“Wow. No one can accuse Ed Miliband of not having the guts now – he’s taking the fight straight to the company’s most powerful media mogul.”

Taking on Murdoch when he is at his most unpopular is not having guts. Having taken him on before this story reached its peak would have been displaying the possession of guts. Am disappointed by the lack of leadership by Ed.

And Tony Blair displayed true political leadership when he sought the endorsement of Rupert Murdoch in the run up to the 1997 general election? See this account in the Washington Post for Transatlantic perceptions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/03/AR2005050301695.html

“Taking on Murdoch when he is at his most unpopular is not having guts. Having taken him on before this story reached its peak would have been displaying the possession of guts” – absolutely, there is little that is edifying in kicking a man when he is down (although I am prepared to make an exception in Murdoch’s case).

Now Ed’s gone all macho will he call Tony to account for his (alleged) part in this scandal?
http://neoclassics.blogspot.com/2011/03/murdoch-blair-and-phone-hacking-scandal.html

Hell, he might really push the boat out and start supporting industrial action against the cutbacks, sorry I meant savings.

I have to admit I felt a pang of sympathy as little Eddie goes after the Big Bad Digger. He’s already dead but fair play, he’s going out swinging.

As to Ofcom’s fit and proper person test, on their board they have a director of Pace who provide set top boxes to Sky (via http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/07/like-a-circle-in-a-circle-like-a-wheel-within-a-wheel/ ) so I don’t imagine that will present any problems.

I don’t have any love to Murdoch but I have to take my hat off to him, he’s going to achieve everything he wants and along the way he’ll make his enemies think they’ve final beaten him. Evil genius.

…

You’ve fucking cracked.

Nothing remotely equivocal or ambiguous about this today from Ed Miliband:

“[Cameron] has got to understand that when the public have seen the disgusting revelations that we have seen this week, the idea that this organisation, which engaged in these terrible practices, should be allowed to take over BSkyB, to get that 100% stake, without the criminal investigation having been completed and on the basis of assurances from that self-same organisation – frankly that just won’t wash with the public,”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14097275

@valueofnothing, no.1

I think it is a big risk – at the moment it might seem the obvious thing to be doing, but in a few years time when theres an election this could easily be forgotten, but Murdoch and Brooks won’t forget. Theres an obvious short term gain, but theres a reason politicians rarely pick fights with the press and not with Murdoch.

They all bloody hate him, and now is their chance to get rid of the bastard. Let’s hope they succeed.

Sorry about the follow-up post. I forgot to add, the real game in this affair is being played in the US. They smell a rat too, they know NOTW had agents in California doing celeb stuff. If there’s a whiff of phone hacking there then the shit will really hit the fan. Newscorp shares are already falling, the banks may take a dimmer view of the company if the contagion spreads to America and investors will start to pull out. Then Uncle Rupe’s real troubles will start.

@cherub

not to mention the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, so they can get nailed in the US for bribing police in the UK.

“According to YouGov only 1 in 10 believe Murdoch/NewsCorp is ‘fit and proper’ to run BSkyB. Hearing that OFCOM?”

Well done the Great British Public.

For of course they already “run” it. The question is whether they should be allowed to “own” it outright.

@11

Yes. And?

Well, it’s a fairly big difference isn’t it?

Is anyone at all insisting that News Int must sell their share in BSB? Relinquish management control?

If its “running” it that’s the problem, then why isn’t anyone demanding this?

And I’m afraid I don’t understand what the problem is about their owning it, owning the 60-65% they don’t already own, if they already run it.

@13

One step at a time…

@ 13.

OFCOM can refuse them a broadcast licence under the fit and proper test and the Competition Commission can order News Corp. to sell their shares in BSkyB.

This really has the potential to escalate and bring down Mr Cameron himself. He was told before entering No. 10 that Coulson was toxic. That he was linked to a private investigator facing a murder charge. The same private investigator had been jailed for planning to plant cocaine on a woman involved in a divorce case. Under Coulson NI journalists were spying on the police officer heading the murder enquiry presumably to smear the officer to help the private investigator facing the murder charge. Coulson knew because the police told him that NI journalists could be charged with hindering a police investigation. Mr Cameron was told all this and still took Coulson into the heart of government.

NI will throw Coulson to the lions and if he had any sense he would work that out and take the rest of them with him.

Interestingly traders in the market are betting that the deal does not go through and the other news titles are the big winners. Trinity Mirror shares are up a whopping 26% on the week and the Mail are also up. Yet, most of the analysts who cover media reckon the deal will still go through. However, most of the analysts are US based and are not picking up how long this story will run.

The plot thickens with this astounding news in the Mail on Sunday:

Tony Blair urged Gordon Brown to persuade the Labour MP who led the campaign to expose News of the World phone-hacking to back off, friends of Mr Brown said last night.

