ANALYSIS:MUDDY MURPHY'S, an Irish bar on Singapore's Orchard Road with an 1840s Irish cottage atmosphere and a farmyard out the front, was assembled in Ireland in the 1990s when the taste for Irish-themed bars was at its height, before being shipped out.
Today, it successfully appeals to locals, expatriates and internationals passing through Singapore. One of them was Adam Werritty, a close friend of British defence secretary Liam Fox and a man whose lobbying activities have now ended Fox’s career.
A receipt from Muddy’s which Werritty received was one of the pieces of documentation examined by an inquiry this week into Werritty’s links with Fox and, most importantly, into the source of Werritty’s financing. So far, it appears Werritty got through up to £150,000 (€171,000) as he trailed Fox around the world, appearing at his side on dozens of occasions, leading others to believe he was an official adviser.
Except that he was not.
Fox, unpopular in the ministry of defence for the reforms he has driven through, has been badly damaged by the continuing controversy, while innuendos about his relationship with a man years younger than him, who was best man at his wedding six years ago, had become ubiquitous.
However, he was not a defenceless quarry. If he had been, he would have been ousted by prime minister David Cameron days ago. Popular with the Conservative Party’s right wing, Fox had powerful friends, inside and outside the party.
But, as Alistair Campbell once said, no politician can survive a story that lasts 10 days. In this case this was particularly so, once it emerged that some of Werritty’s backers had strong business reasons, not just ideological ones, for wanting to have someone close to Fox.
Even before those details emerged, Fox had been shown to have been unwise, if not reckless, in keeping Werritty so close. Trawls through paperwork had, meanwhile, already found hospitality that should have been declared under ministerial codes.
The lead cabinet office official in the inquiry, Sue Grey, who interviewed Werritty on Tuesday and did so again yesterday morning, was said to have been baffled by Werritty’s explanations of his finances.
Fox’s resignation will come as a relief to Cameron, who feared early on that the inquiry might clear Fox of any impropriety while finding him guilty perhaps of gross naivety. This would have left him wounded and still in office – but politically unable to stay there.
This would have meant Cameron having to sack a right-winger, one who had much support before this controversy.
This support was shown by the decision on Thursday of the Conservatives’ 1922 committee – a body dominated by “Thatcher’s children” – to invite him to speak at their gathering next week.
Since taking up office, Cameron has insisted he would not repeat the endless round of sackings and appointments that has marred British political office for two decades, where ministers often have been fired or moved on after less than a year in office.
But the emergence of details that neo-conservatives in the United States – defence contractors or figures with links to them – had been funding Werritty, and thereby a parallel stream of advice into the heart of British political decision-making, lit the final fuse that destroyed Fox’s career.
Most importantly, it simplified Cameron’s life, since it was clear to Fox that his position was now untenable, while even his most ardent admirers in the House of Commons became more morose as yesterday progressed.
Civil servants hate the existence of parallel advice, but such happens in all administrations, not just in Britain. Nor is there anything wrong with it if its motivations are pure, if partisan – rather than being crassly commercial.
Gordon Brown had a number of unpaid such advisers, and so did Tony Blair, but their existence was known and their actions were in pursuit of the prime minister of the day’s own agenda.
Fox’s case has been different, however, since Blair and Brown’s helpers were not funded by outside interests.
Wealthy individuals – some British, some not – told the BBC, even if anonymously, they paid for Werritty to act as a foreign policy adviser to Fox because they saw Fox as one who could be relied upon to be properly Eurosceptic, Atlanticist and pro-Israel.
Furthermore, Werritty had no standing in his own right. His past offers little guidance that he possesses foreign policy expertise that could not be bettered easily elsewhere.
His ties to some in Washington who want the West to take a much harder line against Iran – a view that is shared strongly by Fox – and his ties to others in Sri Lanka who face allegations of repression meant the discovery of a smoking gun was inevitable.
Losing a minister is always bad news for a government. This is the first serious loss on the Conservative side of the coalition, but it could have been worse for Cameron – if a long-term perspective is taken.
Cameron had delayed all week, ostensibly to await the inquiry’s outcome, but more likely he was waiting for the evidence that would see Fox forced to quit, rather than for him to have to be sacked. If victimised, he would have been a dangerous enemy.
Now, he retires to the backbenches damaged and bruised, but, most importantly, drained of credibility.
Politicians can survive much, but not to be thought a reckless fool by their fellows in the trade.