Bolitics The New Condem Government

[bickster]

The big issue now is that the Tory party ....were caught with their pants down being buggered by a series of people with close links to Murdoch and the illegal acts it has been caught out on. Add to that the favours that it was showing in business - see Cameron and his evasive actions today, make for bad reading for them. Worse than we have seen before.

I agree it's "a" big issue, but it's not "the" big issue. The big issue is that both labour and the Tories are/were equally as bad equally as guilty on this. It's not just about the Tories are/were up to their necks in it, labour was too.The issue is that our Governments for the past 20+ years were at it. The libs weren't, but only because they were never going to form the Government and so were of no consequence.

Yes the Tories are in charge now, and yes it's right that focus should be on them, as they're the Gov't. Cameron and gideon & Co. have plenty of explaining to do.

However I find it really irksome when Labour MPs or supporters attempt to make out that it's only the tories that were at it, or are the only political party that has a great deal of explaining to do. Labour were at it as well, just as much. It's not a party political issue. It's much bigger than that.

I suppose the MPs sort of have to do it, as the opposition, but it reeks of hypocrisy and people can see that.

Yes, people like Tom Watson shine and good on him and the others like him. People like Cameron, Blair, Brown, Osbourne, Hunt, Milliband and so on ALL have some explaining to do.

I think the ''big issue'' here is Cameron's judgement. Having been warned of Andy Coulson he went ahead and employed him. It may just be an isolated error, but it maynot , how many other bad judgement calls has he made? and can we affordto have a pm with susopect judgement?

The fact that a number of sources warned the Prime Minister, some of which he didn't even bother replying to, suggests that he really didn't give a shit about the consequences, he was in fact, doing the right thing by Murdoch and that that was more important than any thing else.

[PauloBarnesi]

Was listening to Prescott the other day and he claims he was constantly saying to "the likes of Tony and Gordon" that they shouldn't be as supine to Murdoch as they were, he even said he thought that they shouldn't be seen to be attending functions with them and being any where near as cosy as they were, he said it fell on deaf ears every single time. Like Prescott was the loan voice...

Of course he would say that now but he seemed believeable

Wouldn’t believe a word from that man’s mouth. Isn’t he the man who didn’t want a life peerage?

[bickster]

Oh I agree completely Paul, wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. I do believe him about the Red Tory faction cosying up to Murdoch, I think we all know thats true, it was there for all to see. I just don't trust Prescot in being the lone voice against it. I was posting it more from a point that it backed up Labour's guilt rather than Prescot being some sort of moral crusader within the Labour cabinet

[LondonLax]

I think he does hate Murdoch though so it wouldn't surprise me if he was against getting in bed with him.

[blandy]

It's not a party political issue. It's much bigger than that.

Indeed, it's about the country's prime minister.

??. No, I don't think so. That's part of it, and sure some of the media focus, and party politics stuff wants to focus on the Prime Minister, and you're right he's implicated to an extent. BUT it's about Prime Ministers, about cabinet Members, about the police corruption, about Media malpractice and illegality, about the nature of media "reporting" about media influence and media plurality and about the Murdoch empire and the Dailies Heil and mirror.

[snowychap]

It's not a party political issue. It's much bigger than that.

Indeed, it's about the country's prime minister.

??. No, I don't think so. That's part of it, and sure some of the media focus, and party politics stuff wants to focus on the Prime Minister, and you're right he's implicated to an extent. BUT it's about Prime Ministers, about cabinet Members, about the police corruption, about Media malpractice and illegality, about the nature of media "reporting" about media influence and media plurality and about the Murdoch empire and the Dailies Heil and mirror.

The point of my post was that this was not party political, this was about the government. For some that may mean that they look to attack or defend for purely party political reasons but that's not what I'm doing.

That all of the story (containing police corruption, behaviour of the media, media plurality, the influence of Murdoch and so on) appears to go to the very heart of government is the biggest part of the issue.

That means questioning, specifically, Cameron's actions, motives and words. These should be questioned as the actions, &c. of the Prime Minister - not a tory Prime Minister nor a tory leader but our Prime Minister (and the office of Prime Minister).

Edit: That the politicians and the public don't appear to be able to do this without resorting to the punch and judy indicates how truly pathetic it all is.