Well-placed sources said Mr Blair, who has close links with the paper’s owner Rupert Murdoch, wanted Mr Brown to get his ally Tom Watson to lay off the News International (NI) title, but Mr Brown refused.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013027/News-World-Tony-Blair-tried-hush-phone-hacking-scandal.html

If so, little wonder Blair is being widely reported in many papers claiming that Gordon Brown is toxic and killed off New Labour.

Of course, Coulson was given a top security rating, allowing him access to the most secret material. He must have felt like a polecat in a henhouse.

It all depends on the Lie Dems. And so far they have managed to make all the wrong choices. To hear Hume say that Murdoch must give assurances about the future just makes you think “how stupid are these people?” Murdoch always makes promises that he never keeps.

Have the Lie Dems not learned anything after the AV campaign? As Cable said the tories are tribal. Every time the tories are in the shit the Lie dems come along with their oh so serious clap trap and help dig them out. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to put Murdoch back in his box. If the Lie dems mess it up they will be dammed for 1000 years.

Laor should ignore Blair. The man is delusional, and has become a laughing stock.

@17: Exactly Cherub, Coulson was allowed access to a treasure trove of juicy gossip, vicious rumour and downright dodgey goings on, right there at the centre, where the major decisions are made. Regardless of all the warnings about his history, his questionable connections and, the fact that he was one of News Corp and News Internationals’ top people. Cameron stands by his man for the same reason Murdoch stands by Brooks. They all know each others dirty little secrets, each of them shitting it, not totally certain that everyone will keep their big mouths shut. This whole saga is a gigantic can of worms, capable of exploding, coating all relevant persons in worm shit, at any time. We do’nt know who, or when, but eventually one of them will snap. My money’s on Brooks, that recording of her in NOTW newsroom said a lot. “I’m not having the best day, to be honest”. How the fuck can she stand there, face to face with the people who’ve been sacrificed to save her worthless arse, complaining about her problems? WHAT A BITCH! Ruthless people often turn out to be cowards when they have nowhere left to run, the police should put the squeeze on her. I reckon she’ll crack, when faced with the prospect of jail time.

“How the fuck can she stand there, face to face with the people who’ve been sacrificed to save her worthless arse, complaining about her problems? WHAT A BITCH! Ruthless people often turn out to be cowards when they have nowhere left to run, the police should put the squeeze on her. I reckon she’ll crack, when faced with the prospect of jail time.”

So good, it needs to be said again.

“Valueofnothing

“Wow. No one can accuse Ed Miliband of not having the guts now – he’s taking the fight straight to the company’s most powerful media mogul.”

Taking on Murdoch when he is at his most unpopular is not having guts. Having taken him on before this story reached its peak would have been displaying the possession of guts. Am disappointed by the lack of leadership by Ed.”

No that would have been an act of stupidity. There would be no grounds to call for a halt, the Conservatives would have ignored any such call and attacked Miliband over it and the majority of the media (owned by Murdoch) would have launched an all-out attack on him. The rest of the media would have followed their lead because it would be the story.

Like it or not it took the depravity of the NOTW being outed, a depravity that could not be excused or defended (although they have tried…), to create an opening in which it was possible to say something openly negative about Murdoch’s empire.

And that was brave. It was brave because if the status quo remains in the tabloid media then Miliband can expect seven shades of shit to land on him for the next 4 years. Miliband has taken a chance to try and force a change and because the government can’t be seen to be siding with Murdoch right now without being tainted by the same stench there’s a small chance of success rather than no chance at all.

“Of course, Coulson was given a top security rating, allowing him access to the most secret material.”

I’m, to put it mildly, suspicious of this claim.

There are more levels of security clearance than you might think possible. And I speak as someone who has gone through the lower levels (to get a HoC pass for example).

He wasn’t, just as a most obvious example, given access to the Trident firing codes: so that “most secret material” isn’t true.

But more than that, there’s a different set of rules for those who get elected and their advisors than there is for everyone else. Those elected (and those they select as advisors) are obviously going to be subject to different rules than those hired as career civil servants. How could it be otherwise?

Imagine, say, some lefty (just as an example mind) with a dodgy record of admiring Castro, Chavez, various other communist dictators and dictators light, gets elected as PM. Ken Livingstone say.

He’s been elected. He’s in charge of the security services, he is the man. He cannot, whatever the results of positive vetting, be denied access to the intelligence results. Nor can those he brings with him as his direct advisors.

Which leaves us in something of a quandary: either we believe that Coulson (and thus every other advisor to a politician who reaches the PM’s office) gets access to everything or: the security services should deny access according to their evaluation of that politician and his advisors.

That second would real;ly be something of a problem if a radical got elected PM, wouldn’t it?

So, umm, what’s the solution?

“He wasn’t, just as a most obvious example, given access to the Trident firing codes:”

Since when did he need to have pass codes given to him?

“Has Labour wrecked Murdoch’s BSkyB bid?”

