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.
He has though initiated a public enquiry, which ABSOLUTELY should have been done two years ago under the Labour watch. How on earth they can criticise the current government for doing what they should have done just show how shallow they are.
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.
It's interesting how people try to reinvent history in a thread like this , it is clear that the whole political establishment was knee deep in the dodgy stuff with Murdoch so we should look at why they did it .All three ( yes even the Lib Dems) parties have questions to answer.
I've always taken the view that Labour was always dragged into bed with Murdoch because of what his papers did to Kinnock in 1992 , Alastair Campbell has expressed this view in his diaries which cover the early pre election Blair years . I believe the Tories similarly took a closer route to influencing the Dirty Digger by appointing Andy Coulson to obtain his endorsement , I can think of no other reason Cameron would have taken this incredibly risky strategy .
There is no doubt that Blair did get close to the Murdoch , but even he would not let him buy Manchester United because it was a conflict of interest . Brown was keen to maintain the relationship until the Sun switched sides in 2009 , this would explain attending Brook's wedding and Rebekah's slumber party with Sarah Brown .
At this time the toxic relationship switched as well and Cameron must have promised something to get Murdoch's support .Maybe the BskyB deal ?
It seems incredible that this was only days away from being approved two weeks ago and never has Harold Wilson's 'a week is a long time in politics' quote been more true
In terms of the Lib Dems there was an interesting by line on Twitter last night from BBC journalist Michael Crick :
'Gordon Brown was so keen on judicial inquiry into hacking that it was even an item in May 2010 Lab Lib Dem Coalition negotiations'
So if Brown wanted this dealt with , why didn't Clegg include it in his negotitions with the Tories and force Cameron to include it in the coalition agreement ?
As Panorama showed yesterday all the political parties were only too happy to court NI.
That included Milliband and co, at the NI spring party at Kensington.
They claim it was Alan Sugar who was asked to leave, that left wing, red flag waving supporter?.
Cameron decided against a tide of opinion that he knew best, and supported Coulson to give him another chance.
Cable who a few months ago was 'going to war with Murdoch/NI' was shot down in flames and politically castrated, you hardly ever hear a squeak out of the poor man?
We do have an appauling record on whistle blowers in this country?
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.
Top post and a very sensible assessment of where things stand.
Of course Miliband is making political capital out of this and he would be a complete fool if he didn't. He has to be careful to tread the right line though - which seems to be "I am leading the debate on this and Cameron is playing catch up because he is tainted by association to Coulson, Brooks etc". If he plays the "its a Tory problem" card too strongly, then he leaves himself and Labour much more open to the "hypocritical - Johnny Come Lately" counter-attack which the Tories are trying to launch.
If it is proven Coulson was a key player in the hacking, Cameron will be seriously damaged - On Panorama last night, Brown seemed to be saying that NI papers backed the tories because the Government blocked some of their intentions. That would make sense as it sends a message to both major parties what the consequence of not letting them do what they want has.
It isn't about Murdoch caring about who runs the country but who can do the most for his business.
Didnt Brookes say that things will come out that will show why the NOTW "HAD" to close down?
After all the scandals that have so far been outed it must be something pretty abysmal for her to say that. Wouldnt suprise me if it is revealed that the McCanns had their phones hacked too in the last few years or something as equally horrendous.
Well it does seem the culture in the organisation was the story at all costs - so it isn't such a leap to suspect we are looking at the tip of the iceberg. The other question mark is whether we will ever get to know the full story but half the story would be damaging enough. Any contagion to America and NI is finished.
Agree Cameron will survive this in the short term but not sure that he will long term. Once you are damaged goods which he is to some extent already and it might get worse, political parties are very ruthless with their leaders and perhaps the Tory grandees are the worst. Gone within a year.
According to Stephenson he had no reason to think that the original investigation was not a success!...... even though he wrote and had meetings with the Guardian who were subsequently writing about the position, and pressumably the allegations........ He employed an ex, or the met did as a consultant on a £1,000 a day to help him with his speeches.........In other words he knows nothing, did not get involved in his procurement, but resigned because of 'distractions'. Obviously note heard of coppers 'nouse' , or the bizzare idea that you resign from the NI and join the met, and vice versa and start writing collumns that you do not read!..... or your 45 press officers. So reassuring that plod has it's finger on the pulse?.
Ken if the procurement of this extra help in PR that the Met wanted was undertaken correctly how then did a mate of the 2nd highest copper (Yates) get the job ?
11/10 Redmidland starts a commentary when Murdoch is questioned in Parliament.
LOL
I would do.....if someone was saying something and not just stonewalling!!!! The Murdochs are just playing the cant remember card.....and the police have there diaries......Murdoch senior is squirming in his seat and son James is trying to dig him out.....interesting stuff to come.....if someone ever answers any questions!!! Commentary over!! LOL
Murdoch senior has just said he is not responsible for the 'fiasco'!! I thought he was head of corportaion....doesnt the buck stop at the top anymore? Oh well I suppose thats the new way of the world.
