I imagien the Lib Dems are quite enjoying themselves at the moment are they are out of the slimelight for the first tme since the coalition was formed.
The rank and file are aways discontent and disatisifed - it's the only power they have. They are not going to call for a vote of no confidence on this matter though, there are just too many people involved and no one who can ride in untarnished on a white horse to save the day.
Once new revelations stop coming to light, this will go the same way as every other news story. All those with the power, will still have power.
It's the Sun that won it - a familiar phrase and the root of the problem. Whilst it is generally acknowledged that the power of the press is diminishing, when was the last time a political party the Sun supported didn't win the election? So if you are a political party who has a chance of forming a government, you court News International - this gives Murdoch immense power and influence and is a ridiculous stae of affairs. If you are News International and are being clever or cynical - you ensure you don't always support the same party so both believe that they can court and win your favour. And how do you court and win favour- well not by scrutinising and challenging the organisation or making it harder for them to make money.
For some reason, the tv press is expected to be impartial - even though only the BBC is Government funded. Did the Channel 5 news tell us to vote Labour or Conservative at the last election? Removing some of the press' power to influence would go a long way towards a better less corrupt system. But whilst I have no love for the Conservatives, Labour as no moral high ground here.
For some reason, the tv press is expected to be impartial - even though only the BBC is Government funded.
............
For good reasons - people appreciate that newsprint media has a bias, that's the way it always has been and always will be, television is expected to have higher values and is a far more persuasive medium. There are also fewer TV news channels - there are only five terrestial channels and they need to be impartial. Many people still get their news and information from the television and the last thing we need is a station broadcasting news with apolitical agenda - whether left or right we don't need it.
If you think not - have a gander at Fox News in the States, which is little more than a mouthpiece for the right-wing Republican prty. From the inception of TV in the States in the 1930s until the late 1980s the US television industry laboured under the Fairness Doctrine, by which they were expected to be impartial and give equal air time to all mainstream perspectives. The likes of Murdoch argued that as there were more television stations in the 1980s that the Fairness Doctrine could be relaxed. The result has been a disaster for news broadcasting.
Agree with BFR, they are different and they need to remain different. If newspapers were expected to be impartial then they woul have folded a long time ago. They survive now as an opinion on the news which has already been delivered by 24 TV channels. Given that the marjority are unable to interpret the hard news the TV gives them, there will be a place for newspaper for a while yet.
Mutley if you believe the government should stop the newspaper bias do you also agree they need to control the internet?
According to ITV journo Kier Simmons ( who I understand is also an Addick ) on Twitter Cameron had a 'social engagement' with Rebekah Brooks which was inadvertantly left out of his diary . The plot thickens.
A resignation from the PM would have been unthinkable two weeks ago , now it looks a distinct possibility .
The Tories are a joke -------------- how the hell can they let this rag bag bunch of 2 bob losers who ran this country into the ground run rings round them ? thats what is happening. 13 years they were in power --------- what did they do about Murdock ? and phone hacking ? it happened when they were in power ! Brown went to Rebekhas wedding, she was a regular over nite stayer when Brown was in number 11 ----------- yet the Tories arnt smashing that back down Labours throats ? 3 weeks back Red Ed was a having a few Pimms with Murdock why arnt they hammering that point ? The Yates inquery happened when Labour was in power, why arnt they hammering the fact they did naff all at the time ?
What Labour is doing is totaly correct for an Oppo Party what the Tories are doing is baffling,
This could (unless the Tories get some bolloxxx) kill this Government----------------then we shall see what Labout does with VAT --- the debt that they created------ student loans-----pensions which Grodon Brown robbed twice------------------jesus they will come back to finish off what is left of England.
The saying "you dine with the Devil" has truely come home to roost.
Can anyone explain what on earth Sir Paul Stevenson was doing when he accepted a five week stay at champnays. ? Did he not seriously think that it could and whats more should be viewed with concern by anyone with a brain. Stinks if you ask me.
I don't understand all this blaming Cameron for whats been going on. This happened years ago when Labour were in power. Why isn't anyone asking Jack Straw or The other Miliband and any of the previous Home sec what they knew? Lets face it Blair was so far up Murdochs A***e he was almost his mouth piece.
Yes Cameron employed Coulsdon but to date he has not yet been charged or found guilty of anything.
