by Atul Hatwal
Although the media focus this morning is still on Jeremy Hunt, the real story should be about David Cameron’s conduct. The reason? The already infamous Hunt memo to Cameron, from November 2010, is a game-changer.
For the first time there is clear evidence that the prime minister, as opposed to a junior cabinet minister or special adviser, directly manipulated the quasi-judicial process considering News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB, in favour of the Murdochs.
When David Cameron stripped Vince Cable of responsibility for adjudicating on the bid in December 2010, he understood he would face a problem in simply handing over the process to Jeremy Hunt at DCMS.
Hunt was well-known as an admirer of News Corporation: while in opposition he had given a breathless interview to Broadcast magazine where he had eulogised about Rupert Murdoch,
“Rather than worry about Rupert Murdoch owning another TV channel, what we should recognise is that he has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person because of his huge investment in setting up Sky TV which, at one point, was losing several million pounds a day”.
Shortly after Hunt became secretary of state, he had followed-up in June 2010 in an interview with the Financial Times where he speculated on the BSkyB bid,
“It does seem to me that News Corp do control Sky already, so it isn’t clear to me that in terms of media plurality there is a substantive change, but I don’t want to second guess what regulators might decide.”
Cameron knew these comments would inevitably surface and be used by Labour to challenge Hunt’s ability to manage the process impartially. The prime minister needed cover for his decision and turned to his cabinet secretary, who duly obliged.
Gus O’Donnell, cabinet secretary in December 2010, gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry last week, and was questioned about his approval of the transfer of responsibility over the BSkyB bid to Jeremy Hunt. He stated,
“I think the legal question as it was put to me was: do those ministers’ comments amount to a pre-judgment of the issue? And that’s where the lawyers were clear that it didn’t and therefore, that – it seemed to me it was entirely appropriate to do it. There’s obviously an entirely separate question thereafter about how it was done, but from the point of view of appointing a minister, that seemed to me – I was told that this clearly did not amount to him having a close-minded view.”
The legal advice described by O’Donnell, under oath, to Leveson, explicitly rejected charges of bias because Hunt could not be shown to have pre-judged this case.
The comments in the Broadcast interview were several months old and referred to Rupert Murdoch’s general impact on British TV. The FT interview, meanwhile was sufficiently vague and included the key line that Hunt wouldn’t want to “second guess” the regulators.
Such a rationale for approval would have been impossible if O’Donnell and his legal advisers had seen the Hunt memo published by the Leveson inquiry yesterday.
In the memo to Cameron, sent just four weeks before Hunt assumed control of the process, Hunt stated, “I think it would be totally wrong to cave in to the Mark Thompson/Channel 4/Guardian line that this represents a substantial change of control”.
In every sense, Hunt was demonstrating that he had already made a judgement on the key issue at the heart of the process: whether News Corporation’s takeover of BSkyB would harm media plurality. To use O’Donnell’s phrase, he had a “close-minded view”.
Critically, Number 10 admitted yesterday that they had received the memo from Hunt in November 2010.
Yet, when David Cameron asked Gus O’Donnell to approve the transfer of authority over the bid to Jeremy Hunt in December, the prime minister chose not show the cabinet secretary the memo.
Given the media furore around the issue and Jeremy Hunt’s position as a cabinet minister, it is simply not credible and altogether too convenient to believe that Number 10 just forgot to tell the cabinet secretary about it.
Instead, given Gus O’Donnell’s explanation of the reasoning for his approval, it’s possible to piece together why David Cameron decided to withhold such an important and recent piece of information from the cabinet secretary.
Preliminary advice from the government legal advisers would have been sought. Gus O’Donnell would not simply have produced his view for the prime minister, there would have been a dialogue about it.
The result of the initial legal consultation would have indicated the narrow basis for Jeremy Hunt’s approval: that he had not directly commented either publicly or privately, with an unequivocal judgement, on the detail of the BSkyB bid.
Faced with the awkward choice on what to do about the Hunt memo, Number 10 simply made a deliberate choice not to submit the memo to the cabinet secretary for scrutiny.
Until now David Cameron has successfully deflected accusations of personal partiality or interference in the government process on behalf of the Murdoch empire. Other’s may have done the dirty work but he has personally remained above the fray.
Not any more.
Withholding evidence by not sharing the memo with O’Donnell fundamentally changed the judgement of the cabinet secretary on Jeremy Hunt’s ability to take control of the BSkyB bid process.
For the first time on this issue, David Cameron is directly culpable.
