Parliament

Murdoch prepares to fillet Brown

“He got it entirely wrong.” That is Rupert Murdoch’s response to Gordon Brown’s singular account of his relationship with the Murdoch press. “The Browns were always friends of ours,” Murdoch added in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, in which he promised to set the record straight on the “lies uttered in parliament” when he appears before a select committee next Tuesday. It is going to be a moment of the most gripping political theatre. Murdoch also uses the interview to defend News Corp’s handling of the phone hacking crisis. He concedes that ‘minor mistakes’ have been made, but, fundamentally, all is well with the Kingdom. However, he still

Another self-inflicted wound by Murdoch

The Murdochs have done a reverse-ferret and now will attend the Culture select committee on Tuesday. The harm done to their reputation by their initial refusal is yet another self-inflicted wound. It was clear, given how previous select committee inquiries on these matters had not received proper answers from various representatives of News International, that parliament would do everything it could to compel their attendance. Indeed, both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister had gone on the record to say they should attend before the Murdoch’s curt letters saying they wouldn’t were dispatched. Their appearance on Tuesday will, I suspect, now become the focus of this story in the

James Forsyth

Parliament versus Murdoch, part two

The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has responded to Rupert and James Murdoch rejecting their request to give evidence to them, by issuing a summons. My understanding is that parliament cannot compel them to attend because they are not British subjects. But others think that as long as they are in the country they can be forced to come to parliament. That a select committee chaired by Margaret Thatcher’s former political secretary is prepared to issue this summons shows how much the standing of the Murdochs has changed in the past ten days. MPs are pretty much united in their fury that News International figures failed to give proper

PMQs live | 13 July 2011

A change from the Coffee House norm for this last PMQs before the summer recess. Instead of the usual live-blog, we’ll be live-tweeting the session, and our tweets will appear in the special window below (you may be familiar with it from Guido’s PMQs coverage). Tweets from other political types may also appear. And you can add your own remarks to the live-stream not in the comments section, but in the space below the window. Anyway, it should all be fairly self-explanatory. It might work, it might not. In either case, do let us know what you think. End of term PMQS

Parliament prepares to take on Murdoch

Politicians are swarming all over the phone hacking scandal today, in even greater number than during the past week. If it isn’t the main topic at PMQs at noon, then it certainly will be immediately afterwards; when David Cameron delivers his statement on an inquiry into the whole mess. And then there’s Labour’s Opposition Day motion, urging Rupert Murdoch to withdraw his bid for BSkyB. By the end of the day, our parliamentarians will surely have delivered an official reprimand to the News Corp boss and his ambitions. The news that the government will vote in favour of Ed Miliband’s motion has sucked some of the vicious factionalism out of

This scandal will inflict huge reputational damage on the police

There’s only one thing that anyone in Westminster is talking about and that’s phone hacking. But one thing worth noting is that in every conversation I have had on the subject, MPs and Ministers have stressed that the police must not be let off the hook. For some on the Labour side—as John McTernan blogs with feeling—this is personal. But for the majority of parliamentarians, there’s just a feeling that certain policemen have been too easily corrupted, for too long. If newspapers were paying police, then the newspapers have obviously behaved badly. But those who accepted bribes are guilty of a far larger breach of the public trust. I suspect

PMQs live blog | 6 July 2011

VERDICT: A crescendo of a PMQs, which started in sombre fashion but soon swelled into a vicious confrontation between the two leaders. It is strangely difficult to say who won, not least because both men had their moments. Ed Miliband’s persistent anger — including over Rupert Murdoch’s takeover of BSkyB — will have chimed with public sentiment. But Cameron went further than expected by backing a public inquiry into the phone hacking affair, and without much equivocation either. In the end, though, I’d say Miliband probably came out on top, for seeming less on the side of News International. 1242: No surprises from Cameron’s statement on Afghanistan. It was, in

Parliament and Mob Rule

You’d need a closed heart not to feel great sympathy for the family of poor Milly Dowler. Her killer Levi Bellfield is a vile, appalling creature and one can understand why the Dowler family would wish him executed. Many will share their sentiments. Among them is Guido who writes: The political class complains that the public is disengaged, could that be in part because there are a number of issues where the political class refuses to carry out the wishes of the people. All polls since 1965 when hanging was abolished show that there is majority support for capital punishment, yet there is no majority for it in parliament. It

Hoban wobbles in the House

Mark Hoban has just turned in a remarkably unconvincing performance at the despatch box. Summoned to the Commons to answer an urgent question from Gisela Stuart, one of the best backbenchers in the House, on what contingency planning the government was doing for a Greek default, Hoban attempted to stonewall.   But Hoban’s stonewalling could only carry him so far. Strikingly, he declined several opportunities to confirm that the British government thinks that the euro will survive in its current form with all its current members.   By contrast, Jack Straw was quite happy to make predictions. He told the House that ‘the euro in its current form is going

Don’t dismiss Davies out of hand

Touchpaper, meet match. That’s the explosive situation engendered by Tory MP Philip Davies and his comments about disabled people this afternoon. His suggestion, made in the Commons, was that disabled people could work for less than the national minimum wage. And his justification? That the minimum wage “prevents those people from being given the opportunity to get to the first rung on the employment ladder.” Charities such as Mind have since lambasted Davies for even broaching such a thing. The phrase “nasty party” is gushing around Twitter with tidal abandon. But before we pile on, it’s worth noting that Davies has identified an issue that is more shades of grey

