Labour's Treasury say they hold sensitive security information on David Cameron

David Cameron worked as a special adviser to Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lamont during the Black Wednesday period.  To have held such a position he would have been subject to a detailed vetting process that could be expected to have covered sexual relationships and drug use, amongst other things.  The Sunday Telegraph has asked to see the file under the Freedom of Information Act but has been told by the Treasury that it could not release the information because of "the effect disclosure would have on the individual".  The letter from the Treasury, declining access, explains that the vetting process aims to identify any individual who "suffers from defects of character which may expose him or her to blackmail. . . or which may otherwise indicate unreliability".

Cameron supporters see this episode as the work of Labour's spin doctors and an attempt to fuel the row about Cameron's alleged past use of Class A drugs.  Gary Streeter MP told The Sunday Telegraph that "this smacks of Labour dirty tricks and desperation because they know that in Cameron the Conservatives are on to a winner."  Tim Yeo MP said: "If they are trying to influence the leadership election they are three weeks too late, they should have done it when the ballot papers went out.  Any kind of veiled reference to this kind of thing, trying to imply there is something there, will not work. We are well beyond that phase now."

Comments

[whatnonsense]

Defects of character? What nonsense! Just look at the ancestry! Even connected to the Earl of Shrewsbury according to Rees-Mogg.

[Barbara Villiers]

This was an accident waiting to happen and is disasterous for the Party.

So, he lied when he said he had no skeletons in his closet.

This is just dreadful. I wonder how he'll worm out of it now.

[Jack Stone]

This is complete nonsense. If there was anything remotely serious David Cameron would have been prevented from working from the government.
I expect more stories to come out like this from the government because they know that with David Cameron as leader there chances of winning the next election will deminish by the day.

[Jack Stone]

Another lot of nonsense by Barbara. Funny the way this so called Conservative lady would much rather believe the word of New Labour than she does the next leader of the Conservative Party.
Frankly I think you should consider your position on December 6th and go off and find another party and leave us Conservatives alone to win the next election.

[Ted]

Jack
Unnecessary - Barbara has a view on suitability of DC for leadership - as I do on DD (or even more so on Ken Clarke). I think her fears are unfounded and that in four years time she'll be out campaigning for DC in the election (I think I just heard a squeal of outrage from Miss Babs:-)

Barabra - I know you fear the skeletons in the closet but what's actually been said - a lot of personal detail is held by the Treasury, they are not going to release it becuse its personal. Well they aren't allowed to anyway because of Data Protection Act, there is probably as big a file on Ed Balls, on Wigg Prosser, and other advisors. If it was so terrible wouldn't Lamont have advised DC not to stand - I imagine he knows the detail?

It's spin - Labour always goes for the person (see Prescott today attacking Meyer) rather than deal with issues.

[hayek's grandad]

So they vetted him and found things so serious that they gave him the job anyway?!? This is utter rubbish. As Jack says if there had been anything remotely serious found he would not have been given a job as special advisor to the chancellor. I wasn't convinced, but between this and Alistair Campbell's comments I'm certain now that Cameron is a candidate that Labour are very scared of.

[Ted]

Grandpa
- they are scared so I hope Cameron's spin doctors are ready for the attacks . They'll go for personal issues because DC showed willingness to say "I've changed my mind, I was wrong" rather than defend the indefensible.
But imagine the alternative, DD scrapes through with 51% + - editorial line "confirms membership are old fogeys; fear change; DD elected with less than a third of MPs behind him; back to the past; Tories split etc. etc."
Cameron's weaknesses in eyes of DD supporters are his stregths in Labour's view - they have a PM whose reached that eccentric stage, a putative leader who has little personal magnetism and is facing meltdown on spending/tax and a worn out front bench. Suddenly there's a leader who doesn't have the Major Govt hanging round his neck, who isn't tied to the same detailed policies that broke his predessors - I can't help thinking what fun we are going to have.