Atul Hatwal is associate editor at Uncut
Tags: David Cameron, Gus O'Donnell, Jeremy Hunt, Leveson, News Corp bid for BSkyB
Anyone who’s ever sat on a quasi-judicial committee will know that you may have a general view on certain issues, but when it comes to an individual case, you put on your non-parizan hat and reach a conclusion on the facts of the matter. Its quite possible to do so. And thats what his argument is going to be.
Whats more worrying is that the Leveson Salem Witch Trial seems to be all emcompassing, and netting in ex PMs and incumbent PMs and other general dogsbodies. Its like something out of Kafka with a mind of its own.
Somebody needs to get a grip, and quickly.
Hook line and sinker
Who cares who knew what?
Normal people do not care about this and they love Rupert Murdoch’s wares – Sky Sports and The Sun newspaper.
NO ONE CARES ABOUT THIS NONSENSE.
What are Labour saying about the price to fill a car with petrol?
Nothing because those posh boys at the top with their millionaire chums like Assem Allam only care about the wealthy it seems…
‘What are Labour saying about the price to fill a car with petrol?’
Well, this:
http://www.labour.org.uk/chancellor-indicates-fuel-duty-increases,2012-03-06
‘Normal people do not care about this and they love Rupert Murdoch’s wares – Sky Sports and The Sun newspaper’.
And The News of the World too.
I suppose ‘normal people’ (define ‘normal’) didn’t care much about Watergate to begin with, or the Al-Yamamah arms deal, so we shouldn’t have worried about those either.
Brumanuensis
Your link is pie in the sky from Labour as usual. They stiffed us with huge fuel duty rises in the first place. Actually second place after John Major started it.
Normal are people who aren’t tax avoiding property millionaires like Miliband and don’t go from school to a PPE course at university to a job for an MP to election to Parliament to Prime Minister.
Not that Miliband will ever complete that path but Cameron certainly has and who do any of those people represent?
Normal people don’t read the Guardian newspaper (the sales prove it) or care about phone “hacking” or any other pile of Westminster drivel that the BBC reports on from it’s little bubble in London.
People care about the rugby or footy at the weekend, their summer holiday in Benidorm, the cost of cigs and beer and Katie Prices’ t*ts.
The Labour leadership seem to want to represent weirdos and cranks and not those in their traditional heartlands.
Ask the 72% of Labour supporters who agree with the coalition government’s benefit cuts if they ever talk about the Leveson Enquiry with their oppo’s and your answer will be “no”.
Perhaps if Labour stopped the blatant lies about the economy we could take them seriously again but not until they apologise big time for this lot.
As a lifelong ex-Labour voter I am disgusted by the behaviour of MP’s at the moment and if they think their lies and negativity will win support at the next election they are sadly mistaken…
I can fully believe you were a ‘lifelong ex-Labour voter’, Anon. E Mouse, as I doubt you’ve ever voted Labour in your life.
So anyway, to work through your claims:
‘Your link is pie in the sky from Labour as usual. They stiffed us with huge fuel duty rises in the first place. Actually second place after John Major started it’.
The original question you asked was:
‘‘What are Labour saying about the price to fill a car with petrol?’.
I answered it. I hear goal-posts shifting at your end.
‘Normal people don’t read the Guardian newspaper (the sales prove it) or care about phone “hacking” or any other pile of Westminster drivel that the BBC reports on from it’s little bubble in London’.
Tsk, you forgot ITV and Channel 4. Rather revealing that you only mentioned the BBC. I note you haven’t answered my public interest point, but have instead started flailing your arms about what normal people supposedly do care about.
Earth to Anon. E Mouse. That’s not the point. The importance of an issue is not directly proportionate to how interested people are. Lots of people aren’t interested in the UK aren’t interested in Greece, QED (from Anon. E Mouse logic), Greece is not important.
‘People care about the rugby or footy at the weekend, their summer holiday in Benidorm, the cost of cigs and beer and Katie Prices’ t*ts’.
Er, Ok Anon. E Mouse. I think the obsession with Ms Price’s breasts is more at your end of the line (up here in Birmingham we think of that as a bit 2009-ish). I’ll give you rugby and footy, as a keen fan of both. I have yet to meet anyone who goes to Benidorm – most people prefer Blackpool, or, among younger folk, some like Ibiza – and the cost of cigs and beer is one that has passed me by, although I am a drinker.
