Prime Minister David Cameron has told excited and braying Tory backbenchers that a crucial political matter was to be determined by an unelected judge.
And he was cheered by them for doing so.
As Theresa May would put it, I am not making this up.
The Tories, of course, would usually be the first to sneer at the very notion that an unelected judge have any role in a political situation.
But, as ever, the shallowness of knee-jerk Tory rhetoric does not reach down so as to connect with any principle.
By kicking the Jeremy Hunt affair over to the Leveson Inquiry the demands of political expediency were satisfied, even if those of political accountability were left wanting.
This is because none of the key issues which the Hunt affair throws up are actually within the terms of the Leveson Inquiry.
Perhaps Cameron and his colleagues are playing some clever game of roulette – they are maybe gambling on the crisis defusing before Hunt or anyone else gets questioned at the Inquiry.
If so, they could be disappointed.
First, as Paul Bailey wonderfully said on Twitter:
I have a mental image of Robert Jay QC watching this, taking notes, and chuckling quietly to himself.
Indeed.
One quite imagine Jay saying softly and devastatingly, “that is not quite right, though, is it Mr Cameron?”
Second, the detail of those emails already disclosed – which would make any fair minded person conclude there was a serious risk of apparent and unlawful bias by Hunt’s Office in the BSkyB decision (as well as a cause for other serious concerns) – is still unaddressed.
The detail of those emails remain when the cheers of Tory backbenchers all peter out.
And one day that detail will need to be addressed and there will be a political consequence.
It would have been better had Cameron said – following Thatcher – inquiries’ inquire, advisers’ advise, and ministers’ decide.
At a stroke, Cameron would have asserted the value of parliamentary accountability and the integrity of the ministerial code.
But he didn’t.
And so instead the Tory MPs commended a political matter being dealt with by an unelected judge.
COMMENTS MODERATION
Comments are pre-moderated. No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters. Other comments published at my absolute discretion.
12 Responses to Tories, Parliament, and Unelected Judges
Leave a Reply
From the Guardian report :
“By the end of a one-hour statement that generated more heat than light, it did emerge that Cameron came to his current view that Hunt had not breached the ministerial code on the basis of the culture secretary’s verbal assurances, and without seeing any written evidence.”
If this is accurate, it’s truly astounding.
“Did you do anything wrong?”
“No”
“Ok then.”
Does this Government have a Coulson moment every few months now?
I’m trying to work out Cameron’s strategy here. He’s obviously playing for time, but why? If he had ask Sir Alex Allen to start an inquiry the result would have been back after the local elections, so he could have gone into them on the moral high ground (well, relatively). But now he’s running the risk of a having one of his ministers being dissected by Robert Jay (who I’m developing a man crush on), with the kindly uncle Leveson interjecting whenever he feels excessively exasperated. Why run that risk?
Clearly there is an interest for the government in kicking this down the road, and attempting that age old trick of letting time and new scandals stagnate this in the public’s mind. But I also feel there is a desire for this to be dealt with at Leveson (though not in the remit of Leveson) so that Jeremy Hunt can give his evidence “under oath”. There is a perception that it is harder to accuse someone of lying when they have testified under oath (and if you think that swearing on a Bible holds any weight for these people I pity you).
Cameron was very rattled today facing questions about his integrity, he is not very good at hiding his emotions; they came spilling out of his mouth! I wonder if in the near future, Cameron might regret not jettisoning Hunt or was Dennis Skinner to close to the bone after all!
What on earth has Hunt got on Cameron that he is so bulletproof?
Surely, after what is already in the public domain, he should fall on his sword, or is Cameron trying to make some obscure point to an electorate that is growing tired of the petty squabbling that the house of commons has become?
Everyone I speak to in Leeds is of the opinion that Cameron is leading us even further into the mire, & most of them are tories!
It is a mistake to assume that Cameron’s actions today protect Hunt’s position.
A Cabinet reshuffle is expected at some point after the new legislative agenda has been set out on 9 May. Cameron will look to draw a line under the awkward month the Coalition has had, probably helped by a Boris victory in London, and possibly helped by a strong SNP showing in Scotland.
In this process it is possible that Hunt will then be moved, or pushed out to pasture (for a short while) with the result many are calling for on this blog.
Although this may also result in Hunt accepting responsibility as some people want, it must be recognised that the outcome for Cameron is very different. This is why there is delay.
Hunt’s resignation last week, today or tomorrow would be uncontrolled and driven by Ed Miliband. Pushing it out until after the elections on 3 May – for whatever tenuous reason – is necessary to try and push through the ‘omnishambles’ the coalition is currently facing, and break the media cycle.
After 3 May there will be lots and lots of things to talk about. They may not all be good things, but Cameron is gambling that if he can set the tone he will look stronger than any decision taken on Ed Miliband’s terms.
The trouble with this being dealt with at leveson is it might take to much time, there are so many strands to the leveson inquiry from Nightjack to the Daniel Morgan murder and it’s hard for leveson to take long on any of them.
He would need to interview everyone involved from Adam Smith to the permanent Secetary, he would also need to look into the whole Cable incident and who it was who told Will Lewis to leak the Cable recording to Peston and how they had got the info from telegraph in the first place.
I also think they would have to delve into Hunt’s meetings into New York with members of News international and while Cameron claims there was no secret deals with NI well who knows what Hunt was doing there
It all seems fairly clear to me. If Cameron throws Hunt under a bus before he appears before Leveson then Hunt will dish the dirt and take Dave down with him. So Cameron calls for Leveson to bring Hunt’s appearance forwards, hoping he can get the whole thing done and dusted without being seen to stall for time. But Leveson won’t play ball, so Cameron now has to keep Hunt sweet until the end of May at the earliest.
Everybody that Cameron has defended, Coulson, Brooks and now Hunt, holds information that incriminates Cameron in the widespread corruption that has infected our politicians, police and newspapers for decades and while he can currently claim that the other parties were in just as deep once he himself is outed as rotten his premiership is over.
He’s running scared and has been since July last year.
Pingback: Jeremy Hunt and the limits of credulity – Alex's Archives
Strategy? Why assume that Cameron actually wanted Hunt to precede him on the Leveson inquiry; was it not a position suggested by Clegg?
In today’s Telegraph: “David Cameron has not seen the emails, text messages and other personal documents from Jeremy Hunt that detail the Culture Secretary’s dealings with the Murdoch empire, it was revealed last night.” [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9237325/David-Cameron-has-not-seen-Jeremy-Hunts-News-Corporation-emails-and-texts.html]
If that is really the case, then Cameron, who will go first on Leveson, will be able to use his ignorance as a reason for not answering certain delicate questions put to him. He will have learned the technique from James Murdoch. I can already hear Cameron affirm: I was not made aware of the extent to which there was collusion, I was kept totally in the dark, even longer because the Leveson inquiry was involved; what could I do?
And it took an 80-year-old in the House of Commons to point out that Hunt is shielding Cameron, which is why he can’t be sacked or forced to resign. The Beast of Bolsover touched a sore spot, and Cameron’s vile, repugnant and sneering putdown told us all we needed to know.
It really stung when “the Beast” jibed that “with the Culture Secretary in the firing line it prevents the bullets hitting him, the Prime Minister,” and let us not forget the wonderful put-down of Hunt “when posh boys are in trouble, they sack the servants”
Cameron’s response was just so weak, like a child shouting “and you’re stinky,” when an elder criticises him.
Leveson unelected? Technically so sir, technically so, but, blimey, I have never known an ‘ Inquisitor ‘ with such a huge volume of public goodwill for him to succeed.