Chancellor lands one on Meyer!

Regular readers will remember that I previously had a bit of a go at Alexander Chancellor. I won't take back what I said then, but I have to note that Chancellor has made an Ernest Saunders' like recovery from whatever was ailing him then. OK, let's not overdo it, one swallow doesn't make a supper, but his piece in the Guardian this week was a rather amusing dig at Sir Christopher Meyer, in fact it was a Howe-like dead-sheep savaging!

Chancellor's was just one of at least 3 articles on Meyer in the Guardian on Saturday. Joel Rickett notes in a column on the publishing industry that: "Sir Christopher argues that civil servants should be able to fight back against claims in books from former ministers and advisers - Mo Mowlam, Clare Short, Robin Cook, Lance Price." This is disingenuous nonsense. It is politicians the public can hold to account, politicians they are interested in. Of course there are exceptions, such as Alastair Campbell, but even he was a political appointee, not a civil servant. There is no sense in which Meyer's book represents a quid pro quo. Has he personally been slagged off in any political memoirs? I suspect not. [It occurs to me that perhaps Meyer sincerely believes this argument, perhaps it is a symptom of his obvious arrogance].

In another article in the review section, Ian Jack considers whether Meyer remains fit to be chairman of the PCC. It turns out the PCC itself explicitly stipulates: "that the PCC chairman 'must not be engaged in or, otherwise than by his office as Chairman, connected with or interested in the business of publishing newspapers, periodicals or magazines'." Seems like an open and shut case to me.

What bothers me as well are issues of Meyer's integrity and ability to act as an independent arbiter: consider not only the contents of his book, but the very fact that he's written it. I could go on (so I will!): I understand his book was released - coincidentally no doubt - just after his PCC contract was renewed; I find it curious that his wife is very active in the Conservative Party; and I wonder how much work he did for the PCC while writing his book. [SteelyGlint finds even this blog a distraction as well as preparation - or practice - for his magnum opus].

But the main reason Meyer should not remain as chairman of the PCC is he's just not the right man for the job. Controlling the Press is an important role. It needs someone who is going to stand up powerful editors and drive through implementation of a code of conduct, particularly to ensure the independence of the political process - someone with cojones. Ian Jack notes in his piece that: "[the PCC's] biggest worry is the introduction of privacy legislation." This is a huge area of concern: it seems to me the lack of effective controls in this country over invasions of privacy must be a disincentive to those considering a career in public life, which cannot be a good thing. The PCC is meant to be a (self-)regulatory body: by the sound of things it is acting less in the public interest and more like an industry lobby group.