More to the point, I think this proves you’re just creating a definition of ‘normal’ to justify trying to wave this away. After all, how ‘normal’ are you, according to your definition? At present, you’re hanging around a Labour website, even though you appear to hate the Labour Party. Bit weird isn’t it? A bit, abnormal?
“Ask the 72% of Labour supporters who agree with the coalition government’s benefit cuts if they ever talk about the Leveson Enquiry with their oppo’s and your answer will be “no”.
Perhaps if Labour stopped the blatant lies about the economy we could take them seriously again but not until they apologise big time for this lot”.
Do they talk about benefit cuts instead? I thought they talked about beer and breasts? Anyway, given that more people now back our approach to the economy, I think it might be you that’s out of step, old chum.
Oh and isn’t this you? http://mrnonnymouse.blogspot.co.uk/
That should be ‘in the UK’
“People care about […] Katie Prices’ t*ts.
Never thought I’d see that on a political blog. Perhaps you should put yourself forward for public office – as the only person/party reflecting this ‘popular’ concern you’d quickly become the voice of the nation.
Hmm. Do you think this is a victory of some kind?
Honestly, you can’t expect the public to get excited about this. We’ve all been bored to tears with this whole thing, it’s been going on for so long now. There’s nothing here that’ll surprise anyone, the hypocrisy of Labour position is obvious to all. Everyone knows that Murdoch owned Labour just as much as he owned the Tories, and no-one thinks Labour would have done anything any different if the positions were reversed. This isn’t about decency or integrity; you’re just pissed off because Murdoch isn’t backing you any more.
All you have really achieved is to emphasise that our politicians are hopelessly distant from the electorate and will put themselves and their political parties ahead of their duty to the nation EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Rallan,
This stuff is for the likes of Halitosis who positively froths at the mouth at every sentence. Meanwhile in the real world we all know that the lot of them are a bunch of xxxx’s. Halitosis will believe anything they say but in the real world we know that they are the lowest of the low.
Have you stopped to wonder why Murdoch has such power over the politicians? It’s because none of them know how to engage with the people any more. They needed News International to do it for them. That’s the kind of leadership this county has.
The next general election will demonstrate the depth of public contempt for the political class in the country. There won’t be a winner – the next government will be the least worst party/coallition, and will rule without any substantial public consent.
The election after that… well, it could get weird.
@Rallan
That’s a fair point about communication, but I think the problem is more ‘the medium is the message’, so in order to ‘access’ the public, politicians are obliged to go through certain channels, or risk being ignored – which is political death. So Murdoch’s power comes from his extensive holdings in the media, which have a force of their own in terms of determining how the news is reported.
As for your point about the next election: possibly, but I’d hesitate to be so emphatic three years out.
@EarlSpencer
Who’s ‘they’. Come on, be specific with your insults Clinty.
My basic point stands. Our Politicians are a disgrace. The media collusion issues currently being held up for the nation to see follows various other examples of contempt for the electorate. These include expenses, bigotted woman, being like a taxi cab, Draper + McBride and the existence of Campbell / Mandleson.
The only people who actually believe the bullshit promisies and posturing are the already convinced. Everyone else judges the parties by actions not words. And on that basis there’s not a lot to like.
As for Labour, we saw you in government for 13 years, and look where that got us. You are blamed for the current mess, and there’s considerable truth in that. Even if you are elected next time (which I doubt) it will be a hollow, desperate victory over an unwilling, untrusting and unconvinced electorate.
Brumanuensis
There is too much to go into on this fine sunny day but who is it that thinks Labour have the right answers on the economy?
I have yet to see one single *serious* economist who thinks the answer to too much debt and overspending is to increase the debt and the overspending. Not one.
Unless you something the rest of the country doesn’t…
Stephen G
I can assure you I’m not the only person in this country that would rather look at Katie Price’s t*ts than a politician from any party.
Unless you something the rest of the country doesn’t…
When you come to think of it, there isn’t much difference between Katie Price’s assets and the bunch of timeservers occupying both Front Benches. What we could do with is a new breed of politician.
“I have yet to see one single *serious* economist who thinks the answer to too much debt and overspending is to increase the debt and the overspending. Not one”.
A classic example of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
“What we could do with is a new breed of politician.”
In my honest opinion this is now a more valid political position than being Left or Right. What difference does it actually make any more? The parties have sewn up the system and are just not listening (or even interested). Traditional uncritical support just makes it worse.
In practice we’re left with a choice of crudely painted turds. Pick either Red or Blue (maybe with a bit of Yellow mashed in) – but no matter which colour is the least unpopular, we always end up with a turd.
