The issue of whether David Cameron is fit to continue as Prime Minister comes down to one important question. Does he display the quality of judgement to do the job. I ask myself this question. Forget the phone hacking and the dodgy payments to police. Forget all of the other issues. Just consider what his previous job was. He was the editor of the News of The World. Does David Cameron ever read this paper. If I was Prime Minister, what particular feature of the News of The World would I want to bring to the office of Prime Minister? Salacious stories? A reputation for being in the gutter? When I need to put out a press release detailing why we need to build a railway through Oxfordshire or why we want to change the way students university places are funded, do I want someone who shows sensitivity. It is no surprise to me that the country is up in arms, given the tone of coverage.
Add to the the fact the bloke lost his job in circumstances which weren't exactly appealing, it doesn't exactly spell "great decision" does it. Presumably there are plenty of people in the field with unblemished CV's, who have a track record of doing a good job. This is the job of the person who presents my face to the public.
A simple look a the NOTW during Coulsons reign would have told Cameron all he needed to know.
Add to the the fact the bloke lost his job in circumstances which weren't exactly appealing, it doesn't exactly spell "great decision" does it. Presumably there are plenty of people in the field with unblemished CV's, who have a track record of doing a good job. This is the job of the person who presents my face to the public.
A simple look a the NOTW during Coulsons reign would have told Cameron all he needed to know.
Last night I went along to the Guardian podcast recording, which was all about Hackgate.
ReplyDeleteJonathon Freedland argued that the PM was damaged, but that bad judgement was not usually a resigning issue. He pointed to Tony Blair, who many people thought showed catastrophically bad judgement going to War, yet he survived. He felt that for Cameron or Osborne to go would need someone to show dishonesty.
Nick Davies had a different view. He felt there was a transaction taking place, whereby Cameron was given support by News International and in return NI wanted (according to the Daily Mail insisted) that someone acceptable to them was given the post as the PM's communications officer
Rebekah Brooks vetoes Guto Harri
Rebekah Brooks denied this had ever happened when asked by the Culture Select Committee. Interestingly, David Camron was asked about this in the Emergency debate and he did not deny it. His response was "Rebekah Brooks has specifically denied this".
For a Corporation to be powerful enough to insist that they get a placeman employed at the heart of Government is a serious constitutional issue. For me, it should be the end of David Cameron, because it is too dangerous a precedent to countenance.
There is a second issue raised by David Cameron's response. If this conversation took place (and the Daily Mail seem pretty clear it did) then Rebekah Brooks lied to a Select Committee and David Cameron must know this. In which case, not only has he failed to point this out, he has lent her lie credibility.
The police admitted that they did not pursue the phone-hacking cases for 3 reasons:
1. Resources & priorities - they had to take people away from anti-terrorism to investigate this;
2. CPS advice on the interpretation of the law; and
3. They were frightened of losing NI support and reputational damage if they attacked NI.
So the police were scared and the politicians (Tory and Labour) were scared. I am not a great monarchist, but, as a neighbour said to me last night, it is a good thing that the Queen had the status and the power to have the first hacking Court case brought, which uncovered much of the information. As she said "The Queen just said you do not come into my backyard and attack my grandchildren"
Good for you Ma'am.
Here is the podcast from the Guardian Guardian hackgatepodcast
ReplyDeleteThe papers say the judicial inquiry will now also cover "social media".
ReplyDeleteWe may find out the details of a certain Barnet Blogger to the Gentry, her multiple visits to Champneys, and her possible meetings with a certain flame-haired News International executive.