The tangled web

Political Diary
By Mark Mardell BBC News political correspondent

I watched the unfolding of the Bye Bye Byers story further than usual from the Westminster village, standing in for Fi Glover on her Radio Five Live programme.

From the studio it seems the great British public, or at least the part of it who listen to Five Live around bedtime, don't give a fig for the saga.

Downing Street deliberately described an e-mail as "fictitious" when they knew something like it existed

But I hope the government will remember why they got into this sorry mess.

Downing Street deliberately and with plenty time for thought described an e-mail as "fictitious" when they knew something like it existed.

True, it didn't paint Jo "Moore is Less" as a dark hearted villain.

True, its tone could be said to be ironic rather than pious. But "fictitious"?

It was this oh-so-clever, Jesuitical use of words, which led them into a mess when they got found out. My gran could have told them "Oh what a tangled web we weave..."

Most hacks, including myself, had been predicting that Byers would survive because the bulk of Labour MPs love him for virtually renationalising Railtrack.

On the 5 Live show Reading MP Martin Salter puts me right. He says we're all missing a trick: they're also backing Byers because many of them have their roots in local government and he's giving councils back some clout.

It all goes to prove it's good to have friends. Like Peter's friend Tony who has spent £20,000 of our money getting Sir Anthony Hammond to say once more that Mr Mandelson did no wrong.

Or is that unfair on Sir Anthony? Some say he's being deeply ironical, describing the trail of blood and guts, and then gently suggesting that there is insufficient evidence to point to murder.

At any rate, it's worth recapping. The real reason Mandelson went is because he told different stories at different times about whether or not he made a 'phone call, leaving Alastair Campbell unsure of whether he'd fed the lobby the true version or not.

More important is the principle behind it: did Mr Mandelson help the Hinduja brothers get British passports?

'Looked dodgy'

Mr Mandelson has emerged from a crate in Hartlepool triumphantly waving a piece of paper that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was trying very hard indeed.

It also demonstrates that his civil servants knew this looked dodgy: they suggest Mr Mandelson "should not be seen (underlined) to push this personally much further".

Now you can argue perfectly properly that rich business men who have homes in Britain and are willing to invest in public projects like the Dome should get British passports when and if they want them.

Would ministers really refuse to give Gates a passport?

I doubt very much we'd turn down Bill Gates if he wanted to become a British citizen, however many days he spent in the country and no matter what legal action he faced else where.

Another guest on the show, Anita Anand from the Asian Network Zee TV, tells me the great and the good in the Asian community are fed up with being treated as pariahs by the press.

But the roots of disgust are deep and philosophical. Since history began rich people have been able to pull political strings.

One of the reasons people join and support left of centre political parties is because they want to live in a world were those strings are cut.

They feel uncomfortable that millionaire Mr Hinduja can ring up ministers who will lobby for him, whereas Mr Patel from the corner shop can't.

Naive of them perhaps, but will Labour's poor bloody infantry still be in the trenches backing Tony when all his rich friends have made excuses and gone home?