – an apology which, when made in the houses of Parliament, was widely deemed <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/07/maria-miller-expenses-row-apology">inadequate both in substance and length</a> (32 seconds). </p>
<p>Miller found herself at the heart of a classic scandal, a power struggle revolving around her reputation for honesty and integrity (a vital source of political power). As in any scandal, her fate was decided not by the empirical facts of the case than by the turn of public opinion – the universal currency of democratic politics. </p>
<h2>Personality politics</h2>
<p>When a public figure of Miller’s stature is accused of wrongdoing, the outcome is hardly inevitable. Public opinion hinges on perceptions of the accuser, their motives in making the allegation, and how believable the allegations are. Opinions will also depend on perceptions of the alleged wrongdoer, their motives in acting the way they supposedly did, the extent to which they could have acted differently, the repercussions of their action, and so forth. </p>
<p>Miller’s present predicament is a coda to the 2009 expenses scandal and the universal condemnation of the behaviour revealed five years ago. Given these circumstances, one might have expected her reaction and apology to have been somewhat more circumspect.</p>
<p>Ultimately, Miller’s problems are not just her own. David Cameron stood by her, but he would have been all too aware that he and his government have a lot to lose in the run-up to next month’s European elections. Parties such as UKIP have been fuelled not just by the specific issue of Europe, but more significantly by the spread of anti-political sentiments and growing disenchantment with established politics and politicians in general.</p>
<p>This episode is a telling demonstration of the importance of probity in 21st-century politics. There seems little doubt that public concerns have been growing in recent years; survey data, media reports and the growing volume of government initiatives all betray a growing level of public anxiety about the integrity of public office holders since the early 1990s. </p>
<p>The causes help throw light on the consequences. The post-Cold War lack of deep-seated ideological conflict between left and right has shifted the terrain of political conflict to valence issues. The personal qualities of the individual politicians who will deal with those issues have therefore assumed centre stage, while the explosion of the mass media has made their lives more visible than ever. </p>
<p>In today’s extremely personalised and mediated politics, parties increasingly attempt to compete with each other by throwing mud and attempting to damage each other by fomenting scandal – a phenomenon that Benjamin Ginsberg and Martin Shefter have called “<a href="http://www.brucesabin.com/politics_by_other_means.html">politics by other means</a>”. And arising as it did from a complaint by an opposition MP, the Miller affair is a classic example.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25397/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Newell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Maria Miller has resigned as Culture secretary. Until today, she was one of the most powerful women in the Conservative Party; she has been described as “efficient and low-key”, and rapidly climbed the…James Newell, Professor of Politics, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.