Vote “None of the Above”. You know it makes sense.
Brumanuensis
Name one please.
(Blanchflower is hardly serious btw)
swatantra
Agreed.
I’ll name three Nobel Prize winners: Peter Diamond, Joseph Stiglitz and Christopher Pissarides. The last of whom supported immediate cuts before the 2010 GE, but subsequently changed his mind and declared that George Osborne had exaggerated the risks the UK faced.
Btw, claiming an internationally-recognised labour economist who served on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee is ‘hardly serious’, is precisely the sort of ‘NTS’ argument I was thinking of.
@Rallan
That sort of nihilism is exactly the sort of thing that enables politicians to get away with murder. If you want a better democracy, start throwing your weight around as a citizen. Abstaining just empowers the people you don’t like.
@Brumanuensis
Can’t you see that we’re already way past that point?
Brumanuensis
Christopher Pissarides? I said someone serious fella – not some crony who teaches at the LSE, that bastion of good lecturing that awarded Gaddiffi’s son with his degree.
Anyway where did he say that the deficit shouldn’t be cut?
The comment was “What’s important is that there should be a very clear statement of what cuts should be made and when, rather than actually implementing the cuts immediately.”
Well since this useless government is actually borrowing MORE than the last useless government where are the cuts? Most aren’t due to start yet.
To make it easier tell me why the OECD and IMF and IOD are all wrong and Ed Balls is right. Why should I believe a man who went from school to university to do a degree in PPE into the HOC has more of an idea than the OECD?
You must surely have watched Andrew Neil grilling the hapless looking Chuka Umunna and squirming as Brillo gave example after example of why Labour is wrong in this matter. Which it is.
I’ll let you into a secret Brumanuensis. We know that Labour know that we know they are wrong on the economy. Why on earth do they continue to lecture us and claim that they are right and we (the voting public) are wrong?
Any party that can force Gordon Brown onto this country and then expect us to reelect some of the very same buffoons that were in his cabinet is living on a different planet I’m afraid.
If Ed Balls and that schoolboy Ed Miliband really believe they have the right to represent the working classes in this country then the Labour Party has sunk a long long way from Tony Blair and the winners that went before him.
Stop arguing that black is white because it isn’t….
@Anon E Mouse
“Christopher Pissarides? I said someone serious fella – not some crony who teaches at the LSE, that bastion of good lecturing that awarded Gaddiffi’s son with his degree”.
Right. So a Nobel Prize-winning economist is ‘some crony’. And you expect me to take you seriously. I note you haven’t said anything about Diamond and Stiglitz. Did you not find any cheap shots to make about them then?
Hell, I’ll toss in Krugman now. I’m sure you probably think he’s a ‘crony’ too.
“Anyway where did he say that the deficit shouldn’t be cut?
The comment was “What’s important is that there should be a very clear statement of what cuts should be made and when, rather than actually implementing the cuts immediately.”
Having mined ‘No True Scotsman’ to the point of parody, you’ve decided to start throwing straw men around. Here’s a little secret, Anon E Mouse: Lefties want to cut the deficit too. We just prefer to do so in a way that doesn’t inflate unemployment, produce economic stagnation or gratuitously kick the poor and vulnerable in the process.
“Well since this useless government is actually borrowing MORE than the last useless government where are the cuts? Most aren’t due to start yet”.
Actually, we aren’t borrowing more than the last government, not according to the ONS, and anyway, the fact that borrowing is higher than planned is kind of the point made by all of us who were saying ‘too far, too fast’. Oh and departmental budgets have shrunk overall for the first time since the 1950s. Austerity is very real.
“To make it easier tell me why the OECD and IMF and IOD are all wrong and Ed Balls is right. Why should I believe a man who went from school to university to do a degree in PPE into the HOC has more of an idea than the OECD?”
Ok, first of all, the IOD is hardly impartial. It’s a hard-right think-tank that hates government. It’s a bit like quoting the Socialist Workers Party in support of your position, in credibility terms. On the OECD front, the OECD were calling for interest rates to go up to 3% back in 2010, which would have been a disaster, so they’re not exactly infallible. Anyway, the OECD’s support for the government is not exactly whole-hearted, given that they note that ‘fiscal consolidation is a drag on growth’ and the Chief Economist remarks ‘”The risk is increasing [in Europe] of a vicious circle, involving high and rising sovereign indebtedness, weak banking systems, excessive fiscal consolidation and lower growth”.
