Tim Montgomerie suggests that we all at least try and keep the News of the World scandal in some degree of perspective. This is a worthy thought but not one that’s likely to fly very far given the febrile mood at Westminster. Moreover, Tim’s reasons for calling for calm are not, perhaps, quite as persuasive as they might be.
For instance, pointing out that all these abuses occurred while Labour was in power is, while true, not terribly relevant. Ed Miliband may have been a member of that government but he wasn’t involved in courting News International. Besides, it’s the Tories who are in power now and, reasonably enough, their relationship with the Murdoch empire is of more consequence now than whatever yesterday’s men did yesterday.
Nor is the issue one of whether David Cameron is “guilty of any personal wrongdoing”. As Tim says there’s no evidence for this. But that’s not quite the matter under discussion. The problem for Cameron is that there’s enough evidence to build a story suggesting he was, to all intents and purposes, at the beck and call of News International and that he allowed the Murdoch press far, far too much influence.
Take, for instance, the overlooked but fishy story of Cameron’s Freud-paid 2008 trip to Santorini for a conclave with the Rupertian Eminence. Take too the Sun’s demand he sack Dominic Grieve. Then add the Mail’s report that he appoint a Communications Director “acceptable” to News International, ie Andy Coulson. These are the strands from which a narrative of excessive deference to News International may be spun. That’s before you even consider how much more frequently Cameron hosted senior News International executives than he did their counterparts from other media organisations.
All this may have once been thought a necessary price of doing business and of getting into the business of government. But it’s now also evident that paying up has impoverished both Cameron and the government he leads. The question is not of legaility but of what is seemly.
Tim says the Tories did “on a couple of occasions” give away too much to News International but, bafflingly, says agreeing to televised election debates was one such unfortunate concession. I must say that when all else is considered this seems like fretting about the provision of cutlery in the officer’s mess on the road to Moscow in 1812. (That said, I still think it was reasonable not to block the BSkyB takeover; there are times when something may be in the Murdochs’ interest and sensible policy.)
It’s also true, as Tim says, that “the real media monopoly in Britain is the BBC”. But so what? That’s a separate issue as well. One may sensibly believe the BBC has too much influence and that the relationship between Cameron and News International is a shabby, even sordid, little thing. Moreover, I’m afraid that most of the public don’t think of the BBC in the same way they regard the Murdoch empire. One is considered a common good (if often an exasperating one) the other something else entirely.
Finally, Tim suggests that “the corrupt relationship between police officers and journalists is the most worrying aspect of this saga”. This is true but, again, one may be perturbed by this and by the depth and closeness of the Prime Minister’s ties to Murdoch. At the very least one should surely acknowledge that Cameron needed a longer spoon when supping with James and Rebekah, Matthew and Elizabeth and all the rest of the gang.
All that said, Tim is right to remind us that the extent to which the public really cares about all this is still to be determined. Outrage may be a mile wide but just half an inch deep. (And the public, voracious consumers of journalism produced by the “Dark Arts”, are as ever a splendid study in hypocrisy.)
Nevertheless, perspective is fine and dandy but isn’t to be confused with whitewash. If Sir Paul Stephenson was right to resign – and most people seem to think he was – then what distinguishes his position from the Prime Minister’s? Again, this is not a question – in Cameron’s case – of laws but of propriety. The answer seems to be “because resigning would be ridiculous and anyway Cameron’s position is different because the rules of the game are different for politicians seeking power.” True as this may be it’s hardly an uplifting or even granite-built defence is it?
It still seems extraordinary that Cameron could be sunk by this scandal but rummer things than this have happened in the past. At the very least the inconceivable now seems alarmingly conceivable. All that said, the mere fact something is conceivable does not make it likely, far less inevitable. Nevertheless, when your strongest card is the public’s indifference you leave yourself rather vulnerable should the bastards suddenly decide that this is actually a matter in which they should be interested.
Comments