The strange case of David Cameron, false allegations and attempting to save face

By David Higgerson on Nov 27, 09 01:35 PM

What a difference one opinion poll seems to make. A slow news day on Sunday meant The Observer's latest poll, which had the gap between the Tories and Labour down to just eight points, was dismissed by many as just a blip.

Almost a week on, and is it too soon to suggest that the poll has sent the Tories into a bit of a flap?

With the whiff of sleaze returning to the party thanks to Tory MP David Currie's amazing ability to combine expenses scandal with marital affair and a position on the committee meant to be cutting out foul play, and more signs that the economy is improving, Cameron needed something to grab headlines at PMQs this week.

The obvious target would have been bank charges. The Supreme Court bounced the issue of bank charges straight back at the Government, pointing out only ministers could change the law so the Office of Fair Trading could decide whether bank charges were fair.

Cameron could have jumped up and down and made a big song and dance about ineffective ministers hanging good, hard-working folk out to dry (remembering, of course, that Cameron misses entirely the irony of him championing the cause of those struggling to make ends meet).

But instead, he launched into a strange set of questions regarding two schools in London which had received Government money.

Mr Cameron says these were set up by "an extremist Islamist foundation" which was a "front" for Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group which campaigns for an Islamic state across the Middle East.

He claimed the schools had secured £113,000 of government money and, of this, some was from a Pathfinder scheme whose objective was to prevent violent extremism.

On one hand, it made a nice change for the leader of the opposition not to jump on the bandwagon of current issues and instead seek to set the agenda himself.

But as it turned out, the money hadn't come from that pot of cash, it had come from money to pay for new nursery places.

The schools in question, contrary to Tory claims, had been checked by Ofsted (although there is a wider issue about how much faith you can place on pre-arranged inspections).

And the schools in question also insist they aren't influenced by Hizb ut-Tahrir, which isn't an a banned organisation in this country.

So Cameron ends up with egg on his face - a victim of a party trying to be too clever at PMQs. Forced to go out and trot out the ultimate defeatist line 'the fundamental point still stands.'

"Look, the fundamental point is that two schools are being funded and run by an organisation with links to extremists. No-one is denying that."

The point he forgets is that Hizb ut-Tahrir has been investigated by the Government, and hasn't been banned as a result. Hizb ut-Tahrir, for the record, denies any links to terrorism, or, indeed, promoting terrorism to meets its goals.

The fact it campaigns for an Islamic state across the Middle East will be uncomfortable to many, me included, but so are the policies of the BNP - and as Ed Balls said this week, BNP members can be teachers too.

If he really wanted to pick up this issue, he'd be presenting evidence which proved that Hizb ut-Tahrir is a terrorism group: compelling, complete evidence which left the government with no choice but to ban them. That'd show an opposition leader who was tough on terrorism, and doing a better job of making sure civil servants were investigating alleged terror groups than the current administration.

But for the current bumbling Labour government to be able to shoot holes through what he was saying so very quickly just shows how flimsy his whole idea was.

Perhaps the Tories saw exposing Labour as weak on terrorism as a way to make up some of the lead in the polls again. Maybe that's what the private Tory polls were telling him. Labour appear to have taken a bit of a lead on immigration, so what was next for Cameron?

Or maybe Cameron just had a bad day.

The truth, of course, is that to the majority of voters this little episode won't even register. But then again, many of that majority won't even vote anyway.

Those aware of this incident now have grounds to question Cameron's ability to govern - snap pronouncements based on flimsy evidence aren't traits people like to see from those in charge.

And for the Muslim community in general, Cameron's willingness to cast unfounded allegations the way of two schools within their community will live long in the memory.

Not a good week for Cameron at all - perhaps he needs to pay less attention to the polls, both in the papers and from within his party.

* * *

The assumption that the Government would be aware of how every penny of a Pathfinder funding scheme was being spent seems to contradict Cameron's resistance to 'big government.'

Labour regularly announces pots of cash, and stipulates how they should be spent, to local councils, who in turn make the final decision on who should get it. As Labour goes, it's very hands-off.

Cameron's all for ending 'big government'. It was the big phrase at his conference in Manchester. So why leap on the existing Government when they point to the fact councils had the final decision on allocating funding locally?

Cameron can't have it both ways, and as he's learnt this week, facts are sacred when going on the attack.