Left-wing blogs silent on CCHQ violence

The left wing of the political blogosphere has let itself down today. Almost every blog has either ignored or glossed over the violence seen yesterday at CCHQ's Millbank Office as the work of a few or as a distraction, and most seek to absolve the demonstration and the NUS of any responsibility for it. 

Political Scrapbook's runs with 'What you didn't see on Sky News: student protesters booing those who threw fire extinguisher'. Thus the site's only mention of the violence is an attack on Sky, accusing the broadcaster of misleading reporting because it failed to show footage of protesters booing the student who dropped a fire extinguisher on the police. It makes no criticism of the violence, only calling the guy on the roof an 'idiot'. 

Labour List's Mark Ferguson says 'Young people are angry, do you blame them?' His first paragraph contains some criticism of the violence as 'Inexcusable, self-defeating and plain wrong' before quickly absolving the protest of any responsibility for it. It's clear from this and the rest of his article that he's more concerned about the damage done to the image of the protest than he is about the attack on CCHQ. 

Left Foot Forward manages to call the violent protesters 'idiots' and link to NUS President Aaron Porter's tweeted criticism of the violence before, like Labour List, launching into a paddy about how this will distract from the real issues at stake. And like Labour List, this is a blog post about the fee increase with a cursory mention of the violence, rather than a flat condemnation of it. 

Sunny Hundal on Liberal Conspiracy goes so far as to urge his fellow lefties to stop 'self-flagellating' about the violence (I'm not sure what he's been reading because I can't find any such 'self-flagellation'). Deciding not to offer any criticism, he instead sounds giddy as he contemplates the beginning of a nationwide campaign of local protests against the coalition. Then, in this astonishing comment, he laughs off the violence and describes the media, police and Tories as 'wusses'.

Dave Osler on the same site gets nostalgic for the glory days of the 1980s and again offers absolutely no condemnation of the violence, instead postulating that some of the protesters might be the children of the miner's strike and poll tax. As he says: 'You only need a couple of hundred of us and - let the state be in no illusion about this! - we are more than capable of organising civil disobedience.' 

Next Left has absolutely no mention of the protest, just like prominent MP blogger Tom Harris and former spinner Alistair Campbell. Maybe they've got better things to write about, or perhaps they decided that if they couldn't write anything criticising the violence then they'd better not write anything at all. 

Only James Forsyth over at Coffee House, the Spectator's blog, manages any outright criticism of the violence. He unambiguously states that 'It's essential that those responsible for today's violence feel the full force of the law.' Good on him. 

It has been noted that this year left wing sites have risen in prominence and, according to the Total Politics Blog Awards 2010, now occupy 4 top ten places, compared to to one last year. Yet these blogs seem to be far less critical of their own side than blogs on the right. Leading right wing bloggers Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes are totally unafraid of attacking the right when they see fit. Conservative Home is similarly unafraid of saying what it thinks about the Tories. Why is this so hard for those on the left? It should be pretty easy for them to find the courage to openly and unambiguously condemn this violence, but for some reason it isn't. 

Andy Coulson: A Story?

Is this a big deal or not? If you read the Guardian or listen to some Labour MPs you'd get the impression that the heart of government is filled with criminals; read the Murdoch press, Guido Fawkes or Iain Dale and you'd think that nothing untoward has happened. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Coulson resigned from his post at News of the World in January 2007 when the paper's royal editor, Clive Goodman, was jailed for intercepting the voicemail messages of royal aides. He became the Conservatives' Director of Communications in June 2007, 5 months later.

Coulson had been lined up for an appearance before the Press Complaints Commission but his resignation meant they lost interest. The same is true of the police, who decided not to pursue the question of how many people were involved in similar voicemail interceptions and, importantly, who these people were and how far up the scandal went. This meant that the line drawn under the scandal by Coulson's resignation was a squiggly one.

The story had disappeared until last week, when a piece in the New York Times alleged that the interceptions had been common practice and that Coulson had actively encouraged them. These allegations come from a former NotW hack called Sean Hoare, whose credibility is clouded by the fact he was sacked by the paper for alleged drink and drug problems. The accusations have clearly been timed for maximum political impact, coming just days before the end of the parliamentary recess. Labour are, naturally, seeking to use this issue for political gain.

On the one hand then, you have those who seem to suggest that this is simply not news. Coulson, they say, did not know about these practices and there is no evidence to suggest that he did aside from the bitter grumblings of a former employee. Furthermore he did the honourable thing in 2007 and resigned from his post as editor of the NotW, and should not be punished twice. They also suggest that the story is being driven by the left wing press, particularly the Guardian, and Labour MPs who all despise the power of Murdoch in British press and who want to hurt his paper, the NotW, and his former protoge, Andy Coulson.

