SO, WHAT to make of the News of the World phone tap allegations and, more importantly (if you’re a political junkie, anyway), Andly Coulson’s alleged role in it?
First off, those of you whose reaction to any criticism of the Conservative Party in this area is "Well, what about McBride?" should direct their comments to someone who wasn’t appalled by his behaviour and who didn’t condemn it at the time. In other words, not me.
It’s also not enough to point to the fact that McBride, as a civil servant, was paid from the public purse and Coulson isn’t and therefore that makes some kind of difference. Because it doesn’t. Surely the point is that leaders are expected to exercise a level of judgment about who they appoint as their closest advisers. Gordon paid a heavy price in the wake of Smeargate because of his close association with McBride. Are defenders of Cameron and Coulson claiming that whatever the results of the police investigation into this latest scandal, Cameron’s judgment in appointing Coulson was faultless?
Cameron told Sky News today: "Of course I knew about that resignation before offering him the job. But I believe in giving people a second chance. As director of communications for the Conservatives he does an excellent job in a proper, upright way at all times."
This is a significant statemen by Cameron. He’s saying that whatever Coulson may or may not have done in his professional life before starting work for the Tories, none of it would justify his sacking from his current post. That’s quite a controversial and risky statement and one which Cameron may come to regret sooner than he thinks.
Wouldn’t it have shown better judgment for an aspiring Prime Minister, instead of writing a moral blank cheque, to have said that while he had the utmost faith in Andy Coulson, they had mutually agreed that he should take gardening leave while the investigation continues, is confident he’ll be fully vindicated, etc…?
For what it’s worth, I have no idea what Coulson’s role has been. He may be completely innocent. According to Cameron, it doesn’t matter either way — he’ll still have his job whatever the police investigation concludes.
Except, he won’t.
I’m not one for demanding anyone’s resignation; in my experience such calls are made more for the publicity benefits than because it’s justified. But if this story grows as I think it will between now and the publication of Sunday’s papers, then Cameron is going to have a hell of a difficult PMQs next week — the last before the summer recess, remember.
So I predict that Coulson will be gone before then.














Thursday 9 July 2009 at 4:11 pm
Well Tom,
Let’s have a look at the differences/similarites between the Coulson thang and the McBride thang.
Firstly Coulson – he is the guy in charge (sort of) and one of his minions engages in dodgy practices. Said minion goes to jail, Coulson says he didn’t know about said dodgy practices, but regardless TAKES RESPONSIBILITY and resigns from his job and starts looking for work elsewhere. He gets a job, then a couple of years later ‘new evidence’ is dragged up regarding the scandal – of course said new evidence contains absolutely nothing pointing to Coulson.
Now McBride – he is a minion of Gordon Brown and engages in dodgy practices, he tries to claim white is black but eventually gets the boot. Interestingly GB takes no responsibility for what his minion has done and does not resign.
So what are the similarities – well not many really – one is an example of a boss/leader taking responsibility for the actions of those under him and one is not.
I feel that Lord Mandelson of Whatever’s latest proclamation that it defies belief that Coulson didn’t know what his minions were up to could be restated as it defies belief that Brown didn’t know what McBride was up to.
So Tom, what do you think? Does it defy belief that Brown/Coulson didn’t know what McBride/Goodman was up to?
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 4:17 pm
The gardening leave idea is the politics of cowardice. Cameron’s stood by him when many people (including I suspect, high profile tories in private) are calling for his head. Couldon didn’t resign because he authorised the reporter who was jailed to tap the royal phones but because it happened whilst he was editor. If proof emerges that he actively colluded in this then he should lose his job and face criminal proceedings. But at the moment this smacks of a labour smear op and on the evidence of previous ones it’ll probably backfire on them shortly.
At least Cameron’s showing a bit of spine in the face of pressure, surely that’s prime ministerial. We haven’t had a leader with a bit of backbone for nearly two decades now.
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 4:22 pm
You’re right to expect Coulson to be gone, I suspect he will be. What Cameron has said is he knew about this before giving Coulson the job, because – importantly – the Guardian hasn’t yet uncovered anything new about Coulson. We know the same now as we did last week. If the story grows & new evidence comes to light about Coulson, he’ll be gone (as he should be).
I doubt the Tories will be fighting an election with this man.
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 4:23 pm
@Truppenzwei – McBride (and let me repeat – I make no excuses for the man) has never been accused of committing a criminal act. The jury’s out on Coulson.
But why are you so reluctant to look at the bigger picture? You obviously believe that none of this has any bearing on Cameron. How could it, after all – he’s a Conservative.
You may believe (you don’t really) that this is all a storm in a teacup manufactured by the Labour Dirty tricks Department, but since it isn’t, you may have to face up to reality some time soon.
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 4:33 pm
Have the police charged or looked to charge Coulson at all Tom? If there was any evidence, surely they would have gone after him at the same time as the reporter. It does smack of tit for tat from Labour over McBride (Though I’m sure the vast majority of your party are glad to see the back of him and the way he did business). The only reason that Coulson’s name has been dragged up in this story is because of who his boss is. The Guardian themselves said (and Nick Robinson confirmed this on the daily politics) that they had no evidence at all implicating Andy Coulson.