No. If anyone has wrecked the BSkyB bid then it’s the News of the World. Ed Miliband is simply using the circumstances as a stick to beat Cameron around the head with. I’m glad he’s doing so, as the opposition should be holding Cameron to account over this, but it’s not courage, it’s opportunism.

Or would Sunny have us forget that Ed Miliband was dancing attendance with Murdoch just a fortnight ago?

Quote: Police have been handed internal News International memos from 2007 that appear to acknowledge that the practice of phone hacking was more widespread than previously thought and that police were paid for helping with stories. . .

While giving evidence to the Commons culture committee on 6 March 2007, Hinton was asked whether the News of the World had “carried out a full, rigorous internal inquiry” into phone hacking and whether he was “absolutely convinced” that the practice was limited to a single reporter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/10/news-international-phone-hacking-memos-police

That puts it squarely at the time when Blair was still PM.

Does anyone else here wonder why Blair chose the last few days to launch personal attacks on Gordon Brown, saying Labour has to get back to being New Labour to win elections? Why just now when almost all the press is focused on the NI phone hacking scandal?

Btw does going back to New Labour mean cash for honours again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours

News update: In case this information is overlooked:

“Given that his role at the CPS will now be under scrutiny, it is surprising that Ken – now Lord – Macdonald should feel it appropriate to be retained by News International to advise them on their dealings with the police.” [10 July 2011]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/10/news-international-cover-up-police

Ken – now Lord – Macdonald QC was Director of Public Prosecutions and therefore head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) from 3 November 2003 until 1 November 2008, when Keir Starmer QC took over.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/history.html

In his law practice as a QC, Lord Macdonald QC works out of Matrix Chambers:
http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/Members/33/Ken%20Macdonald.aspx

By coincidence, Cherie Booth (Blair) QC also works out of Matrix Chambers:
http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/Members/61/Cherie%20Booth.aspx

More news that can easily be overlooked:

The original investigation was led in 2006 by Andy Hayman, after it surfaced that the NOTW had hacked the phones of royal aides. Mr Hayman, who has since joined News International as a columnist for The Times, will appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday alongside his former deputy, Peter Clarke, to explain the failure of the first investigation. [11 July 2011]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/yatess-confession-prompts-calls-for-him-to-step-down-2311634.html

@23

The Guardian reported it, IIRC. It’s also in the Mail, for what it’s worth.

From the Guardian, “Coulson, arrested by police on Friday over his role in the scandal, went on to be cleared by the security vetting team at Downing Street after three in-depth interviews about his professional and personal life. He was given “strap one” status, which allowed him the highest access to top-secret material.”
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/09/phone-hacking-andy-coulson-paddy-ashdown)

Good it’s about bloody time someone and many others stood up to Murdoch. Murdoch is a stain on democracy in many countries, his media outlets are contradictory in what they report and how they act.

@23

“Imagine, say, some lefty (just as an example mind) with a dodgy record of admiring Castro, Chavez, various other communist dictators and dictators light, gets elected as PM. Ken Livingstone say.”

Tim how far will you go to defend this sham? That’s the worst straw man aruguement you have come up with yet.

Coulson was cleared to the level that very few ever get access to and this is someone who had a proven track record that he could not be trusted with sensetive material. What does this say abour Cameron?

FFS if Cameron if told you the the moon was made of cheese you would be telling us we could all eat for free?

“FFS if Cameron if told you the the moon was made of cheese you would be telling us we could all eat for free?”

I’m no fan of Cameron so don’t try to pin that on me.

I’m talking purely about whetherpolitical advisors should get access to secret material. I think it’s pretty obvious that they should, yes. And I’m trying to bring this home to you by asking whether a left wing PM would get acess to top secret material.

There’s plenty of people who have been senior Labour politicians who wouldn’t pass positive vetting for example: Tom Driberg’s one example, George Brown might fail because of his boozing. I’m not wholly cvonvinced that Ken would pass it. But if they were elected, or were appointed as an advisor by an elected politician: should they have access? Or not?

@ 32 Tim

“But if they were elected, or were appointed as an advisor by an elected politician: should they have access? Or not?”

This is all fair enough, and the answer is “yes”. However, I think the point here is that Cameron shouldn’t have appointed Coulson to a position where he could get his hands on that kind of information.

In other words, the fault lies with Cameron’s judgement, not the system.

Cameron states it was his decision alone to employ Coulson, why? Because he knows to state that he was not informed about his dodgy past will bring others into the fray which will spark a full blown internal bun fight about who is the biggest liar.

The point you raise Tim in relation to who may or may not pass the vetting process is irrelevan and once again a red herring, you keep sidestepping the Cameron judgement issue? If indeed others had employed dodgy advisors in past governments then that also displays a lack of judgement. The “its all labours fault” just wont wash here its a bout the here and now and not yesterday.

You can bet your bottom dollar if it was TB or GB they would be getting just as hard a time if not more so.