[Jack Stone]

Its been obvious to me for quite sometime that Labour fear David Cameron becoming leader.The only thing that does surprise me is that it as taken them so long to start smearing him.

[petersmith]

Well Barbara, you know I agree with you much of the time, but there's no justification for calling him a liar. No-one, not even the source of this story, said there was actually something to hide - just that vetting takes place. Or maybe I'm mistaken about the process.

Anyway, my misgivings and your's, Barbara, are more fundamental than anything Labour's spin doctors can put up. It's that Cameron may be leading us in the wrong direction, making us a pointless echo of New Labour. That's the real charge.

[Old Labour Hack]

*The only thing that does surprise me is that it as taken them so long to start smearing him* says Mr Stone. Don't be so stupid Jack!

TB etc have waited until DC is certain to win and now they know the Tory activists have bought damaged goods they are letting the electorate know. If they had interfered earlier they might have prevented you starstruck Tories from embracing DC. You Tories learn nothing. You elected an inexperienced pup in 1997 and have done the same again. Idiots!

The timing is perfectly New Labour. But, be warned, this is only the beginning...

[petersmith]

I love the way this can be spun and counter-spun!

A: New Labour is rubbishing DC because they are frightened he will win.

B: New Labour know he's a no-hoper so they want him to be 'in the bag' before revealing his true nature

And soon:

C: Precisely because they knew we would take it like (A), it really means they fear David Davis

D: Precisely because they knew we would take it like (B), it really shows they do fear DC

Round and round it goes. Truth is, we're all whistling in the dark about Cameron, one way or another. He may be great, he may be the stupidist risk we've ever taken. Or (most likely) he may just be in-between: so-so.

[Jack Stone]

So the Labour Party have a document that contains information that didn`t stop David Cameron getting a job.
It seems that as this is the case its not me that`s stupied its our enemies in the Labour Party.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Who is this Barbara Villiers person? A fictional character, a Labour supporter or just some nutter?

[Editor]

Barbara and Justin,

As I've said on another thread - this trading of personal abuse is unacceptable.

One more episode and I'll ban the IP address of the culprit,

Tim

[Henry Fitzpatrick]

Yeah, a 'Labour' conspiracy - that's usally what Sunday Tel stories (they asked for the files, remember) are all about. Or, er, maybe not. But of course the fact that there's stuff Cameron *doesn't* want to come out about himself (otherwise he could simply ask for the file to be released) means it won't be. He is, after all, the master of all known media. This won't come back and bite us on the backside, oh no! DC is NOT a liability. [All Cameroons: screech and repeat onto infinity, or, at any rate, until 2007]

Still it's cheering to see my good friend "Jack Stone" up bright and early this crisp sabbath morn. Only one threat so far on this thread Jack [to Barbara: "you should consider your position on December 6th and go off and find another party and leave us Conservatives alone to win the next election"]. You're slacking! But do, do, *do* tell us your real name. It would be so much more helpful to know who's actually handing out these would-be excommunications. Come on! You know you want to - tell us your real name "Jack".

[Nelson, Norfolk]

Good on you Editor.

The debate on this site about who should be our leader has been to a very high standard todate. Lets keep it the way. There is no excuse for rudeness.

[Barbara Villiers]

So, I'm a nutter Justin? Let me have your real name and address and I'll see you in court.

Cameron has put us in an impossible position. Now they will all come out of the woodwork. As I said before, I don't care if he snorted all of Columbia and Peru too, just admit it. You put yourself forward for one of the most important jobs in the land and you must come clean. Don't leave yourself and the Party open to this kind of nonsense. We don't need it. And this is only the beginning. It demonstates a lack of judgement and arrogance that reminds me of Blair.

[Henry Fitzpatrick]

The headline on this thread - "Labour's Treasury say they hold sensitive security information on David Cameron" - is, incidentally, worthy of the Daily Mail at its worst. It really *isn't* Labour's Treasury. It still is the civil service's, just as it always has been. But I suppose I should be glad of such cheap Tory partisanship before David Cameron bans us from engaging in it ......