I thought you were innocent until proven otherwise, unless the laws been changed
Yes this scandal was very much on the Labour Governments watch but it's politicians from all parties and now it seems police that have been cosying up to Murdoch for years in order to get his might behind their election campaigns and to get their snouts into the hospitality and god knows what else trough. This ain't gonna end for months and months and there will be a few more casualties yet.
No one is blaming Cameron, but his actions and judgement has been strange and at times contradictory with what happened. First he appointed Coulson after he was forced to resign. Cameron claimed that Coulson assured him that he had no knowledge of the phone hacking that was going on while he was editor. That was barely credible as apparently everyone down to the office cat seemed to know about it and it later seems that he was personally signing off the expenses of Glenn Mulcaire who was doing the hacking. Then he stood by him and refused to sack him when Coulson was obviously more than an innocent bystander. Then there were revelations about his closeness to Rebekah Brooks and News International generally. Coulson will I think be charged for his part in this - he appears to have committed perjury having said on oath at the Tommy Sheridan trial that he had no evidence of the phone hacking - but signed his expenses.
Surely Cameron was being advised by someone during all of this and telling him that politically he was making an error?
Then Cameron as PM presided over a decision to allow Murdoch to takeover Sky declaring him to be "fit and proper", which was a joke when it was made and an even bigger one now.
I'm genuinely wondering what his reticence was in not cutting loose NI. I wonder if some of those phone hacks contained some sensitive political information on Labour which ended up in his in-tray, if and it's a big if, that he knew what was going on and was benefiiting in some way then he's toast. All of this has made him look like he's got something to hide - he's been very reactive althrough this saga and that's not good from someone who's supposed to be the prime-minister.
My point was, why can't the printed press be banned from influencing and urging people to vote in a particular direction - at a stroke it would remove a lot of their power.
Some liberals may take a swipe or two but the party line will be not to damage the coalition.
My point was, why can't the printed press be banned from influencing and urging people to vote in a particular direction - at a stroke it would remove a lot of their power.
Some liberals may take a swipe or two but the party line will be not to damage the coalition.
True and it would be great if come election time the print media would stay objective and just print facts and let their readers decide, but it just isn't going to happen. Most readers appreciate that thair choice of paper comes with a bias which they mostly accept. (Although I've always found the FT to be most like the broadcast media in being objective).
As to what will happen with the Lib-Dems, I can see them splitting into two or even three parties. Some may chose to cross the floor and join Labour, others formally join the Cons. Looking at recent Opinion Polls their support virtually puts them into a casualty ward. There'll be a few MPs who might decide to jump ship before they get booted out if an election is going to take place in the near future.
"It seems he had an on-going history of drink and drug abuse, so most likely this was nature's way of telling him that enough was enough. "
What amazing timing nature seems to have! Out of curiosity, where did you read he had a drug problem?
It was the reason why News International terminated his employment...
To lose your job as a journalist for overdoing drink and drugs means that you were indulging in an heroic fashion. This is an industry known for its addiction to alcohol. Remember Lunchtime O'Booze from Private Eye?
The Tories are a joke -------------- how the hell can they let this rag bag bunch of 2 bob losers who ran this country into the ground run rings round them ? thats what is happening. 13 years they were in power --------- what did they do about Murdock ? and phone hacking ? it happened when they were in power ! Brown went to Rebekhas wedding, she was a regular over nite stayer when Brown was in number 11 ----------- yet the Tories arnt smashing that back down Labours throats ? 3 weeks back Red Ed was a having a few Pimms with Murdock why arnt they hammering that point ? The Yates inquery happened when Labour was in power, why arnt they hammering the fact they did naff all at the time ?
What Labour is doing is totaly correct for an Oppo Party what the Tories are doing is baffling,
This could (unless the Tories get some bolloxxx) kill this Government----------------then we shall see what Labout does with VAT --- the debt that they created------ student loans-----pensions which Grodon Brown robbed twice------------------jesus they will come back to finish off what is left of England.
The saying "you dine with the Devil" has truely come home to roost.
GH, the problem that people have with Cameron is his lack of judgement in that he employed Coulsen, against advice (including from Nick Clegg). I think we're all agreed that BOTH major political parties are at fault for cozing up to Murdoch.
David Cameron going does not mean the end of this government and the immediate installation of the Labour party again. Even if he were to go it is possible that the coalition could continue to govern.
