Re: News International – the story continues : Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:34 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I saw that, and as an ex-Private Secretary I was astounded. His staff must be pulling their hair out. Everything my boss did had to be noted (phone calls, meetings etc). Really beggars belief that he was allowed off the leash so much.

Off the leash or a deliberate blind eye turned?

Re: News International – the story continues : Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:59 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

Off the leash or a deliberate blind eye turned?

If they're civil servants with any sense of the job they'll not be turning a blind eye, as they'll get implicated too.

Re: News International – the story continues : Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:40 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

If they're civil servants with any sense of the job they'll not be turning a blind eye, as they'll get implicated too.

With the greatest of respect something has gone seriously wrong then if they didn't know how bad this was getting.

Re: News International – the story continues : Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:48 am  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

With the greatest of respect something has gone seriously wrong then if they didn't know how bad this was getting.

Private secretaries wouldn't necessarily have access to the minister's private mobile and if this is all being done on the QT anyway, which is what it sounds like, they wouldn't have known. If they had suspicions I would have hoped they'd have raised them with the Permanent Secretary, although he seems to have his head in the sand if his committee appearance the other week is anything to go by.

Hunt couldn't be monitored 24/7, but then he shouldn't have needed to be either.

Re: News International – the story continues : Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:21 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Private secretaries wouldn't necessarily have access to the minister's private mobile and if this is all being done on the QT anyway, which is what it sounds like, they wouldn't have known. If they had suspicions I would have hoped they'd have raised them with the Permanent Secretary, although he seems to have his head in the sand if his committee appearance the other week is anything to go by.

Hunt couldn't be monitored 24/7, but then he shouldn't have needed to be either.

Fair enough.
But as you say his evidence does question he was up too which slightly ties in with my point I guess.

Surely a total ban on private mobiles and e-mail accounts for government business would stop this kind of stuff dead.

Re: News International – the story continues : Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:59 am  

Hunt was doing Murdoch's bidding from the off. It was after all Hunt who hamstrung the Beeb, by effectively cutting their revenue stream by refusing an increase in the licence fee, and making them pay for the World Service, which had always been paid for by the Foreign Office. Murdoch wanted the Beeb's on line activities to be reduced too in order that his paywall Times operation could be profitable. Apparently Hunt lobbied initially to have the decision over Sky decided by his department too. The whole business stinks of corruption at the highest level. Surely a thoroughgoing investigation by the Fraud Squad or someone with real teeth is required. After all, minutes after Hunt had finished giving evidence, Cameron backed him and said he would not be referring him to the official adviser on the Ministerial Code Sir Alex Allan. How can this guy be effective if the only person who can refer matters to him is biased himself? Anyway it looks as though Clegg is finally going to man up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... estigation

Hunt was doing Murdoch's bidding from the off. It was after all Hunt who hamstrung the Beeb, by effectively cutting their revenue stream by refusing an increase in the licence fee, and making them pay for the World Service, which had always been paid for by the Foreign Office. Murdoch wanted the Beeb's on line activities to be reduced too in order that his paywall Times operation could be profitable. Apparently Hunt lobbied initially to have the decision over Sky decided by his department too. The whole business stinks of corruption at the highest level. Surely a thoroughgoing investigation by the Fraud Squad or someone with real teeth is required. After all, minutes after Hunt had finished giving evidence, Cameron backed him and said he would not be referring him to the official adviser on the Ministerial Code Sir Alex Allan. How can this guy be effective if the only person who can refer matters to him is biased himself? Anyway it looks as though Clegg is finally going to man up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... estigation

Re: News International – the story continues : Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:14 pm  

major hound wrote:

Surely these are opinions not facts. And Oborne is not exactly renowned for being a great Labour supporter.

Oborne provides plenty of evidence, a substantial bibliography, appendices and references in the form of memoirs, news snippets etc. As for Oborne's politics - sure he's unashamedly conservative. But he leans far closer toward traditional, libertarian ideals (something I have a good deal of time for) rather than conservatism's mutant variant which began under Thatcher - suffered setbacks under Hague and IDS - but re-emerged with a vengeance under Cameron.

If you read Oborne carefully it's fairly clear that most of his faith has been eroded not just in the Tory party but the entire political system. And whilst it's true he's not Labour's biggest fan (many of his opinions are not without justification, IMO) this doesn't prevent him from praising numerous Labour party members (such as Peter Cruddas, John Smith and - believe it or not - Ken Livingstone) - who remained faithful to the tenets of representational democracy as opposed to the new "manipulative populism" he utterly despises.