Now will the labour party stop playing silly buggers trying to score cheap political points and get back to trying to fix our disastrous economy and getting the private sector back on track so I can find myself a job. Do that and I might not be so certain to vote conservative at the GE.
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 4:47 pm
@Tom (dam you Twitter) I can see the bigger picture, and I can see it in more shades than red and blue. Maybe that is why I can see the differences between the two cases where those with monochrome lenses cannot.
As for criminal acts, aren’t libel and/or slander criminal acts?
Don’t get me wrong – if Coulson did condone Goodmans acts then he should be prosecuted as well. As I understand it though there has already been a police investigation into it?
I have a lot more respect for David Cameron because of the stance he is taking over this than I have for Brown and his continued weaselness.
I’m not a Tory voter generally, but I’m definitely coming round to their way of thinking.
That said, if I was in your constituency I’d vote for you as I’m at least confident you know what the keyboard on your computer is for.
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 4:47 pm
I think this could boomerang badly on the labour sleaze machine. If they don’t dig up any significant dirt on Coulson soon, say, by the weekend, I fully expect to see Wapping’s finest spring into action.
I just hope his sake that the deputy prime minister doesn’t have any skeletons with Russian or West Midlands accents lurking in any of his cupboards.
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 4:49 pm
Seems the media and the Labour party have convicted Coulson already. Certainly, the Court Joker has done, over in the Guardian.
Justice in action, New Labour style. Always good to see.
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 4:54 pm
@Truppenzwei Thursday 9 July 2009 at 4:11 pm
“Now McBride – he is a minion of Gordon Brown and engages in dodgy practices, he tries to claim white is black but eventually gets the boot. Interestingly GB takes no responsibility for what his minion has done and does not resign.”
Actually, Brown – by his warped logic – did take responsibility. Here is what he said, more or less
“I take full responsibility for this incident, and have sacked the person responsible”.
Uh? Sorry? What?
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 5:01 pm
“He’s saying that whatever Coulson m(a)y or may (not) have done in his professional life before starting work for the Tories, none of it would justify his sacking from his current post”
No he isn’t. He said he knew of the resignation. That’s not a blank cheque on ANYTHING he did prior to his employment. How would the Labour Party feel if any employer dismissed an employee on the basis of speculation and innuendo? So what’s the difference in this case?
Oh yes. It’s the Tories, so the normal rules don’t apply.
“He may be completely innocent. According to Cameron, it doesn’t matter either way — he’ll still have his job whatever the police investigation concludes.”
Not even the NotW could interpret Cameron’s statement to mean that.
Talk about hypocrisy.
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 5:06 pm
I think that as long as long as the statement made by Coulson i.e. that he had no knowledge of the criminal act is correct he should have no case to answer. If i were Cameron and this were the case i would stick by my man; come what may.
I don’t think your strictly correct in saying that cameron has written a ‘blank moral cheque’ (although it’s a catchy lil’ phrase!). I think he was saying IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES he is prepared to give a second chance; i doubt very much he would give a the DoC job to a reformed axe murderer for example!
Despite saying this politics is a cruel and i was pleasantly surprised to see Coulson still in his job this evening. What strikes me is the heavy feeling of revenge in the tone of Charles Clarke, John Prescot etc calling for Coulson to go. Whether he officially goes or not is largely irrelevant, because i doubt he will well and truly ever leave the Cameron team.
One more thought….does anyone smell a heavy hint the dark Lord Mandy anywhere in this? Maybe i’ve just become to cynical i recent times!!!
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 5:57 pm
I guess a lot of it depends on how honest Coulson was when he applied for the job (and what he actually did at the NoTW). If he said ‘I resigned because I felt it was the right thing to do when it became clear that criminal activities had happened on my watch’ and that is true then fair enough. If he had anything to do with the criminality and covered that up then he should go.
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 6:15 pm
No police investigation; i think Coulson has just dodged a rather deadly bullet!
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 7:49 pm
Or he had no case to answer Ben. So I’ll proclaim him innocent until proven otherwise. I know we have juryless trials now but I don’t think we should go in for Kangaroo courts.
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 8:11 pm
Hmmm, Tom Harris is criticising David Cameron’s judgement of a third party.
Now, let me see how does Tom Harris’ own judgement stack up. What, for example, are his opinions of a) Michael Martin b) Peter Hain c) Tony Blair?
Something like, as I recall,
a) Very competent speaker undermined by Tories and the right-wing media.
b) Fully deserving of his position on the front bench and
c) Go where the sun shines, walk behind him.
And Tom is calling David Cameron’s judgement into question !!!!!
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 8:39 pm
“He may be completely innocent. According to Cameron, it doesn’t matter either way — he’ll still have his job whatever the police investigation concludes.”
