credit goes to Ed Milliband for calling for parlaiment to sit on Wednesday via Twitter just moments before Cameron gives into pressure and says it will

im no fan of Labour but frankly anything has got to be better than the Tories, let’s hope EM keeps the pressure up, with that and the media storm, Cameron is in the docks…

I’m happy enough for Sunny to cross post this with his usual editing, but, just to be clear, in para 2 Sunny’s edit looks like I don’t think the media will be important. That’s not what I said in the original, where I specified that I didn’t think what passed for the leftwing media (and I had in mind this site amongst other outlets) would be important.

Oh, and for the hell of it, I’ll transfer over here from my place Richard Seymour’s (Leninology) critique of my piece, in which he finds my piece ‘astonishing’ for its suppositions, and my reply, as I think Richard’s comments is reflective of a lot of thinking (but wrong) about the way the Cameron coterie operates:

Richard’s comment:

“There’s not much in the way of evidence in this rather impressionistic post. Moreover, some of the assertions are contrary to the evidence that is well established. Cameron did know better about both Murdoch and Coulson. He was warned about Coulson repeatedly, and there was plenty of evidence of News International’s conduct, some of it established in the media and some in parliamentary inquiries. We can only speculate as to why Cameron chose to ignore the evidence of warnings, of the media, of inquiries, and of his own senses, but to suppose that he didn’t have that evidence is beyond speculation – it is fabulation. It is *not* “simply untrue to claim that Cameron is a knowing villain in all of this”, and it’s astonishing that you have chosen to make such a claim without having checked the relevant facts.

Btw, one possible explanation for his failure to act on the information he definitely is that he didn’t care. That is, there was nothing in News International’s behaviour that would have given him any reason for pause or alarm, as he would not have expected any of it to result in the kind of controversy that has now emerged. This certainly rings truer than the facile claim that he’s a nice-but-dim upper class character who doesn’t know how to run anything. Cameron is not lacking in shrewdness – he wouldn’t be where he is if he was. Nor, of course, does he lack the guile to present himself in whatever light will incline people to give him the benefit of the doubt.”

My reply:

“I don’t deny that there’s little evidence presented in this post. That’s because it’s a deliberately short post, focused on narrative rather than evidence.

However it links back to a much more detailed post ‘Understanding the New Conservatism’ which does set out more evidence. It should also link (and will link in the minds of those few people who read my stuff regularly) to another more recent longish post ‘Libya: class warfare and the New Conservative state’, in which I draw on a ‘statecraft’ models of how central goverment works/ed, developed by James Bulpitt, along with insights from Martin Smith/Rod Rhodes etc about resource dependency at the centre.

In these posts I provide some evidence to suggest that Cameron especially is not heir to Thatcher/Blair in the way he does government, but harks backs to an earlier high politics/low politics era, in which attention to domestic detail was unnecessary.

Yes, there is a little bit of supposition going on about what exactly is in Cameron’s head, and what exactly that is will be the work of historians in 20 years time, but I don’t think it ‘astonishing’ to interpret his overt (in)actions in a different light from the norm, and to see thme as guided by class-based arrogance, fused with the logics of his old boy networking, in a way which ends up creating difficulties for him in the realities of modern government.

I agree absolutely that Cameron has “the guile to present himself in whatever light will incline people to give him the benefit of the doubt.” He’s a smooth operator generally able to overcome little matters of detail e.g. the fact that plans for the NHS are unworkable.

But that’s what this post is about. It’s about the need to expose his lack of detailed understanding of the day, in a way which makes him an object of mockery. The evidence suggests he REALLY doesn’t get what other people get – to the extent that he has been astonishingly blase about his connections with Coulson, even in the face of the evidence presented to him, and on to the criminal underworld etc. Let’s make a point of that, because he is NOT, and is not likely to become, the central villain in the piece for most people – that accolade goes to those who actually ordered/did the phone-hacking. I checked that this weekend with people, a sort of rough and ready primary research for evidence if you like.”

I would hesitate before making assertions about what “most people” think based on some conversations over the weekend around Bickerstaffe and Skelmersdale, unless you talked to a very large, weighted sample.

Of course Mr Cameron won’t resign. Are you dreaming?
Labour won’t be able to successfully attack the new Prime Minister about something which had been going on for a decade under the Labour government.

Maybe Labour can be constructive in reforming press oversight and maybe the Sun and Daily Mirror readers will appreciate this at the next general election in 4 years. Ha ha.

David @4: V funny, or at least I think it was a joke (never really know with you). I wasn’t claiming I had conducted statistically valid research and got it peer-reviewed by last night, but the fact that I have chatted to a few people who don’t generally give a monkey’s about the politicial scene doesn’t make my commentary invalid. It just makes it slightly informed commentary.

Andreas @5:

“Labour won’t be able to successfully attack the new Prime Minister about something which had been going on for a decade under the Labour government.”

Which is exactly what I said in the article.

I have to say I think this is precisely wrong.

Firstly: there’s a real risk of any attempt by Labour to paint Cameron as an out-of-touch toff backfiring – sparking off counter-claims about senior Labour figures’ own privileged backgrounds, and allowing the Tories to paint Labour politicians as subscribing to an old-fashioned class-war narrative which is itself out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people.

Secondly: it’s hard to see how being an out-of-touch toff is a *resigning* issue. You’d have to be able to point to some pretty egregious examples of resulting incompetence. (Which would itself mean digging into the details of decision-making.)