Cameron isn't going - unless someone turns up evidence that he's lied - and there isn't going to be a change of government either way. Nevertheless, I think it was arrogance rather than naivety that led him to take Coulson into Downing Street against advice and he's going to pay for that time and again, especially if Coulson goes down. The Tory attempt to equate Tom Baldwin with Coulson is feeble and likely to remain so.
As I've said before, governments aren't responsible for individual criminal acts on their watch (unless they commit them, of course). It's the police's job to investigate crimes and this whole furore is essentially about that fact that they didn't - and why. Without that investigation politicians of any party are going to struggle to act.
They certainly are responsible for their relations with media barons, which is where Blair, Brown and to a much lesser extent Miliband are at fault, but you can no more impose political balance on the print media than you can on individuals posting on the internet and it would be silly to try.
Cameron will survive this - although he has been very reckless in his behaviour in appointing Coulson and being so close to Brooks when it was obvious the phone-hacking was a big deal.
The key thing is that there is no obvious replacement and the Tories won't throw him to the wolves until an obvious heir emerges.
Comments
I imagien the Lib Dems are quite enjoying themselves at the moment are they are out of the slimelight for the first tme since the coalition was formed.
The rank and file are aways discontent and disatisifed - it's the only power they have. They are not going to call for a vote of no confidence on this matter though, there are just too many people involved and no one who can ride in untarnished on a white horse to save the day.
Once new revelations stop coming to light, this will go the same way as every other news story. All those with the power, will still have power.
Tuesday 2.30pm - Select Committee meeting, I presume it'll be televised on BBC's parliamentary channel.
............
For good reasons - people appreciate that newsprint media has a bias, that's the way it always has been and always will be, television is expected to have higher values and is a far more persuasive medium. There are also fewer TV news channels - there are only five terrestial channels and they need to be impartial. Many people still get their news and information from the television and the last thing we need is a station broadcasting news with apolitical agenda - whether left or right we don't need it.
If you think not - have a gander at Fox News in the States, which is little more than a mouthpiece for the right-wing Republican prty. From the inception of TV in the States in the 1930s until the late 1980s the US television industry laboured under the Fairness Doctrine, by which they were expected to be impartial and give equal air time to all mainstream perspectives. The likes of Murdoch argued that as there were more television stations in the 1980s that the Fairness Doctrine could be relaxed. The result has been a disaster for news broadcasting.
Agree with BFR, they are different and they need to remain different. If newspapers were expected to be impartial then they woul have folded a long time ago. They survive now as an opinion on the news which has already been delivered by 24 TV channels. Given that the marjority are unable to interpret the hard news the TV gives them, there will be a place for newspaper for a while yet.
Mutley if you believe the government should stop the newspaper bias do you also agree they need to control the internet?
Phone-hacking scandal shows why Britain needs the Liberal Democrats
Paddy Ashdown and Vince Cable's party is the only one to have consistently tried to expose Rupert Murdoch's ambitions
Or this from the Evening Standard
Vince Cable: I declared war on Murdoch... now everyone agrees with me
According to ITV journo Kier Simmons ( who I understand is also an Addick ) on Twitter Cameron had a 'social engagement' with Rebekah Brooks which was inadvertantly left out of his diary . The plot thickens.
A resignation from the PM would have been unthinkable two weeks ago , now it looks a distinct possibility .
The Tories are a joke -------------- how the hell can they let this rag bag bunch of 2 bob losers who ran this country into the ground run rings round them ? thats what is happening. 13 years they were in power --------- what did they do about Murdock ? and phone hacking ? it happened when they were in power ! Brown went to Rebekhas wedding, she was a regular over nite stayer when Brown was in number 11 ----------- yet the Tories arnt smashing that back down Labours throats ? 3 weeks back Red Ed was a having a few Pimms with Murdock why arnt they hammering that point ? The Yates inquery happened when Labour was in power, why arnt they hammering the fact they did naff all at the time ?
What Labour is doing is totaly correct for an Oppo Party what the Tories are doing is baffling,
This could (unless the Tories get some bolloxxx) kill this Government----------------then we shall see what Labout does with VAT --- the debt that they created------ student loans-----pensions which Grodon Brown robbed twice------------------jesus they will come back to finish off what is left of England.
The saying "you dine with the Devil" has truely come home to roost.