[Derek]

Calm down, it's only a smear story!! Have faith in a good Conservative with a fine pedigree.

[Barbara Villiers]

Ted,

I'm squealing!!!

I agree that everyone must have files on them but they are not all running for Leader of the Party. That is why disclosure is so important. Just admit what you (Cameron) has already hinted at and then we can get on with it. If he had done it sooner he would have spared himself and the Party embarrassment.

Look at Jonathan Aitken - he was ill advised enough take on the Guardian when he knew he had skeletons and look how that ended. Politicians are often very selective with their memories - it is part of the thick skin they have to develop.

I do not say that because he might have done a class A drug that he is unfit for leadership - that could be a plus because he knows that he is coming from when he speaks about the dangers of drugs. What I don't like is the dissembling which will end of bringing the Party into disrepute. Just imagine the first PMQ's when all of the Labour and Lib Dem backbenchers make snorting noises. Cute.

[Elena]

The whole drugs issue is a complete fuss over nothing, and shows how petty the debate can become.

Let's not put the cart before the horse. The Treasury have declined to release the file, but that doesn't instantly mean for one moment that there's some damning evidence in there that DC is a crackhead. If he had been vetted and very sensitive stuff had come out, he would not have been allowed to work in a government department, pure and simple.

(And I thought that he had given out the answer to his drugs past on Paxman anyway? Is this all we can argue about, that a grown man once took drugs?)

[Henry Fitzpatrick]

To be boringly precise, British security checks (unlike, eg many Federal ones in the US) *don't* bar you from employment upon discovery of something. Quite the reverse, given our preference for the old boys club.

If you score on a check, it's recorded for 'future reference' but not used against you. And umpteen (known) cokeheads were employed as eg special advisers in the late 80s and early 90s. What would have counted against any of them - and this was made perfectly clear to them at the time - would have been if they had refused to admit to eg coke use during the security check. In other words, 'it's fine', was the attitude at the time, 'if you do eg Class A substances, as long as you *tell us* about it'. A very British way of doing things we can all agree.

[Henry Fitzpatrick]

And why does "Jack Stone" never reappear on a thread after I ask him to tell us his real name? You do have to wonder why someone so proud of being a Cameroon can't be open about it.

[Elena]

Thank you for that information, Henry. I wasn't exactly sure how things were done.

I still stand by the thought that it's a fuss over nothing and has rumbled on for too long. Cameron should have, admittedly, 'come clean' a long time before he actually did. In some circles it is a smear, in other's it's a genuine worry. If Labour attempt to smear Cameron though, I can see it backfiring - they truly will look like a nasty party.

[Henry Fitzpatrick]

Precisely because I believe that Blair's Labour Party has, since its 1994 birth, *been* a fairly 'nasty party', I'm comprehensively sceptical about the supposed dangers in eg *us* being painted thus. And its exactly because Labour are consistently willing to be 'nasty' (or, if you prefer, 'tough') in eg their dealings with their political opponents that, I would argue, they've been so politically successful.

If, for the sake of argument, Labour knew that the next Tory leader had past form as an [insert illegal act here - *and*, still more to the point, an act both parties remain firmly commited to keeping illegal], why *shouldn't* they use that knowledge as and when it best suits them? Is anyone seriously suggested that if David Cameron's friends knew eg Gordon Brown had [done equivalent illegal act] they *wouldn't* use it? Of course they would, and rightly so.

If you expose a flank, you *deserve* to get hit - and my fear, just like Barbara's for example, is that in electing Cameron we're going to expose a substantial flank that the law n order party of Blair/Blunkett/Straw will willingly and easily exploit. Labour's success over the last decade has lain in convincing would-be or once-were Tories that they can either safely vote for Labour, or, that they can equally safely not bother to vote. Every time Labour outflanks us to the right (on, for pertinent example, their stance to drugs) we take a stap back away from power.