Media

Lucy Manning reports that Keith Vaz’s Home Affairs Select Committee will convene an investigation into the phone tapping scandal. Hauling Yates up before his eminence was a sleight of hand, calling for a second inquiry is as obvious as Jordan. Labour is confident and Coulson is their target. However, the Home Affairs Committee is more likely to examine the police’s inept investigations than the inner workings of a tabloid newsroom. (And so, according to Vaz, it will transpire.) Coulson will remain in the clear unless the CPS brings a prosecution on the basis of Sean Hoare’s new evidence. Labour will catch some collateral flak if this appeal goes ahead –

Theresa May channeled Chris Tavaré today, every question on this phone tapping scandal was met with a solid defensive answer. She was helped by the number of Labour MPs who overreached — one compared it to Watergate while Dennis Skinner, who is nowhere near the Commons performer he once was, produced an ill-judged demand that Cameron come to the Commons and sack Coulson. Those MPs who were most effective were the ones who kept their cool. The personal testimony of Chris Bryant was particularly powerful.   Perhaps, the most noteworthy element of the proceedings was how a particularly glum looking Ming Campbell and Simon Hughes kept whispering to each other

As we drift into the weekend, Labour are stepping up their attacks on Andy Coulson. Already today, Tom Watson, Alan Johnson, John Prescott and Chris Bryant have all drawn noisy attention to the allegations made in that New York Times Magazine article about phone tapping and the News of the World – and their efforts have already pushed the story to the top of the BBC news agenda. Indeed, Bryant has even called for David Cameron to sack Coulson. Labour types will no doubt repeat that message constantly over the next few days. So far, the Tories are standing behind their comms chief. A statement from No.10 reiterated that Coulson

Up until today, the Hague-Myers story was confined to scurrilous rumour on Guido’s blog and the occasional cautious article in the Telegraph or the Mail; the rest of the media were uninterested. But, as James notes, Hague’s two extraordinarily frank statements, particularly yesterday’s impassioned denial to ‘set the record straight’, have forced the issue into the mainstream political debate. The personal always becomes political. What of William Hague’s judgement? John Redwood condemns Hague’s ‘poor judgement’ in personal matters before going on to cast aspersions on his policy judgements, particularly those relating to the EU. Iain Martin discusses Hague’s supposedly pro-Arabist sympathies: ‘Is Israel getting a fair hearing?’ he asks. Iain

Say what you like about Blair, but he is something of a political entrepreneur. He detects a gap in the market and fills it: he did with New Labour in the mid-1990s. And he detects a trend in the globalised world: a system where governments don’t matter so much and power is held by a global elite. This, CoffeeHousers, is what he’s up to with his memoirs. He is presenting himself in new incarnation, a statesman without a state, able to move without being tied down to an electorate. There’s a very revealing passage in his book where he talks about Condi Rice: “She is a classic example of the

The rumours were true: Jon Cruddas has backed David Miliband. It’s an unlikely union on the face of it – an ambitious centrist and an almost utopian socialist. Though Cruddas once forged a partnership with the equally centrist James Purnell, so it is no great surprise that he is a pluralist. Cruddas tells the New Statesman that in ‘terms of the nature of the leadership that’s needed, he’s beginning to touch on some of those more profound questions that need to be addressed head-on.’ Is Cruddas right? Miliband has delivered the speech that he thinks will define his campaign. To be brutally honest, it was not profound. There was little