I bet the Brazilian shooting team are cancelling their invite to the Olympics as we speak.
I don't understand all this blaming Cameron for whats been going on. This happened years ago when Labour were in power. Why isn't anyone asking Jack Straw or The other Miliband and any of the previous Home sec what they knew? Lets face it Blair was so far up Murdochs A***e he was almost his mouth piece.
Yes Cameron employed Coulsdon but to date he has not yet been charged or found guilty of anything.
I thought you were innocent until proven otherwise, unless the laws been changed
Yes this scandal was very much on the Labour Governments watch but it's politicians from all parties and now it seems police that have been cosying up to Murdoch for years in order to get his might behind their election campaigns and to get their snouts into the hospitality and god knows what else trough. This ain't gonna end for months and months and there will be a few more casualties yet.
No one is blaming Cameron, but his actions and judgement has been strange and at times contradictory with what happened. First he appointed Coulson after he was forced to resign. Cameron claimed that Coulson assured him that he had no knowledge of the phone hacking that was going on while he was editor. That was barely credible as apparently everyone down to the office cat seemed to know about it and it later seems that he was personally signing off the expenses of Glenn Mulcaire who was doing the hacking. Then he stood by him and refused to sack him when Coulson was obviously more than an innocent bystander. Then there were revelations about his closeness to Rebekah Brooks and News International generally. Coulson will I think be charged for his part in this - he appears to have committed perjury having said on oath at the Tommy Sheridan trial that he had no evidence of the phone hacking - but signed his expenses.
Surely Cameron was being advised by someone during all of this and telling him that politically he was making an error?
Then Cameron as PM presided over a decision to allow Murdoch to takeover Sky declaring him to be "fit and proper", which was a joke when it was made and an even bigger one now.
I'm genuinely wondering what his reticence was in not cutting loose NI. I wonder if some of those phone hacks contained some sensitive political information on Labour which ended up in his in-tray, if and it's a big if, that he knew what was going on and was benefiiting in some way then he's toast. All of this has made him look like he's got something to hide - he's been very reactive althrough this saga and that's not good from someone who's supposed to be the prime-minister.
It seems he had an on-going history of drink and drug abuse, so most likely this was nature's way of telling him that enough was enough.
Some liberals may take a swipe or two but the party line will be not to damage the coalition.
True and it would be great if come election time the print media would stay objective and just print facts and let their readers decide, but it just isn't going to happen. Most readers appreciate that thair choice of paper comes with a bias which they mostly accept. (Although I've always found the FT to be most like the broadcast media in being objective).
As to what will happen with the Lib-Dems, I can see them splitting into two or even three parties. Some may chose to cross the floor and join Labour, others formally join the Cons. Looking at recent Opinion Polls their support virtually puts them into a casualty ward. There'll be a few MPs who might decide to jump ship before they get booted out if an election is going to take place in the near future.
"It seems he had an on-going history of drink and drug abuse, so most likely this was nature's way of telling him that enough was enough. "
What amazing timing nature seems to have! Out of curiosity, where did you read he had a drug problem?
It was the reason why News International terminated his employment...
To lose your job as a journalist for overdoing drink and drugs means that you were indulging in an heroic fashion. This is an industry known for its addiction to alcohol. Remember Lunchtime O'Booze from Private Eye?
Cameron isn't going - unless someone turns up evidence that he's lied - and there isn't going to be a change of government either way. Nevertheless, I think it was arrogance rather than naivety that led him to take Coulson into Downing Street against advice and he's going to pay for that time and again, especially if Coulson goes down. The Tory attempt to equate Tom Baldwin with Coulson is feeble and likely to remain so.
As I've said before, governments aren't responsible for individual criminal acts on their watch (unless they commit them, of course). It's the police's job to investigate crimes and this whole furore is essentially about that fact that they didn't - and why. Without that investigation politicians of any party are going to struggle to act.
They certainly are responsible for their relations with media barons, which is where Blair, Brown and to a much lesser extent Miliband are at fault, but you can no more impose political balance on the print media than you can on individuals posting on the internet and it would be silly to try.
Cameron will survive this - although he has been very reckless in his behaviour in appointing Coulson and being so close to Brooks when it was obvious the phone-hacking was a big deal.
The key thing is that there is no obvious replacement and the Tories won't throw him to the wolves until an obvious heir emerges.