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. 

Press before Parliament

I've blogged before about the eternal struggle some wage to stop the government trailing their policies in the press before they announce them in Parliament. 

I'm pretty unconcerned about it. Frankly, I think that because it is unrealistic to assume that the government can keep major policy initiatives totally secret it is inevitable that they will release details themselves so that they can try and control the press agenda. Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't mean they are disrespecting Parliament either. 

I bring this matter up again because on Wednesday the details of David Willetts' announcement on university fees - made in Parliament directly after PMQs at 12.30pm - was all over the papers that very morning. 

The point I'd like to make is that I believe debate in the Commons benefits from these briefings. Politicians on all sides have the chance to prepare their questions and are not forced to react instantly. Surely it is the information that is important here, and the sooner MPs (and the public) know about it the sooner they can prepare their arguments. 

Press or Parliament?

How do things get into the papers before they are officially announced?

Iain Dale has a post today criticising the coalition for trailing certain aspects of the Defence Review in the press before announcing it in Parliament. This plays into a broader theme in politics (which went into overdrive under Blair and Brown), which was to make big policy announcements on TV sofas and in the papers before casually dropping into the Commons to confirm it. It is something that the Tories promised to end if they got into government.

The process was repeated this evening, as certain aspects of the Spending Review, due to be announced tomorrow, have made it into the press, specifically regarding the funding of the BBC and the World Service. But what is behind this? Leaks are common in politics and are one of many ways in which politicians attempt to shape the news agenda. Iain Dale is right to suggest that this is disrespectful to Parliament as an institution, but he's wrong to make a big deal out of it.

Journalists and politicians have close relationships. They need each other. So when something huge like the Spending Review comes along all of the journalists in Westminster will be working incredibly hard to get some details first. Because they need the scoop. Because, frankly, it's no good to them when it's announced in Parliament. Once Cameron stands up to make a speech like today, I can blog what he's saying faster than the BBC or the Guardian can write copy and get it put online, let alone put it into a print edition.

So journalists are all after the exclusive - once it's in the public domain a story is useless. Which is why they will have been working every contact they have over the past few weeks to get snippets of the big announcements this week. And why it would be wrong to suggest that every leaked story is an example of a politician trying to get a journalist onside or to further their cause. Sometimes journalists can have information a politician wants them not to publish, or publish in a favourable way. It's not just a one way street...

Check out this Canadian election video

Classic negative campaigning. Hat tip Iain Dale.

Cracking Hacking

Right. So there is a bit of debate on the internet at the moment over the term 'hacking'. All the papers are calling it 'hacking', but right wing bloggers like Iain Dale and Dizzy are saying that it's not. It is, apparently, 'cracking'. This is because hacking involves getting around security and breaking it, and cracking involves going through it by guessing a password or, in this case, a voicemail pin.

The problem here is clear. By semantically challenging the term hacking right wing bloggers are seeking to influence public opinion and suggest what happened wasn't as bad. They might protest that they are just seeking to uphold the technical definition of the word - Dizzy, in particular, argues strongly for this - but in reality they are seeking to chip away at the consensus that something bad has happened. This is why left wingers like Alan Rusbridger are so determined to keep the word hacking, because to change it disrupts the narrative and makes it seem less illegal. This is true even if, as Dizzy does, they acknowledge that cracking is still illegal and immoral.

So what is it? Cracking or Hacking? Well, to me it's pretty simple: HACKING. Frankly, no-one gives a stuff what the technical definition is. Dizzy's argument that Rusbridger et al have "used their position in the media to weirdly create and morph the use of a term in popular culture inaccurately" takes no account of the wonderful flexibility of English.

If everyone in the country believes that guessing a password and getting into a private account is hacking, then the small community of hackers is just going to have to live with it. The fact is that in English, hacking means to get into someone's account without permission - that's what people think when they see that word. Anyway, there is nothing to say that cracking can not be a subdivision or form of hacking, meaning that hackers can continue to use the word to be more specific about what type of hacking they mean, while the rest of us can go on calling this hacking.

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.

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.