His comments re: Livingstone are interesting as he describes him as "... the most fascinating contemporary politician; his achievements are as yet imperfectly understood, and cry out for fuller appreciation and study. Yet he is an extremely important model of how to resist the hegemony of the Political Class".

Re: News International – the story continues : Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:45 pm  

Mugwump wrote: Oborne provides plenty of evidence, a substantial bibliography, appendices and references in the form of memoirs, news snippets etc. As for Oborne's politics - sure he's unashamedly conservative. But he leans far closer toward traditional, libertarian ideals (something I have a good deal of time for) rather than conservatism's mutant variant which began under Thatcher - suffered setbacks under Hague and IDS - but re-emerged with a vengeance under Cameron. If you read Oborne carefully it's fairly clear that most of his faith has been eroded not just in the Tory party but the entire political system. And whilst it's true he's not Labour's biggest fan (many of his opinions are not without justification, IMO) this doesn't prevent him from praising numerous Labour party members (such as Peter Cruddas, John Smith and - believe it or not - Ken Livingstone) - who remained faithful to the tenets of representational democracy as opposed to the new "manipulative populism" he utterly despises. His comments re: Livingstone are interesting as he describes him as "... the most fascinating contemporary politician; his achievements are as yet imperfectly understood, and cry out for fuller appreciation and study. Yet he is an extremely important model of how to resist the hegemony of the Political Class". BUt Labour were reacting. After what the Sun did to Kinnock in 1992 who can blame them? Labour have often been accused of using spin. But again it was a reaction to the enormous spin machine the Tories used against them. Who can forget the huge posters at the 1987 election showing a soldier surrendering and the caption "Labour's defence policy" certainly not me. It was a disgraceful lie, as was the "double whammy" campaign in 1992. But they got away with it because they had the press on their side. If anyone went a step beyond the acceptable it was Cameron and Hunt with their witchunt against the BBC after James Murdoch's speech to the Edinburgh TV festival. Which was quickly followed by Cameron attacking Offcom http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl ... vidcameron and then proceed to hamstring the Beeb just as Rupert wanted him to. But for the scandal the Tories would have nodded Murdoch's deal for Sky through without a second thought. He who pays the piper etc.

Mugwump wrote: Oborne provides plenty of evidence, a substantial bibliography, appendices and references in the form of memoirs, news snippets etc. As for Oborne's politics - sure he's unashamedly conservative. But he leans far closer toward traditional, libertarian ideals (something I have a good deal of time for) rather than conservatism's mutant variant which began under Thatcher - suffered setbacks under Hague and IDS - but re-emerged with a vengeance under Cameron. If you read Oborne carefully it's fairly clear that most of his faith has been eroded not just in the Tory party but the entire political system. And whilst it's true he's not Labour's biggest fan (many of his opinions are not without justification, IMO) this doesn't prevent him from praising numerous Labour party members (such as Peter Cruddas, John Smith and - believe it or not - Ken Livingstone) - who remained faithful to the tenets of representational democracy as opposed to the new "manipulative populism" he utterly despises. His comments re: Livingstone are interesting as he describes him as "... the most fascinating contemporary politician; his achievements are as yet imperfectly understood, and cry out for fuller appreciation and study. Yet he is an extremely important model of how to resist the hegemony of the Political Class". BUt Labour were reacting. After what the Sun did to Kinnock in 1992 who can blame them? Labour have often been accused of using spin. But again it was a reaction to the enormous spin machine the Tories used against them. Who can forget the huge posters at the 1987 election showing a soldier surrendering and the caption "Labour's defence policy" certainly not me. It was a disgraceful lie, as was the "double whammy" campaign in 1992. But they got away with it because they had the press on their side. If anyone went a step beyond the acceptable it was Cameron and Hunt with their witchunt against the BBC after James Murdoch's speech to the Edinburgh TV festival. Which was quickly followed by Cameron attacking Offcom http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl ... vidcameron and then proceed to hamstring the Beeb just as Rupert wanted him to. But for the scandal the Tories would have nodded Murdoch's deal for Sky through without a second thought. He who pays the piper etc.