On the IMF front, I take it you haven’t been listening to Madame Lagarde. Her recent statement was a fairly diplomatic rebuke to Osborne. She can’t exactly stand up and say ‘you’re wrong George’, because she has close personal ties to Osborne and she doesn’t want to embarrass a senior IMF member in public. But reading between the lines, it’s clear the IMF thinks a change of tack is needed.
I find it hilarious you seem to see Ed Balls as some sort of wild-eyed radical. His points are standard macroeconomics that every university student learns if they study economics. The IMF and the OECD are deeply conservative institutions, so it’s no surprise they’re not exactly denouncing austerity, but they’re not exactly praising it to the heavens anymore.
“You must surely have watched Andrew Neil grilling the hapless looking Chuka Umunna and squirming as Brillo gave example after example of why Labour is wrong in this matter. Which it is”.
That’s not even an argument Anon E Mouse. That’s just wibble.
“I’ll let you into a secret Brumanuensis. We know that Labour know that we know they are wrong on the economy. Why on earth do they continue to lecture us and claim that they are right and we (the voting public) are wrong?”
A recent Populus polls showed “On economic policy, in what appears to be a forced choice question 49% said that the government should stick to its current policy of prioritising dealing with the deficit by 2017, 51% thought it should slow the pace of cuts”. So who’s ‘we’?
This, btw, is another logical fallacy of yours (argumentum ad populum). I have no idea why you think you know the mind of the Shadow Cabinet – again, who the hell is this ‘we’ you keep referring to?
“Any party that can force Gordon Brown onto this country and then expect us to reelect some of the very same buffoons that were in his cabinet is living on a different planet I’m afraid”.
Opinion, not fact.
“If Ed Balls and that schoolboy Ed Miliband really believe they have the right to represent the working classes in this country then the Labour Party has sunk a long long way from Tony Blair and the winners that went before him.
Stop arguing that black is white because it isn’t….”
What, Wilson? Atlee? I’m a great admirer of both men, but they weren’t exactly working-class. Nor was Blair. As for your ‘Stop arguing…’, I find it both touching and pathetic that you seem to assume that I must be lying. If it’s any consolation Anon E Mouse, I find it a bit annoying when people like you clutter up Labour blogs repeating the same old things over and over again. If you want to believe that the UK and Greece are the same, fine, but don’t expect others to indulge you in your fantasies.
@Rallan
According to what measure? Frankly, you’re coming across a bit petulant now: ‘Oh politicians are horrible and nasty and I’m going to say stuff about it on the internet’.
Do you believe the political system is broken? Then effing well do something. Because if you’re right, that’s a serious threat to our democracy. I happen to believe you’re exaggerating, but even so, I’d be happier to discuss this with you in the context of a campaign for better politicians or improved standards in public life. Set up your own political party. Start your own blog or newsletter. Try and pressure MPs – they need your vote after all – on topics you care about. Stand for election yourself. But above all, do something productive.
“Frankly, you’re coming across a bit petulant now”
Yes, well. I went to the pub this afterneen so I wasn’t at my wittiest. Sorry about that 🙂
I get what you say, but even if I thought I had the popular touch required to follow your advice, I reckon working within the present system is part of supporting it. I think the most effective way promote change is to let the establishment continue exactly as it is.
We’re living through interesting times that will last at least a decade under the direction of a wholly discredited (and clearly culpable) political elite. I genuinely think that the wheels will come off regardless of what anyone does. I’m not talking anarchy or revolution, just the fragmentation and collapse of the existing two-party status quo.
“But reading between the lines, it’s clear the IMF thinks a change of tack is needed.”
And I think it’s actually very clear from what she said that there’s little international sympathy for European countries that have squandered their wealth, and that there is no clear cut or certain path to recovery at this time. In any event, the IMF have woeful record when it comes to finding solutions. Blind leading the blind.
Brumanuensis
To go through someone’s comments line by line is typical of Labour supporters.
The overall point is the thing. I also never described Ed balls as “wild-eyed” but now you mention it….
Your point about Brown being forced on us is not opinion. I voted for Tony Blair for a “Full third term” at that election not some unpopular Scot who wasn’t even elected by the Labour Party.
No offence but your reply seems childish and petulant and you should stop arguing that black is white because it isn’t.
I’m not accusing you of lying just for being tribal and blind and certainly not helping any chances Labour has of reelection any time soon….
@Anon E Mouse
“Brumanuensis
To go through someone’s comments line by line is typical of Labour supporters”.