[tonyh29]

and as I said opposition parties especially courted him.

nice try , but FAIL , saw straight through that one :-)

[tonyh29]

Indeed, it's about the country's prime minister.

Is the PM's "crime" appointing Coulsen , or is it that Coulsen may have been used for his contacts and influence ? or is it his lack of judgement in the matter ? (or all 3)

out of interest if Coulsen is subsequently found "Not Guilty " of any involvement what so ever , would that change anything ?

[snowychap]

Indeed, it's about the country's prime minister.

Is the PM's crime appointing Coulsen , or is it that Coulsen may have been used for his contacts and influence ? or is it his lack of judgement in the matter ? (or all 3)

Has Cameron committed a crime? That would be news.

As I said in my post above, questions need to be asked about his actions, motives and words (I would add, too, his judgement needs to be looked at).

It's not just about Coulson, either.

out of interest if Coulsen is subsequently found "Not Guilty " of any involvement what so ever , would that change anything ?

Coulson is not guilty of any crime until/unless he is found guilty.

If Mr Coulson is found guilty of anything then it would make an already rather grave situation more so.

[tonyh29]

Coulson is not guilty of any crime until/unless he is found guilty.

well thats 2 of us , now if we can just convince the other 61,838,152 people in the country

[blandy]

Is the PM's crime appointing Coulsen , or is it that Coulsen may have been used for his contacts and influence ? or is it his lack of judgement in the matter ? (or all 3)

out of interest if Coulsen is subsequently found "Not Guilty " of any involvement what so ever , would that change anything ?

IMO, the criticisms specifically pertaining to Cameron are as follows

1. He appointed to be his adviser, someone who even at the time was implicated in illegal practices by his former employer, and that denials of knowledge of such practices were implausible. That it was at best poor judgement and at worst willful resistance to strong advice that he should drop Coulson ( because he was a bad egg and a danger to Cameron's reputation) - That there were Skeletons in Coulson's cupboard, so don't employ him. Ignoring that was arrogant and stupid.

2. That Cameron (like Brown and Blair and others before him) is and was far from impartial when it came to News Corp and NI. That Cameron and the Tories (like.....etc.) in effect traded favours with NI - acting in the interests of themselves and NI and not in the interests of the wider Country.

3. That Cameron has/had far too close a relationship with a set of people all from the same Organisation (NI) to the detriment of impartiality - for example compare the number of meetings with News International "high ups" in the year and a bit since he's been PM, with the number of meetings he's had with, for example, BBC equivalents (none at all), or editors from other than Murdoch papers (hardly any) - it's massively biased towards formal and informal meetings with NI people. Consider also that NI is a business owned by a foreign national and the BBC is a state broadcaster.

Regardless of whether Coulson (or Rebbekah Wade) is eventually sent to the Big House for dastardly deeds, or whether they squirm free, there has been an entirely unbalanced and inappropriate cosying up between Cameron (and those before him...etc) and News International. That this extends to appointing tainted people, extends to (as a minimum) percieved bias in decision making and so on is bad in itself.

[snowychap]

Coulson is not guilty of any crime until/unless he is found guilty.

well thats 2 of us , now if we can just convince the other 61,838,152 people in the country

If you wanted to phrase it differently, you might ask me whether I thought he was involved in the phone hacking, the bribery and the cover up and whether he had responsibility for an organization where these things had occurred and was, by that, tainted at best.

My answer to those questions: I would be immensely surprised if he were not involved and I certainly suspect that he's in it up to his neck; he absolutely was responsible for the organization where phone hacking has taken place and where the other things are clearly suspected to have taken place (MacDonald's testimony would suggest more than just suspicion) and was very much tainted by that.

It would have taken an idiot to believe that it was a good idea to hire Coulson; I'm not, therefore, too surprised to hear it put forward that it was Osborne who thought that. ;-)

[snowychap]

From the Grauniad's live blog:

Ian Katz writes: Andy Coulson had begun undergoing high security vetting in November, around three months before he resigned as David Cameron's director of communications, the Guardian has learned.

Downing Street has been under pressure to explain why the former News of the World editor was not subjected to so-called "developed vetting", the high security checking process most previous No 10 press secretaries have undergone. Both Coulson's successor and his former deputy, Gabby Bertin, are undergoing developed vetting.