Re: News International – the story continues : Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:58 pm  

major hound wrote: BUt Labour were reacting. After what the Sun did to Kinnock in 1992 who can blame them? Labour have often been accused of using spin. But again it was a reaction to the enormous spin machine the Tories used against them. Who can forget the huge posters at the 1987 election showing a soldier surrendering and the caption "Labour's defence policy" certainly not me. It was a disgraceful lie, as was the "double whammy" campaign in 1992. But they got away with it because they had the press on their side. If anyone went a step beyond the acceptable it was Cameron and Hunt with their witchunt against the BBC after James Murdoch's speech to the Edinburgh TV festival. Which was quickly followed by Cameron attacking Offcom http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl ... vidcameron and then proceed to hamstring the Beeb just as Rupert wanted him to. But for the scandal the Tories would have nodded Murdoch's deal for Sky through without a second thought. He who pays the piper etc. Oborne quotes several Blairite cabinet members who said the same, "What could we do?". But as stated, it's one thing to develop a functioning relationship with a distinct entity known as the "The Media" (which can remain intact despite the worst excesses of such). However, it is quite another thing to work in collusion with the very same to subvert the democratic process as well as blurring the boundaries to the point where it's impossible to tell where one finishes and the other begins. Again, no one is suggesting that Thatcher and Ingham didn't cultivate an atmosphere of client journalism (the existence of which pre-dates Thatcher by decades - but it took Labour to send it into overdrive). Thatcher didn't make Ingham the third (possibly even the second) most powerful man in Britain as Alastair Campbell was under Blair (and let's not forget that Brown was playing a very similar game in the company of Ed Balls). Consider Alastair Campbell's influence on policy around the time of the Iraq invasion and then tell me - with a straight face - Bernard Ingham wielded the very same power. Moreover, Thatcher didn't do away with the age-old mechanism of expressing government policy in the carefully controlled environment of parliament as opposed to leaking "bad news" whenever she felt like it to a network of client newspapers only too willing to drop it onto page thirteen. If this had been written in the New Statesman or such I doubt anyone would blink an eye. But if Peter Oborne (who whilst writing for a Tory paper cannot be described as a fan of the modern Tory party) is hawking a book there simply must be an agenda. Have prejudices now reached such a depressing point where a person's perceived affiliations are more important than the words that come out of his mouth? Using the traditional method of fixing someone's politics I'd say I'm further to the Left than almost everyone here. Does this mean I should only read the words of like minded journalists? I'd call this an unhealthy re-enforcement of ideas - something akin to what you'd find in a fascist dictatorship or a cult. In any case, accusations of anti-Labour bias by Oborne seem somewhat daft given the following endorsements on page one: "...Oborne charts the inexorable rise of professional politicians and their unhealthy engagement with the media" -- Paul Routlege (who should know, given his ties with Gordon Brown). "A brilliant anatomisation of the reality of the contemporary situation" -- Guido Fawkes "A powerful and troubling study" -- Nick Cohen. "Brilliantly analyses the emergence of the all-party British nomenclature that has formed ... and shows how it serves the interests of this new political class" -- John Gray. and a host of others (spanning the entire spectrum from Left to Right).

major hound wrote: BUt Labour were reacting. After what the Sun did to Kinnock in 1992 who can blame them? Labour have often been accused of using spin. But again it was a reaction to the enormous spin machine the Tories used against them. Who can forget the huge posters at the 1987 election showing a soldier surrendering and the caption "Labour's defence policy" certainly not me. It was a disgraceful lie, as was the "double whammy" campaign in 1992. But they got away with it because they had the press on their side. If anyone went a step beyond the acceptable it was Cameron and Hunt with their witchunt against the BBC after James Murdoch's speech to the Edinburgh TV festival. Which was quickly followed by Cameron attacking Offcom http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl ... vidcameron and then proceed to hamstring the Beeb just as Rupert wanted him to. But for the scandal the Tories would have nodded Murdoch's deal for Sky through without a second thought. He who pays the piper etc. Oborne quotes several Blairite cabinet members who said the same, "What could we do?". But as stated, it's one thing to develop a functioning relationship with a distinct entity known as the "The Media" (which can remain intact despite the worst excesses of such). However, it is quite another thing to work in collusion with the very same to subvert the democratic process as well as blurring the boundaries to the point where it's impossible to tell where one finishes and the other begins. Again, no one is suggesting that Thatcher and Ingham didn't cultivate an atmosphere of client journalism (the existence of which pre-dates Thatcher by decades - but it took Labour to send it into overdrive). Thatcher didn't make Ingham the third (possibly even the second) most powerful man in Britain as Alastair Campbell was under Blair (and let's not forget that Brown was playing a very similar game in the company of Ed Balls). Consider Alastair Campbell's influence on policy around the time of the Iraq invasion and then tell me - with a straight face - Bernard Ingham wielded the very same power. Moreover, Thatcher didn't do away with the age-old mechanism of expressing government policy in the carefully controlled environment of parliament as opposed to leaking "bad news" whenever she felt like it to a network of client newspapers only too willing to drop it onto page thirteen. If this had been written in the New Statesman or such I doubt anyone would blink an eye. But if Peter Oborne (who whilst writing for a Tory paper cannot be described as a fan of the modern Tory party) is hawking a book there simply must be an agenda. Have prejudices now reached such a depressing point where a person's perceived affiliations are more important than the words that come out of his mouth? Using the traditional method of fixing someone's politics I'd say I'm further to the Left than almost everyone here. Does this mean I should only read the words of like minded journalists? I'd call this an unhealthy re-enforcement of ideas - something akin to what you'd find in a fascist dictatorship or a cult. In any case, accusations of anti-Labour bias by Oborne seem somewhat daft given the following endorsements on page one: "...Oborne charts the inexorable rise of professional politicians and their unhealthy engagement with the media" -- Paul Routlege (who should know, given his ties with Gordon Brown). "A brilliant anatomisation of the reality of the contemporary situation" -- Guido Fawkes "A powerful and troubling study" -- Nick Cohen. "Brilliantly analyses the emergence of the all-party British nomenclature that has formed ... and shows how it serves the interests of this new political class" -- John Gray. and a host of others (spanning the entire spectrum from Left to Right).