So I’m now being criticised for actually reading someone’s argrument properly. For your information, it helps me follow your drift.
“Your point about Brown being forced on us is not opinion. I voted for Tony Blair for a “Full third term” at that election not some unpopular Scot who wasn’t even elected by the Labour Party”.
Aside from the fact that Gordon Brown was quite popular when he took over, we live in a Parliamentary Democracy. The leader of the largest Party in Parliament generally becomes Prime Minister. Gordon Brown was a constitutionally-proper PM. Unless you lived in Sedgefield in 2005, you didn’t vote for Tony Blair; you voted for your local Labour MP, whose Party, Tony Blair led.
“No offence but your reply seems childish and petulant and you should stop arguing that black is white because it isn’t.
I’m not accusing you of lying just for being tribal and blind and certainly not helping any chances Labour has of reelection any time soon….”
No offence Anon E Mouse, but I can think of a lot of people who could offer better advice to the Labour Party than you. I think saying someone is ‘arguing black is white’ is tantamount to accusing them of lying. So far in this debate, you’ve offered several logical fallacies and a dearth of actual evidence for your positions. I know you and your pals have had the run of the comments section on this website, along with ‘and a few others, but don’t expect this to go unchallenged in future.
@Rallan
I was being a bit harsh myself, I blame the muggy evening weather!
My problem with your approach is that the establishment is very durable. There have been lots of times when people expected the two-party system to collapse, but it’s kept going. During the ’80s, the SDP were supposed to break the mold; during the ’70s the Liberals had a brief spurt and before the 2010 GE we had ‘Cleggmania’ and everyone thought Esther Rantzen was going to become an MP. On each occasion, the two-party system survived. I think with the decline of the Liberals, Labour will naturally benefit in some areas and the Tories in others. Most independents lack critical mass after all and can’t match the spending power and organisation of the big parties. So I’m wary of calling time just yet.
“And I think it’s actually very clear from what she said that there’s little international sympathy for European countries that have squandered their wealth, and that there is no clear cut or certain path to recovery at this time. In any event, the IMF have woeful record when it comes to finding solutions. Blind leading the blind”.
I’m no big admirer of the IMF, but I think Lagarde, for the reasons I set out, was diplomatically suggesting that another approach might be necessary. I agree the IMF and OECD as a whole on balance support austerity, but their support is a lot more equivocal than it was 2 years ago.
Also, while Greece is and was a basket-case, countries like Spain and Ireland had ‘responsible’ spending policies before the crisis. And Portugal and Italy weren’t exactly reckless, although their policies weren’t ideal. So I don’t think the clear-cut ‘it was all over-spending’ narrative works. I feel it was more inherent flaws in the Euro that did it.
Brumanuensis
I’m sorry but the idea of Parliamentary democracy is thrown out when the then current leader, Tony Blair specifically stated he would serve a “Full third term”.
Are you now suggesting that it is right to blatantly lie to the public or do you have some other word for it because to me he claimed he’d do one thing then did another.
Why are you not furious about how that made the party look?
The Labour Party needs to get back to it’s working class roots instead of these schoolboy politicians and the sooner they realise that the better.
As for my pals and I having the run of this website that’s just nonsense unless all you want is some big groupthink love in….
The black and white issue is clear to me
@Anon E Mouse
Then take it up with him. He changed his mind; he’s entitled to after all. And he couldn’t have served a full third term anyway, because he would have had to have stood down prior to the 2010 GE – as he’d stated he wouldn’t serve a fourth term. If you didn’t realise this, then more fool you.
As for the website, it would nice to have a few more Labour voices in the comments section, ‘is all.
Brumanuensis
“more fool you” What for believing what a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said?
It seems to me that if that is the level of acceptance of deceit in the Labour Party then we’ll never be back in power.
Tony Blair should have called a General Election and stood down and the people should have had the choice of David Cameron, Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown. The irony is the majority would probably have voted for Brown but instead the Labour Party had an unelected PM and unelected leader and then suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the electorate because of it.
I voted Lib-Dem myself but if Labour supporters like yourself refuse to acknowledge the mistakes made whilst in government then get used to opposition….
“… you didn’t vote for Tony Blair; you voted for your local Labour MP, whose Party, Tony Blair led.”
OK, now this is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Anon E Mouse is absolutely right and support for the deceit is shameful. Tony Blair specifically stated that he would serve “a full third term”. This was intentionality misleading (aka an outright lie) since as you say:
“… he couldn’t have served a full third term anyway, because he would have had to have stood down prior to the 2010 GE – as he’d stated he wouldn’t serve a fourth term. If you didn’t realise this, then more fool you.”