PMQs live blog | 15 June 2011

VERDICT: The specifics of today’s exchange between David Cameron and Ed Miliband may have everyone rushing for this Macmillan press release, but the rhetorical positions were clear enough. There was the Labour leader, angrier and more indignant than usual, painting the government’s welfare reforms as cruel and insufficiently thought-through. And there was the PM, painting his opponent as yet another roadblock to reform. Neither really triumphed, although their battle will most likely set a template for in future. The coalition has extensive public backing for its changes to the welfare system. So, Miliband’s challenge is to attack certain aspects of them, without making Labour appear to be — as he

The problems of PR

Two centuries ago, Edmund Burke famously mocked the intellectuals of revolutionary France for trying to devise a perfectly rational constitution for their country. The Abbé Sieyès, he wrote, had whole nests of pigeon-holes full of constitutions, ready made, ticketed, sorted and numbered, suited to every season and every fancy . . . so that no constitution-fancier may go unsuited from his shop. The Abbé Sieyès has had his imitators in England lately. The last government devoted much intellectual energy and parliamentary time to producing a theoretical separation of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive, when a practical separation had existed for years. The current coalition has devoted at

Shoesmith strikes at Balls and executive power

Sharon Shoesmith cut into Ed Balls on the Today programme this morning. She said: “Why don’t we ask Ed Balls why he acted on November 12, 2008 when he knew for 15 months that Peter Connelly had died and I was working with his officials, I was going to the government office, they were reading the draft reports. Haringey council knew all about it. We examined the conduct of our social workers, we found a disciplinary against them, but they weren’t sacked – all of that was open and clear and on the table and everyone knew everything about that. It wasn’t until the spat in the House of Commons

Obama re-affirms the special relationship

The speech was not a classic but Barack Obama’s address to both Houses of Parliament covered the bases today. He started with a winning line, remarking that the previous three speakers in Westminster Hall had been the Pope, the Queen and Nelson Mandela which is either “a very high bar or the beginning of a very funny joke.”   As is traditional in these kinds of speeches, Obama paid tribute to the special relationship, lauding it as the embodiment of the values and beliefs of the English-speaking tradition. He went on to say that both the British and the Americans knew that the “longing for human dignity is universal.” Indeed,

James Forsyth

Hemming divulges

‘Mr Speaker, With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter it is impractical to imprison them all and with reports that Giles Coren is facing imprisonment’ This was as far as John Hemming got in his question to the attorney general before the Speaker interrupted him to warn that he should be talking about the principles involved in super-injunctions not the people. But now that it has been said in parliament it can be reported by the press, although I do not believe any newspaper is allowed say which super injunction he has taken out or whether those naming Giggs on Twitter are correct. There were gasps in

The World Service versus al-Jazeera

Yesterday’s debate on the future of the World Service was an unqualified success for its convener, Richard Ottaway. His motion received very extensive cross-party support and the MPs involved are confident of victory. As one source put it, “I haven’t met anyone – anyone – who agrees with that cut.” For its part, the government will “reflect carefully on the issue.” Parliament and Whitehall ring to anxious talk that cuts to the World Service will diminish Britain’s status abroad, and that less impartial state broadcasters, notably al-Jazeera, are capitalising on our withdrawal: al-Jazeera’s dominant coverage of the Arab Spring is a case in point. Ottaway said: “It is the cuts

Tory backbenchers oppose cuts to the World Service

There is a debate in the Commons this afternoon, urging the government to spare the BBC World Service from cuts. The resistance is being led by Richard Ottaway, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and author of a report condemning the Foreign Secretary’s decision to cut funding for the service.   Ottaway is likely to be well supported, as the Tory right is exercised by the effect that cuts are having on Britain’s standing in the world. John Whittingdale is on side, and there were plenty of backbenchers (among them, David T.C. Davies and Sam Gyimah – and grandee Lord King) at a recent Westminster event who listened solemnly

Sex and Westminster

Just who is Carrie Fox, the pseudonymous author of this week’s Spectator cover piece? And, more to the point, who is the “political big beast” who once pinned her down and slathered his amorous intentions in her ear? (She declined). There’s plenty of speculation on both fronts in Westminster today, so we thought we’d let CoffeeHousers in on the intrigue. The entire piece, featuring a complete bestiary of Parliament’s sexual predators, has been made freely available here. Here is a snippet, by way of a taster: “Let’s call our first animal the gorilla, because he’s an alpha male who considers the pick of the pack his due, and because like

PMQs live blog | 18 May 2011

VERDICT: That was probably the most straightforward PMQs that Ed Miliband will ever experience. Thanks to Ken Clarke, the Labour leader had several shots into an open goal — and most were excuted efficiently, if not skilfully. Cameron was left in an unforgiving position, and he just about hung in there, eventually mustering some sort of defence and then turning it around to Labour’s mismanagement of the criminal justice system. It was an intriguing exchange, not least because it presaged what could become a major problem for the Tories — their crime and justice policy — and how Labour might exploit it. And it was all supplemented by a set