A Whitehall source said the decision not to subject Coulson to developed vetting was taken by Jeremy Heywood, the Downing Street permanent secretary. The source said it was decided that, as director of communications, Coulson did not need access to highly secret material and that developed vetting was a costly, unnecessary expense.

The source stressed that Coulson's lower level of clearance, "security check" or SC, did allow him to have access to material designated "secret" and to "top secret" material under supervision. He also said that the controversy surrounding Tony Blair's press chief Alastair Campbell's access to intelligence material was a consideration in deciding to give Coulson a lower level of vetting.

The source said that following the discovery of an explosive device on a plane at East Midlands airport in October, it was decided that Coulson did need developed vetting to deal with similar terrorism-related issues and the process was started. The process can take three to six months and had not been completed when Coulson resigned saying the phone-hacking scandal meant he could no longer work effectively.

The New York Times published a major investigation of the phone-hacking scandal in September 2010 that prompted the Metropolitan police to open a limited inquiry and end its relationship with Neil Wallis, Coulson's former deputy, who was working as a £1,000 a day PR advisor to the Met. The source insisted the decision to subject Coulson to developed vetting was not connected to the New York Times report or the spate of coverage in the UK media that followed it.

It is still not known whether David Cameron was informed of the decision not to vet Coulson to the higher level on entering Downing Street in May 2010, or the decision to begin the process in November 2010. The source said he did not believe Coulson had received any indication of the likely outcome of his DV process when he resigned in January.

[drat01]

Labour were at it as well, just as much. It's not a party political issue. It's much bigger than that.

I suppose the MPs sort of have to do it, as the opposition, but it reeks of hypocrisy and people can see that.

exactly ... Ed tried to use it to cement his position , but ultimately he has failed .. and I suspect long term may have even helped Cameron as the focus has been removed from the cuts and the economy of late

Miliband, after two impressive weeks, reverted to looking somehow too small for his job (let alone Mr Cameron's). A circuitous, three-part question bored his own side, whereas many of Mr Cameron's remarks were met with approving roars from his backbenchers (which, if you have heard Tory MPs hold forth on their aloof, electorally underachieving leader, is not something he could have counted on).

For the time being, however, and thanks to his career-long habit of excelling under pressure, Mr Cameron has consolidated his position.

Full article here

As ever Tony you follow that now familiar Tory and right wing line of deflection over this matter. Let's blame the Mirror (oops the Tory MP got it wrong but was "quoted" by Cameron), let's quote the Economist (right wing mouthpiece) and attack Milliband.

The bottom line here is still the fundamental questions that should be asked about people employed by the Tory party and people used by the Tory party as trusted advisor's to the Gvmt and when they were in opposition. Cameron continues to be evasive and not answer questions raised about the BSkyB bid, why is that? What information was passed to Tory party (and other political parties) by people like Coulson - I suspect that his feeding if info to Labour may be somewhat minuscule.

Cameron, Gideon and Hague are stinking more and more each day over this whole episode and the baggage that goes along with it. The deflection of trying to "blame" Labour is laughable really because I fail to see many Labour party reps as part of this "jolly little group" based out of where Cameron lives.

As for the LibDems how the hell they can even now contemplate working with the Tory party until this mess is cleared up shows what their motives are.

Now I know this will be greeted with what about Blair, Brown etc and their relationship with Murdoch, but are they in Gvmt now? Yes if they are "guilty" of anything following the investigations then like the expenses scandals they should be seen to pay. At this moment there are a lot of things rattling in Cameron's closet (as many suggested when he became PM) and not all of them are coat hangars

[peterms]

The point of my post was that this was not party political, this was about the government. For some that may mean that they look to attack or defend for purely party political reasons but that's not what I'm doing.

That all of the story (containing police corruption, behaviour of the media, media plurality, the influence of Murdoch and so on) appears to go to the very heart of government is the biggest part of the issue.

That means questioning, specifically, Cameron's actions, motives and words. These should be questioned as the actions, &c. of the Prime Minister - not a tory Prime Minister nor a tory leader but our Prime Minister (and the office of Prime Minister).

Edit: That the politicians and the public don't appear to be able to do this without resorting to the punch and judy indicates how truly pathetic it all is.

That's exactly the point.

