Main Index to all Sections

Index to:
The Little Book of Bell

Though Martin Bell is immensely popular, as befits a shrewd media personality, there are a number of things about him that don't add up. Specifically, his explanations for standing in the 1997 general election, and his other utterances; and a general intolerance and hot-headedness which belie the image he has so carefully cultivated for himself.
    When Bell announced his decision to stand on Monday 7 April 1997, he claimed repeatedly that he had no real expectation or ambition to take the seat. He also said that he believed his political career 'would last just 48 hours', because, he said, he felt sure that Hamilton would stand down.
    This was dishonest of Martin Bell. Not only had Neil Hamilton made it clear that there was absolutely nil prospect of him standing down, Bell's other claim that he harboured no political ambitions is also at odds with the facts.
    Martin Bell might have had no political ambitions when the idea of standing was first put to him on 3 April 1997. But the machinations in the three days that followed between himself and: Alastair Campbell (of the Labour Party); Dick Newby, Paddy Ashdown and Tim Clement-Jones (of the LibDem Party); and activists of both parties in Tatton - which all took place before Bell announced his decision to stand - belie his claim.
    Between 3 April and 7 April 1997 Martin Bell made these phone calls and his trip to Tatton for one purpose and one purpose alone: to satisfy himself, before making his decision final, that the Labour and Lib Dems would stand down and give him the best chance to unseat Neil Hamilton.
    Bell's claim is also at odds with the tenor of what he told journalist Russell Miller in the 4 January 1998 issue of the Mail on Sunday's Night and Day magazine, when explaining why he stood:

'My experience in life is that the things you regret are not the things you've done - the road not taken, the challenge not accepted. I thought I would be kicking myself for the rest of my days if I didn't have a go, so I jumped in.'

This shows that, though Bell might have decided to stand on a whim (which by definition means he could not have known what Mohamed Al Fayed's and The Guardian's allegations against Hamilton were), by the time he made his announcement official on 7 April 1997, Bell had already developed ambitions well beyond being a politician for just 48 hours.
    This is also borne out by what Bell said on BBC television's Face to Face, on 9 February 1998:

'I did it on the spur of the moment because I'm a kind of chap whose regrets are always about the things I didn't do.  The paths not taken, the challenge not accepted and I knew if I hadn't accepted that challenge - which came out of the blue - I'd regret it for the rest of my days.  Not least because I'm . . I said I'm curious.  I'm naturally curious . . how's it going to turn out?  Could, could I beat this chap?'

Those last words betray that Bell expected Neil Hamilton not to stand down. The fact is, once he had 'jumped in' on 4 April 1997, Bell started preparing for the long haul in the following three days prior to announcing his candidature on 7 April 1997. His claim on 7 April 1997 - that he expected his political career to last just 48 hours - is not borne out by the facts.
    And there's more. When, on 8 April 1997, Christine Hamilton questioned him on Knutsford Heath about why he was standing, Bell said:

'I'm standing here because a lot of local people have asked me to stand here . . and the impetus comes from local people.'

This was also dishonest. Martin Bell announced his decision to stand on Monday 7 April. Prior to this, he had been to Tatton just once and that was to see local Labour and Liberal Democrat executives. By his own admission his trip was clandestine and he returned to London the same day, so it is pushing credulity to the limit to suggest that 'a lot of local people' asked him - unless Bell was referring to local people in the Labour and Lib Dem ranks, that is.
    Bell made these remarks in Knutsford less than 24 hours after his London Press conference, so it was also untrue at that time that the 'impetus' came from local people. The impetus prior to 8 April 1997 had actually come from Tom Stoddart; Paddy Ashdown; Alastair Campbell; Col. Bob Stewart; Bell's Guardian friends in London; and the Tatton opposition parties.
    And there's more. As already mentioned earlier, when Neil Hamilton asked him on Knutsford Heath whether he would give him the benefit of the doubt about Fayed's allegations, Martin Bell said:

'Absolutely! . . . Absolutely!'

But just hours after he gave this assurance, Bell read out an open letter (written by Tony Blair's press secretary Alastair Campbell and based on allegations trumped up by The Guardian's David Leigh) alleging that Hamilton had 'sold his services as an MP to Mohamed Al Fayed'.  To make such a public statement, after giving his personal assurance, was not merely dishonest of Martin Bell.  It was a downright betrayal.  He broke his word.
    Regarding the platform on which Bell entered the election, his original stance was as an 'anti-corruption' candidate, which can only relate to the 'cash for questions' allegations.  But when Christine Hamilton, on Knutsford Heath, forced him to accept one of the basic tenets of civilised society - that a man is innocent unless proved guilty - he unwittingly invalidated his whole stance. However, after receiving Alastair Campbell's fax and being briefed by David Leigh the next day, he changed his reason for standing as being because of Hamilton's 'admitted wrongdoing'.  Thereafter, the two reasons he cited during his electioneering were Hamilton's 'admissions' that he had:

a) failed to declare taxable income to the Inland Revenue
b) lied to Michael Heseltine

But Hamilton had not admitted either of these allegations. Hamilton's admitted 'wrongdoing' actually totals just three minor omissions from the Members' Interests Register, covering a fourteen-year span, namely:

a) one of private hospitality (the tour of the Windsors' Paris home plus the Ritz stay in 1987)
b) two isolated commission payments from Ian Greer (from 1987 and 1988)
c) a consultancy with PR company SNI in 1990 (which Hamilton had cancelled three weeks after taking it up, upon being appointed to government as a whip)

As no MP had ever registered private hospitality prior to 1987; as commissions were not deemed to be registrable until a full six months after Hamilton had received his second (final) commission; and as Hamilton undertook no activity whatsoever for SNI in the three weeks that he was 'engaged', these 'transgressions' amount to next to nothing.  Especially when one considers that they are all that The Guardian could dig up from Hamilton's fourteen years in Parliament.
    The fact is, they certainly do not warrant Bell standing on an anti-corruption ticket, nor an anti-sleaze ticket, nor even his later 'behaviour unbecoming of an MP' ticket.  Unless, that is, Bell seriously thinks that hundreds of other MPs should resign too (including Tony Blair and John Prescott).  However, Bell still cited these 'offences' to justify his tenure of office, right up to his last day in Tatton.

Chapter Two, Part Four

Chapter Three, Part Two