Re: News International – the story continues : Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:34 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Oborne quotes several Blairite cabinet members who said the same, "What could we do?". But as stated, it's one thing to develop a functioning relationship with a distinct entity known as the "The Media" (which can remain intact despite the worst excesses of such). However, it is quite another thing to work in collusion with the very same to subvert the democratic process as well as blurring the boundaries to the point where it's impossible to tell where one finishes and the other begins.

Again, no one is suggesting that Thatcher and Ingham didn't cultivate an atmosphere of client journalism (the existence of which pre-dates Thatcher by decades - but it took Labour to send it into overdrive). Thatcher didn't make Ingham the third (possibly even the second) most powerful man in Britain as Alastair Campbell was under Blair (and let's not forget that Brown was playing a very similar game in the company of Ed Balls). Consider Alastair Campbell's influence on policy around the time of the Iraq invasion and then tell me - with a straight face - Bernard Ingham wielded the very same power.

Moreover, Thatcher didn't do away with the age-old mechanism of expressing government policy in the carefully controlled environment of parliament as opposed to leaking "bad news" whenever she felt like it to a network of client newspapers only too willing to drop it onto page thirteen.

If this had been written in the New Statesman or such I doubt anyone would blink an eye. But if Peter Oborne (who whilst writing for a Tory paper cannot be described as a fan of the modern Tory party) is hawking a book there simply must be an agenda. Have prejudices now reached such a depressing point where a person's perceived affiliations are more important than the words that come out of his mouth? Using the traditional method of fixing someone's politics I'd say I'm further to the Left than almost everyone here. Does this mean I should only read the words of like minded journalists? I'd call this an unhealthy re-enforcement of ideas - something akin to what you'd find in a fascist dictatorship or a cult.

In any case, accusations of anti-Labour bias by Oborne seem somewhat daft given the following endorsements on page one:

"...Oborne charts the inexorable rise of professional politicians and their unhealthy engagement with the media" -- Paul Routlege (who should know, given his ties with Gordon Brown).

"A brilliant anatomisation of the reality of the contemporary situation" -- Guido Fawkes

"A powerful and troubling study" -- Nick Cohen.

"Brilliantly analyses the emergence of the all-party British nomenclature that has formed ... and shows how it serves the interests of this new political class" -- John Gray.

and a host of others (spanning the entire spectrum from Left to Right).

I don't doubt it's true that Blair and Campbell cosied too far up to Murdoch, that's in the past. Cameron, Osbourne and Hunt have taken things even further - effectively they got the KY Gel out, in that they had a Murdoch man inside no 10.
Both parties now have the chance to distance themselves from Murdoch. Hunt must go because he misled parliament. Cameron should see to it that Murdoch not only is refused permission to own all of Sky but his licence to operate a TV station is rescinded altogether. The question is will he? Murdoch is already threatening him and giving open backing to Johnson. Does Cameron have the balls (and TBF Milliband did show some balls in defying Murdoch last year - those chickens haven't come home to roost yet) to defy Murdoch and face him down.
BTW if Guido Fawkes backs Oborne that's a proof enough for me that his views are far to the right of mine.