You CANNOT turn round to electorate and say “We lied to you. If you didn’t realise this, then more fool you.”. Yet this attitude has become the political norm. There will be consequences. People are losing faith in the basics of democracy.
Democracy is what the people say it is, not what Guardian reading London lawyers say it is. Abuse of public trust is not justified by legal technicalities, even if it lets you get away with something in the short term. Brown was not chosen as leader by the people, and the people didn’t want him. They didn’t want his entirely unelected cabinet either.
@Rallan
“Democracy is what the people say it is, not what Guardian reading London lawyers say it is. Abuse of public trust is not justified by legal technicalities, even if it lets you get away with something in the short term. Brown was not chosen as leader by the people, and the people didn’t want him. They didn’t want his entirely unelected cabinet either”.
Unelected? His cabinet was made up of MPs, who are elected parliamentarians. I hate to break it to you, but we don’t directly elect Prime Ministers. Gordon Brown was elected MP in 2005 for Kirckaldy and Cowdenbeath. He was the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons at the time and was perfectly entitled to become PM. There is nothing remotely inappropriate about how he became PM. This is not Guardian-reading London lawyer speak – I think you can tell from my name that I’m not a Londoner anyway, nor am I a lawyer – this is basic political and constitutional fact.
Tony Blair changed his mind and stepped down two years into his third term. He was entitled to do so and it wasn’t a manifesto promise. It was very clear he wouldn’t be leading Labour into the next GE and it was also clear that Gordon Brown would succeed him. So if you didn’t want Gordon Brown to become PM, you should have voted for someone else in 2005, because it was very clear that a Labour victory would mean that outcome would happen.
@Anon E Mouse
“More fool you” What for believing what a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said?
It seems to me that if that is the level of acceptance of deceit in the Labour Party then we’ll never be back in power”.
Like I said, if you genuinely thought Blair was going to serve a full third term, you weren’t paying attention. He would have had to step down before 2010 anyway, in order for Gordon Brown to take over.
Besides, why do you assume he was lying? Maybe he intended to serve a full third term and changed his mind. Is he forbidden from changing his mind? Did you want him to stick around in a position he didn’t want to be in, purely for he sake of form?
“Tony Blair should have called a General Election and stood down and the people should have had the choice of David Cameron, Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown. The irony is the majority would probably have voted for Brown but instead the Labour Party had an unelected PM and unelected leader and then suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the electorate because of it”.
Anon E Mouse, we live in a Parliamentary Democracy. Unless you lived in Kirckaldy and Cowdenbeath, Whitney or Sheffield Hallam, you would not have voted for Brown, Cameron or Clegg. The choice would have been forr a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat candidate elsewhere.
Calling Gordon Brown unelected makes no sense. He was and is, an MP. He had to be an elected MP to become PM. He was only elected as Labour leader unopposed because no-one stood against him – I thought that was a bad idea at the time – but he was legitimately chosen. There is no constitutional obligation upon a British Prime Minister to call a GE when he takes office, as long as he can muster a majority in the House of Commons.
“I voted Lib-Dem myself but if Labour supporters like yourself refuse to acknowledge the mistakes made whilst in government then get used to opposition….”
Actually Anon E Mouse, I am willing to acknowledge a number of mistakes, including several serious ones. What I won’t acknowledge as mistakes are things that aren’t mistakes. Feel free to disagree.
Rallan
Bang on the money.
What is impossible to fathom is why any Labour supporter would actually think that type of dishonesty is acceptable let alone articulate it publicly.
Not only wasn’t Brown accepted as leader by the country he was not even accepted by the Labour Party who never held a leadership election and lifelong party supporters like myself cannot accept that type of behaviour irrespective of where it’s from….
Anon E Mouse
Labour supporters are in deep denial about the consequences, conduct and integrity of the last government because the reality fundamentally contradicts what they think they stand for. They simply cannot acknowledge criticism, or accept that any is due. They have chosen to forget the scale of their defeat at the General Election, and many of them do genuinely think that the electorate made a mistake.
Brumanuensis
“I hate to break it to you, but we don’t directly elect Prime Ministers”
I hate to break it to you, but in practice OH YES WE DO, AND WE DID NOT WANT GORDON BROWN. The UK has changed, and the (unwritten) constitution must/will/does adapt to it.
