If the Coulson arrest goes ahead, we will know that the Prime Minister failed. The question is how badly. This is what we need to know.
It has been widely trailed that the Prime Minister will give a press conference on the scandal engulfing News International this morning. His position – described as being in the sewer yesterday by Peter Oborne in the Daily Telegraph yesterday – demands that he answers certain questions.
It has been reported that Andy Coulson, News of the World editor at the time of the hacking scandal, will be arrested today. If so, it would appear that the process that led Cameron to appoint Coulson as head of communications while leader of the opposition, and then bring him into Downing Street, was irrevocably flawed. If the Coulson arrest goes ahead, we will know that the Prime Minister failed. The question is how badly. What the Prime Minister needs to tell us is:
1) What questions did Cameron ask Coulson on appointing him? Were they framed in such a way that gave Coulson the benefit or burden of the doubt? Did those questions cover all the areas that would be need to be asked of an editor of a newspaper during a major scandal?
2) What were the answers that Coulson gave him? Were they categorical, or ‘creatively vague’?
3) Did Cameron do anything to check whether Coulson’s answers were true, and the whole truth?
4) What did Alan Rusbridger, Editor of the Guardian, warn Cameron through an intermediary concerning Coulson, on entering Dowing Street. Apparently Rusbridger also told Clegg. This is going to come out at some stage, so Cameron should tell us now. And if the Prime Minister refuses, his Deputy should let it be known.
Until Cameron answers these questions, his moral authority will remain mired in Oborne’s sewer.
20 Responses to “Hackergate: The questions Cameron must answer”
Brooks: "Worse to come"; Guardian: "Millions of emails" deleted by NI | Left Foot Forward
[…] his morning press conference, journalist after journalist pressed him on the Coulson question, wanting to know What he asked him of his past; what Coulson told him; why he trusted him; why […]
Ed's Talking Balls
Dave,
Honestly, that’s well wide of the mark (at least in my case, as I can’t speak for anyone else).
Of course this reflects poorly on David Cameron. Everyone, except the most blinkered, would admit that. He appointed Andy Coulson and is inevitably tarred by that association. Like all politicians in recent times, he has been in bed, metaphorically, with Murdoch. Did I really need to state all that?
The reason I referred to Miliband in this thread is because of his unbelievable, hypocritical, juvenile line of attack over this issue. I am appalled. This is not a party political matter and he is trying to make out as if it is.
This is what I have against Miliband. If you admire petty politicians then of course you will be pleased with Miliband’s handling of this issue. I had actually, naively, expected better. And I stand by everything I said above: he will look mighty foolish if he keeps up the rhetoric. Already I’ve seen him skewered by Guru-Murthy on Channel 4 over his links to News International and his appointment of Tom Baldwin.
Mr. Sensible
Mr Mouse, lets not forget that this is not the first time the press’s tactics have caused controversy; the superinjunction breaches (only a few of which were really in the public interest; Trafigura), and Cablegate (although admittedly Vince brought that one on himself by breaking collective ministerial responsibility to his public).
With press freedom must come press responsibility. And I’m pleased that Cameron’s saying what I’ve been thinking; we need a genuinely independent press regulator, as the PCC is not fit for purpose.
Dave Citizen
Fair enough Ed – but I think you could cut EM a little bit more slack. I know you won’t agree with me, but I think the Blair etc. New Labour project makes it genuinely difficult for Labour leaders to move in a progressive direction (i.e. reducing inequality, breaking up concentrations of elite power and wealth, putting British society before international money interests where they conflict and so on).
At least Ed raises issues like wealth inequality and alternative social models like Scandinavian rather than the usual tunnel vision of the Anglo- American approach (comments that are mostly cut out by a winner takes all/ privatisation / inevitable globalisation pushing media).
I know he’s a professional politician but I reckon his heart’s roughly in the right place – unlike some others I could mention.
matthew fox
I am not surprised Ed’s talking Balls & Anon E Ratface are churning out the usual dross.
Only these simpleton’s would swallow Lord Ashcroft guff.
I have noticed Kelvin Mackenzie hasn’t got around to retracting the ” Lone Gunmen ” argument he put forward on the 6th of Sept 2010, when having a pop at Chris Bryant on the BBC.