I have been dipping in and out of this and so far I think the Murdochs have answered every question. What is coming across is what a bunch of incompetent showboating fools the MPs asking the questions are. Every question seems pointless. Did you know this payment had been made? When were you informed of this? Murdoch is head of a corporation that owns many companies and employs thousands and thousands of people. Are they seriously expecting him to read and remember every one of the hundreds of e.mails and reports he must be copied in on every day?
But the most rediculous and pointless question has got to be 'Mr Murdoch, when did you become aware that criminal practice had become endemic at News International?'
...because Melanie Phillips isn't a legitimate target for being punched? She's one of the most hatefully vitriolic, racist, homophobic, vile human beings that has ever lived. She should be publicly birched, never mind punched.
...because Melanie Phillips isn't a legitimate target for being punched? She's one of the most hatefully vitriolic, racist, homophobic, vile human beings that has ever lived. She should be publicly birched, never mind punched.
Leroy evidently believes in freedom of speech it would appear....
...because Melanie Phillips isn't a legitimate target for being punched? She's one of the most hatefully vitriolic, racist, homophobic, vile human beings that has ever lived. She should be publicly birched, never mind punched.
Leroy evidently believes in freedom of speech it would appear....
If we weren't talking about Melanie Phillips that would be amusing. But we are. So it isn't.
I would find it hard to resist slapping Melanie Phillips.
Along with her employers, she pushed the MMR hoax on a consistent basis. I'm pretty certain she did so deliberately, prepared to risk children's lifes for the sake of the limelight and some sales.
And still no apology to the parents of the children who died thanks to her cynical scaremongering.
Comments
It's interesting how people try to reinvent history in a thread like this , it is clear that the whole political establishment was knee deep in the dodgy stuff with Murdoch so we should look at why they did it .All three ( yes even the Lib Dems) parties have questions to answer.
I've always taken the view that Labour was always dragged into bed with Murdoch because of what his papers did to Kinnock in 1992 , Alastair Campbell has expressed this view in his diaries which cover the early pre election Blair years . I believe the Tories similarly took a closer route to influencing the Dirty Digger by appointing Andy Coulson to obtain his endorsement , I can think of no other reason Cameron would have taken this incredibly risky strategy .
There is no doubt that Blair did get close to the Murdoch , but even he would not let him buy Manchester United because it was a conflict of interest . Brown was keen to maintain the relationship until the Sun switched sides in 2009 , this would explain attending Brook's wedding and Rebekah's slumber party with Sarah Brown .
At this time the toxic relationship switched as well and Cameron must have promised something to get Murdoch's support .Maybe the BskyB deal ?
It seems incredible that this was only days away from being approved two weeks ago and never has Harold Wilson's 'a week is a long time in politics' quote been more true
In terms of the Lib Dems there was an interesting by line on Twitter last night from BBC journalist Michael Crick :
It isn't about Murdoch caring about who runs the country but who can do the most for his business.
Didnt Brookes say that things will come out that will show why the NOTW "HAD" to close down?
After all the scandals that have so far been outed it must be something pretty abysmal for her to say that. Wouldnt suprise me if it is revealed that the McCanns had their phones hacked too in the last few years or something as equally horrendous.
I would do.....if someone was saying something and not just stonewalling!!!! The Murdochs are just playing the cant remember card.....and the police have there diaries......Murdoch senior is squirming in his seat and son James is trying to dig him out.....interesting stuff to come.....if someone ever answers any questions!!! Commentary over!! LOL
I have been dipping in and out of this and so far I think the Murdochs have answered every question. What is coming across is what a bunch of incompetent showboating fools the MPs asking the questions are. Every question seems pointless. Did you know this payment had been made? When were you informed of this? Murdoch is head of a corporation that owns many companies and employs thousands and thousands of people. Are they seriously expecting him to read and remember every one of the hundreds of e.mails and reports he must be copied in on every day?
But the most rediculous and pointless question has got to be 'Mr Murdoch, when did you become aware that criminal practice had become endemic at News International?'
How many of the committee do not have person gripes with the media that they are seeking to exact revenge for?
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/07/lovely-people.html
The attitude of Labour MPs to critical comment together with their attitude to those with disabilities
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2011/07/should-further-action-be-taken-to-discipline-labour-mp-lyn-brown.html?cid=6a00d83451b31c69e201538ff3f721970b
Their pseudo moral outrage is enough to make one vomit!
I would find it hard to resist slapping Melanie Phillips.
Along with her employers, she pushed the MMR hoax on a consistent basis. I'm pretty certain she did so deliberately, prepared to risk children's lifes for the sake of the limelight and some sales.
And still no apology to the parents of the children who died thanks to her cynical scaremongering.
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7391/718.1.full
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/nov/02/health.science