Thirdly: I really don’t think it *matters* if the public are interested in the details of who knew what and when, etc. If everyone who *is* interested – MPs, journalists etc. – is satisfied that Cameron ought to go, he will have to go. (Does everyone understand *exactly why* Paul Stephenson had to resign? Or Les Hinton? No – the pressure on these figures came from people who are ‘in the loop’, not from members of the public baying for their blood.)

I think they should be trying to pin Cameron down on detail. Did he or didn’t he know about Coulson’s links with Jonathan Rees? If not, why not? He shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind vague assurances that he had no ‘specific’ warnings about Coulson, and the suggestion that ‘most of’ what the Guardian tried to tell him was in the public domain.

And in fact I think this detailed question might well get the public’s attention. It’s a lurid enough story involving close links between Coulson and a convicted criminal.

Paul @6

I wasn’t claiming I had conducted statistically valid research and got it peer-reviewed by last night

Obviously not. Apologies. I’d stooped to indulging in what I’d intended to be only a gentle level of sarcasm.

Nevertheless, you did base an assertion about what “most people” think on a few conversations, and I’m sorry if it sounds pernickety to say this, but I don’t think that is particularly valid. I’m not saying conversations like these don’t have any value at all. They do. But I feel you’ve made too much of them here. That’s all.

@8 – your point three is spot on

“a very large, weighted sample”

What have Nicholas Soames and Eric Pickles got to do with all of this??

http://cuttingedgeuk.proboards.com/index.cgi

Miliband has to watch out of course that in the end Labour does not end up looking worse then the Tories, we all know Blair and the Murdock’s were close although now Blair says he was not, Brown spoke about crying about the NOTW about yet went to the big do, and then went to Brooks wedding, hell of a cry must of be a second.

The simple fact for all his preaching of miliband and I’m listening to his speech now, not sure he’s the right chap to be calling the pot and kettle

We will see.

But in the end why did not this get sorted on Blair, Brown watch

G.O. @6:

Thanks for this intelligent response.

I think perhaps the essential starting point is whether we think this will ever be a resigning matter for Cameron. I think that’s very unlikely (and I note Dave Osler says much the same in his new post). As Dave says, Westland didn’t bring Thatcher down, much though we wanted it to. Of course something new may emerge which is so big that he will have to go, but as I’ve noted that would have little to do with what Labour do in the meantime.

So while you seem to argue that we must press Cameron on detail till he gives up and throws in the towel, I think Labour is better off hoping for the best in the short term but planning for the longer term narrative of Cameron as unsuited to the job by his ongoing aloofness and poor judgment (exemplified since I wrote this piece by his decision to go ahead with his visit to SA and his unintentional insult to his hosts through a UK press dominated press conference.

I have no problem with the class narrative, and while I acknowledge that Miliband is of a similar background, I think there are still distinctions to be drawn around the way Cameron’s class background and continued class-based inner circle has a direct impact upon his deicsion making, while Miliband has opened himself up to other influences.

Finally, I do think the public matters. I can’t second guess excactly why Stephenson went quite quickly, but it might just as easily have been a decision to get out before public opprobrium struck as it was the views of people ‘in the loop’.

Finally, finally, I don’t think we are a massive distance apart on this, despite what you say about me being totally wrong. You say we have to keep on asking why Cameron made the poor decisions he made. all I’m saying is that he won’t tell the truth anyway – he and his whole entourage have too much riding on his continued pretence, while Paul Stephenson will simply be replaced – so we might as well do Cameron’s answering for him.

Don’t, stand aside and let him swing on his own rope.

Of course Mr Cameron won’t resign. Are you dreaming?

If he’s found to have colluded with or aided a foreigner in usurping British sovereignty in any way, it won’t be up to him.

If he’s found to have colluded with or aided a foreigner in usurping British sovereignty in any way, it won’t be up to him.

Oh, I don’t know. Thatcher signed the Single European Act and it didn’t seem to do her too much harm.

David @9:

Fair enough – would have been better to write “mosy people I met”.

David Davis would be a better option for the Tories, becuase I think it is true that Cameron is clearly unfit to govern modern Britain. He grew up in a bubble and continues to live in the bubble.

Coulson was a huge error of judgment on any view, but it’s a yellow card rather than a red. He’ll only be at risk if he gets caught lying about it.

Oh, I don’t know. Thatcher signed the Single European Act and it didn’t seem to do her too much harm.

Don’t get me started on that Churchill and his bloody yuman rites act either; someone wants to sort him out.

Don’t get me started on that Churchill and his bloody yuman rites act either

Oh no, it was definitely Atlee and his dastardly usurpation of British sovereignty by joining Nato. He was the worst.

Should have known that trot was involved somehow.

Firstly, “out-of-touch toffs” have done better for us than the likes of Ted Heath*, so that isn’t going to work as an attack. Secondly it wasn’t Cameron but his constituents who talked about “Council Houses” when they meant “Social Housing”, thirdly, all the ‘phone hacking currently under debate took place while NOW was supporting New Labour who decided not to investigate, so trying to blame Cameron just makes you look ignorant.

* who was it that was PM during the worst slump of the twentieth century? and the worst slump of the 21st century? Compare with the 1951-64 era which was run by toffs and had the greatest growth (annualised over a decently long period) in income and wealth for the working classes since WWI.