On the other hand, some are alleging that these new revelations give the police cause to reopen their investigation. Moreover, they point out, that initial investigation was deeply unsatisfactory, as the police failed to make any effort to go past the work of Goodman and look at others working for the paper, meaning that Coulson was never actually exonerated.

On a simple level - removing the politics from the situation - this is a big story. It is clear that the original police investigation was not perfect. Whether this was intentional or just a result of the pressure always on the MET is not clear, and probably never will be. There is evidence to suggest that the interceptions were widespread at the NotW, and indeed at other newspapers as well - something which must lead us to lament the spinelessness of the PCC. If the allegations can be proved - and we must remember of course that he's innocent until proven guilty - then he'll have to resign and may well face jail. But that's a big if.

With the politics put back in however, while there is some evidence to suggest that Coulson knew about these practices, what matters is what can be proven in court. I just cannot see Coulson in the dock, unless we are suddenly presented with concrete evidence, for example an email from Coulson approving it. Frankly, I doubt that the police investigation will get anywhere, as they have little to gain but a lot to lose from it. Assistant Commissioner Yates has already said he'll talk to the New York Times, Hoare and Coulson, but I'd be surprised if these discussions went anywhere at all.

What is more realistic is that Coulson will be forced to resign from the government. He has already broken the cardinal spinner's rule and become the story. If this doesn't go away quickly he will be under a lot of pressure. The coalition just does not need this now, as it has big fights on its hands over the next few weeks.

The problem if he goes is that it instantly raises a big question about the judgement of David Cameron, who faced down scepticism at the time from his own backbenchers about Coulson's appointment. Simply because of this I expect him to stay, but this matter will continue to be a headache for the government, and a big story in the press.

It's not about tolerance

The Guardian has an editorial this morning questioning the media storm around Hague and his aide. While it's a very noble plea for tolerance in society, with regards to this particular story it misses the point. It says:

"While suggestions that the foreign secretary is anything other than straight are no more than gossip, in a truly tolerant society there would be nothing to gossip about."

I don't care if a politician is gay. It has no bearing on their ability to do their jobs and it is healthy that we have some diversity in government. But that is not what this story is about. The allegation that Hague was having a relationship with Myers does not just mean he's gay, it also means he's cheating on his wife. And it means that when he appointed Myers he did it on the strength of their extramarital affair, not because he would be good at the job.

This is why Guido Fawkes has been chasing the story. It would be equally good gossip if he'd appointed a woman, because he'd still be cheating on his wife and hiring people for the wrong reasons. These stories are traditional newspaper fodder - remember Prescott's affair and Robin Cook leaving his wife? They don't have to cost you your career and they certainly don't require statements detailing the personal tragedies he and his wife have faced.

The same applies to the outing of Crispin Blunt last week. 'Minister is gay' is not news. 'Minister leaves wife and kids after realising he's gay' is news. Anyway, what's important here is the outcome. While papers will continue - rightly - to report these stories, these ministers are not losing their jobs or being deselected. Once the initial story has broken, it dies down.

I don't believe the rumours about Hague and Myers, although I do believe that Myers was supremely unqualified for his job. That he resigned was not unexpected. What is most concerning is that Hague has shown poor political judgement - both in originally hiring Myers above more qualified competition, and in releasing this statement to the press. I have no doubts he'll get through it though.

Fawkes 'ruins holiday', and other things...

Well, with Guido Fawkes' wife reporting that he's 'ruined their holidays again' you can sleep sound in your beds in the knowledge that the world is still in its correct order. Fawkes is currently being accused by Iain Dale of hounding Christopher Myers, the now former SpAd the William Hague, out of his job.

That this story really became news is primarily down to the media's obsession with gays in politics. From the start, when that picture of Hague and Myers walking along together was published in the Mail, this story has been full of innuendo.

Fawkes was chasing the story, and was the first to report that during the recent election campaign, when Myers was Hague's driver, the two had shared a hotel room. More reasonably, Fawkes pointed out that Myers is almost totally unqualified for the job of SpAd, and (probably accurately) claimed that he got it by being close to Hague. The question was how close.

Now, I expected Myers to take a hit and resign, but I am a bit confused by Hague's response. While a personal defence of his relationship with Myers and his marriage was inevitable, such candour about his wife's miscarriages was not. Why so much detail? Does it offer any defence against accusations he's slept with Myers? No it doesn't. It's all a bit strange. Whatever the reason though, the coalition will be very eager to get away from this story and to come back next week reinvigorated.