It's a constitutional issue, beyond and removed from party politics.

That Cameron is a stranger to the truth, and a duplicitous, menadacious little shit who wouldn't know an honest statement if it crawled up his leg and suckled on his Etonian manhood is true, but hardly the point.

The point is that offices of state and public bodies have been compromised by the antics of a bunch of moneygrubbing crims, and the main actors need to get their act in order sharpish if they are to retain any credibility at all in said offices and bodies.

Again, whether it would be wise for people to accept the laundering which will now take place, and again present their virginal trust on a slightly soiled platter, is for them to judge. I wouldn't, but that's me, eh?

[peterms]

From the Grauniad's live blog:

Ian Katz writes: Downing Street has been under pressure to explain why the former News of the World editor was not subjected to so-called "developed vetting", the high security checking process most previous No 10 press secretaries have undergone. Both Coulson's successor and his former deputy, Gabby Bertin, are undergoing developed vetting.

A Whitehall source said the decision not to subject Coulson to developed vetting was taken by Jeremy Heywood, the Downing Street permanent secretary. The source said it was decided that, as director of communications, Coulson did not need access to highly secret material and that developed vetting was a costly, unnecessary expense.

How stupid do they think us?

He didn't need vetting, but his deputy did? His successor does? This was decided by a civil servant, not by Cameron?

That's how stupid they think we are, to accept this line.

[bickster]

All this bullshit about Coulson not being guilty until proven innocent is just that and Cameron as much as admitted it himself. He knew why he was no longer employed by NI (we all did), he knew he'd done something very wrong. He might not have known the extent of the wrong doing but he knew. Why do we know? Because Cameron himself only the other week said that he knew but he thought Coulson deserved a second chance. That in itself says to me, he knew what Coulson was guilty of but quite frankly he didn't give a shit and he'd employ him anyway. Whether that is because Coulson was his mate, because employing Coulson would be favourable with Murdoch or for whatever reason you can come up with, it makes no difference. It still represents a monumental error of judgement at the very least.

Me, I think the "second chance" argument holds no value at all as it was just designed to garner a sympathetic approach towards Cameron's all important image, as a way of guiding him out of the minefield that was about to and still is coming his way.

[tonyh29]

That Cameron is a stranger to the truth, and a duplicitous, menadacious little shit who wouldn't know an honest statement if it crawled up his leg and suckled on his Etonian manhood is true, but hardly the point.

Usually regardless of whether I agree with your pov or not it's always a well argumented case... but when you have to chuck in the old Etonian stuff , well to be honest your better than that

I've not read all the details on this whole scandal but the suggestion from some here is that it was all about lining MPs pockets... I suspect Camerons only motive much the same as his most of his recent predecessors was to secure the Murdoch backing that many believe can deliver an election , Cameron may be a lot of things to a lot of people but I don't beleive he is a crook and I don't believe he is taking backhanders either ( though one could argue that we are in a similar situation

to cash for questions that dogged the Tory party when it lost it's way and got drunk on power)

[tonyh29]

All this bullshit about Coulson not being guilty until proven innocent

Regardless of what we may all think or think we know ... I'd still prefer to live in a society that does actually wait until a court has convicted before passing judgement .... True we all know OJ did it but at least he got the right to buy a jury to prove his innocence , surely Coulsen deserves the same right ?

[drat01]

All this bullshit about Coulson not being guilty until proven innocent

Regardless of what we may all think or think we know ... I'd still prefer to live in a society that does actually wait until a court has convicted before passing judgement .... True we all know OJ did it but at least he got the right to buy a jury to prove his innocence , surely Coulsen deserves the same right ?

So that applies to your constant statements about war crimes, about cash for honours, etc etc - and all of the other things that the Tory party and its supporters in the media liked to throw at the Labour party? At least be consistent with your stance on the bigger issue.

There is a very obvious attempt here by the main players to deflect from the issues and to make the specifics that can be shown to be against the Tory party especially to be muddled up with the press dubious practices. Cameron's judgement has at best shown to be flawed, and using his past track record of calling for resignations if he was not a hypocrite would have resigned now. If he is innocent then as he said when Hain resigned from his Welsh job, he can return.

Again I will say also Clegg in supporting Cameron is proving that he is nothing more than a political Downing