We live in a media/internet/celebrity dominated society and general elections are all about leader popularity & presentation. Regardless of whether you like it or not, that’s just a fact. No-one believes a single word in the manifestos or promises (in which opinion we have been proved correct again and again).
And don’t blame people for being superficial. Blame Blair, Brown, Campbell, Mandelson & Co. for making politics into a cynical game of blatant untruths, vote-fixing (selective mass immigration, enabling of postal vote fraud, etc.) & false/undeliverable promises. Blame Tony Blair for his winning policy of “Talk Right, Act Left” (see his autobiography) which underpinned New Labour and tricked the country. As you sow, so shall ye reap.
Regards Gordon Brown’s unelected cabinet:
First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson, Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster The Rt Hon Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, Secretary of State for Transport Lord Adonis,
Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office The Rt Hon Lord Malloch-Brown, Minister of State (Science and Innovation), Department for Business, Innovation and Skills The Rt Hon Lord Drayson, Attorney General The Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC and of course Lady Kinnock.
By the way, so no-one accuses me of flying under false colours, I am “tory scum” (and apparently therefore “deserve to die”).
@Rallan
“I hate to break it to you, but in practice OH YES WE DO, AND WE DID NOT WANT GORDON BROWN. The UK has changed, and the (unwritten) constitution must/will/does adapt to it”.
Show me the law or constitutional precedent that declares that we directly-elect Prime Ministers. We don’t. If you thought we did, I’m sorry, but you were wrong. There is nothing dishonest, nor unusual, about Gordon Brown becoming PM. Nor was it dishonest or unusual when Major became PM in 1990, nor when Callaghan succeeded Wilson, nor when Douglas-Home succeeded Macmillan, and Macmillan succeeded Eden.
“We live in a media/internet/celebrity dominated society and general elections are all about leader popularity & presentation. Regardless of whether you like it or not, that’s just a fact. No-one believes a single word in the manifestos or promises (in which opinion we have been proved correct again and again)”.
Well, you might. I didn’t find many Labour voters voting for Gordon Brown when I canvassed at the last GE. Most of them were voting Labour and didn’t see Brown as the drawing-point. Similarly, a lot of Lib Dems I encounter vote Lib Dem, even though they don’t like Clegg. Leaders are important, but they aren’t the sole reason people vote for Parties.
“Regards Gordon Brown’s unelected cabinet:
First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson, Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster The Rt Hon Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, Secretary of State for Transport Lord Adonis,
Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office The Rt Hon Lord Malloch-Brown, Minister of State (Science and Innovation), Department for Business, Innovation and Skills The Rt Hon Lord Drayson, Attorney General The Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC and of course Lady Kinnock”.
That’s because the government needs people to represent it in the House of Lords and MPs are unable to address ‘the other place’. Only Mandelson, Adonis and Blaisdon were Cabinet members. The others were ministers who do not form part of Cabinet, or who attended Cabinet if their department was on the agenda. Attending Cabinet meetings does not automatically make you a member of the Cabinet.
“By the way, so no-one accuses me of flying under false colours, I am “tory scum” (and apparently therefore “deserve to die”)”.
I thought you hated all Parties? No-one has said you deserve to die, so stop making stuff up.
Rallan
You may be “tory scum” but I don’t think you deserve to die fella 😉
Brumanuensis
Not here mate, sorry. I wasn’t at all clear. I had an ugly comment from on another forum.
You guys are great generally and so I try not be a troll. In fact Labour Uncut is open minded and genuinely makes me rethink my own ideas from time to time. Certainly some of what I read here makes me think far better of the Labour party.
I’ll shut up now. 🙁
Brumanuensis
“I thought you hated all Parties”
No, I just have contempt for what they’ve become. I think there’s a lot of frustrated decent people on both sides, and I keep hoping it’ll break through. No sign of that yet. But if/when I have to choose, I’d have to pick a blue painted turd rather than a red painted turd.
@Rallan
“Not here mate, sorry. I wasn’t at all clear. I had an ugly comment from on another forum.
You guys are great generally and so I try not be a troll. In fact Labour Uncut is open minded and genuinely makes me rethink my own ideas from time to time. Certainly some of what I read here makes me think far better of the Labour party.
I’ll shut up now”
No need mate. I’m sorry to hear about that death threat; there’s a lot of stupid people on the internet unfortunately. Keep coming here though, but be aware that people like Watt aren’t the sum total of the Labour Party. I’m a bit stroppy at times, I know, but it’s frustration mainly.