I can still remember when you couldn’t see the plains of Westminster for spin doctors. Ah, nostalgia…
I remember when Andy Coulson was in charge of the Sun’s Bizarre column, too. Those guys tend to go on to great things. Is my memory playing up, or was Piers Morgan editor of that page before him? The Mirror’s 3AM Girls, alas, are yet to become Brown Babes…
Thursday 9 July 2009 at 8:49 pm
Telegraph – Just in
Inspector Yates sez – Scotland Yard not interested.
MacBride back in harness, Tom? So soon?
Friday 10 July 2009 at 12:30 am
Much of what the tabloids get up to is reprehensible but on the right side of the law.
They are often intrusive, insensitive, bullying and vindictive – but in a free society that’s allowed, however much harm it does.
So when they do break the law they should feel its full force. That goes for Coulson, who seemed to worm his way out of a PCC disiplinary by resigning beforehand, and now seems to be wriggling out of a police investigation.
As for Coulson not knowing how a million pounds of his budget was being spent, or what his journalists were up to (as the editor of a Sunday paper he will have worked in a fairly small, intimate newsroom) – that seems pretty unthinkable. He doesn’t come across as thick, disinterested or naive.
Friday 10 July 2009 at 8:10 am
“The jury’s out on Coulson.”
Last time I checked (Yates yesterday) noone has called a jury in on Coulson.
Friday 10 July 2009 at 9:20 am
So Andy Coulson was editor of the NOTW when his journalists had access to phone-tapping on a scale which the Stasi would have been proud of, and yet he remained in blissful ignorance of it.
As Mandy Rice-Davies said, ‘Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?’
Friday 10 July 2009 at 10:00 am
The whole field of surveillance is a nightmare. As you say Tom, there was a clear case against Mr McBride and so far there is no case against Mr Coulson. I acknowledge that it would be most unusual for an editor not to know what was going on. I also relate this to the ousting of Tony Blair. GB also did not know what was going on even though one of the conspirators drive some 400 miles to his home? Oh yes -
all were rewarded with a post in Government even though many were not up to the job!!
Am I right in saying that tabloid journalism uses these methods? Was it not the Mirror that provided details of a former England managers “love” life by using the same methods?
Is it time for the PCC to be removed and for legislation to be introduced? It seems funny to me that many Editors are on the PCC panel. Why does Parliament not impose statutory regulation which is common in other countries. Is it because PM’s do not want to upset the Press?
To be honest – why should I worry about all of this? The Telegraph did us all a favour with the purchase of MP data. At the time, the Speaker called in the police – shocking that members were being treated like us all!!! There would have been a public outcry if the police had taken action as it would smack of one law for MPs and one for us! After all, Parliament is not interested in citizen’s rights from state intrusion. How many time do we hear MPs state “national security” to give them power over us. Hilarious when we read continuously of the number of notebooks lost from defence officials as well as every government department. I do not trust the government with my personal information.
There will always be ways of ascertaining information – technology development will always be ahead of government. If we wish to deal with abuses then the government should legislate. I am not into using the latest rehash of events from a few years ago for political purposes. It is boring! Attempts to do so will be treated with astonishment given the state the country is in.
Friday 10 July 2009 at 12:06 pm
“He’s saying that whatever Coulson may or may not have done in his professional life before starting work for the Tories, none of it would justify his sacking from his current post.”
No Tom, that is NOT a valid interpretation of what Cameron said. He said that he UNDERSTOOD the reason why Coulson resigned and that he believed in giving the guy a second chance. He has never said that nothing that Coulson might or might not have done would justify his sacking. Has he?
Let’s face it…the sight of Alistair Campbell and Labour trying to spin this story as a judgement on Cameron rather than a story of tabloid skulduggery that’s always existed is pathetic.
Friday 10 July 2009 at 12:17 pm
i think what you meant to say, Sanjeev, was: “Andy Coulson works for the Conservative Party, so of course he hasn’t doe anything wrong.”
Friday 10 July 2009 at 12:34 pm
You’re wasting your time, Sanjeev. Harris has evidently decided that his blog only attracts a rightwing audience and, inexplicable as that might be, he might as well make lemonade from lemons and spend all his time on it trying to goad that supposed audience. It’s an odd viewpoint, but if it’s what he believes…
Friday 10 July 2009 at 1:32 pm
Joe K
I think it’s more likely that when he knows he’s lost the argument, he’ll resort to the usual anti-Tory bile we now expect from Labour politicians. The fact that there’s barely two sentences of the original blog that actually stand up to scrutiny is conveniently ignored.
There’s a week left for Tom’s prediction to come to pass. I’ll make my own prediction. When Coulson is still in post at the end of next week, we’ll not hear a word about it from Mr Harris.
Friday 10 July 2009 at 6:46 pm
The editor knows everything, especially Coulson with his hands-on approach, and there’s simply no possibility that these practices were somehow sneaked through him.
But all tabloids employ these methods.
And Coulson was probably no worse than
any other.
The Conservative Party will not be destroyed if (when) Coulson is dropped.
There may even be a smidgen of sympathy out there.
The Labour Party needs to be careful about appearing like some carping old witch, twitching the net curtains of their hovel in a political cul de sac.
Leave a comment