The selfish selfie

I am disappointed to say the least by the attitude to the coming General Election of Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Nationalist Party. More than enough blood has been shed, including the blood of my own kinsmen, in the making of the Union to see it unpicked for party political advantage.

There is something distinctly unpleasant about a politician who wants to be a foreigner in a United dismembered Kingdom while expecting to call the tune in British politics. By all means have a strong voice in devolved government but the current scheming is a disservice to our United Kingdom. The vote for independence was lost but minorities are never satisfied no matter what the cost.

The Scottish people like the rest of the United Kingdom should make a clear choice for the government of the United Kingdom leaving nationalism to devolved government but the way things are we have the ludicrous situation of the "two-faced" Sun backing the SNP in Scotland and the Tories elsewhere. How very Murdoch!

The choice is clear, vote for strong government to avoid minorities calling the tune. One only has to look to the Anglican Church in Great Britain to see the chaos that has been caused by the tail constantly wagging the dog in England and Wales.

Update - the hidden agenda [05.05.2015]

From HeraldScotland: "Leaders of Glasgow anti-Labour demo suspended by SNP".

After denying that hardline nationalists organised the angry protest which forced Jim Murphy and comic Eddie Izzard to cut short a rally in Glasgow city centre, two members have now been suspended by the SNP. A group of around 20 demonstrators, drawn from different fringe groups, had disrupted the street rally.

"One of the suspended, Piers Doughty Brown, a self-style 'anti-austerity' campaigner, and James Scott, the leader of a fringe nationalist group called Scottish Resistance, had their membership of the SNP withdrawn after pictures emerged of the pair with Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond".

Scottish Resistance is "part of an alliance of nationalist groupings committed to overthrowing "British imperialism" and advancing "the cause of independence".

Nicola Sturgeon said the appalling scenes on the streets of Glasgow were nothing to do with the SNP:
"What happened yesterday was the ugly face of nationalism". Quite so.

Update - SNP threat [07.05.2015]

Police Scotland have issued nationwide warnings amid fears of 'threatening behaviour' from firebrand SNP supporters. Story here.

A fit person?

Mirror picture: Getty

It must have come as little surprise to most listeners when media mogul Rupert Murdoch admitted in his evidence to the Leveson inquiry that "he got immediate access to Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and David Cameron". He is a smart operator who makes sure that party leaders need his seal of approval.

Listening to the evidence given by James and Rupert Murdoch to the Culture Select Committee and under oath to the Leveson Inquiry their grasp of detail and ability to recollect facts was extraordinary, until their own integrity was in the spotlight. Only then did amnesia set in. The term "wilful blindness" has been used to explain how Rupert Murdoch knew all that was going on, except what went on under his own nose.

In its damning report, the Culture Select Committee split on party lines in its majority judgement that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international company. Coming so soon after the Prime Minister's defence of his Culture Secretary yesterday following his dealings with the Murdoch empire, the explanation given by the Tory members that such a conclusion was beyond their remit may leave many wondering if Rupert Murdoch still has immediate access. 

The Murdoch Cameron show

Look where you will, despite the enormity of the famine in Africa and the tragedy in Norway, the Murdoch stories will not go away illustrating the seriousness of the problem for the Tories, the top two, Cameron and Osborne, in particular.

Every stone upturned produces further revelations about the extent of Murdoch's influence and the power wielded by his organisation in British politics but amongst all the stories emerging there can be few as devastating for the Prime Minister as the account from across the pond of 'The Cameron Collapse'.

Update
There's more and more and yet more - money this time. Did I hear bankers mentioned?

Room at the top?

Apparently not - except at the Met. 

In one of the closing questions from the Commons Culture and Media Select Committee (July 19), Rupert Murdoch was asked if he would take responsibility as Chairman and Chief Executive of News Corporation and resign in the wake of the phone hacking scandal that has rocked his media empire. His response was an emphatic 'No' on the grounds that he was the best person to clear up the matter. This was a far more robust response from someone who at first appeared to be a sad, tired, old man who needed the support of his son to get him through the ordeal. 

One was left wondering how this faltering old man who, according to Wikipedia, "was listed three times in the Time 100 as among the most influential people in the world. He is ranked 13th most powerful person in the world in the 2010 Forbes' The World's Most Powerful People list.^[4] With a net worth of US$6.3 billion, he is ranked 117th wealthiest person in the world.^[5]" could possibly run a worldwide organisation employing over 50,000 people and be courted by a succession of political leaders.

By contrast his son James talked a lot but said little. Over deferential, he twice complemented his interrogators on the quality of their questions but generally his answers were routine; it was before his time, he hadn't been told, or he would be happy to co-operate by seeking to provide the information sought by the committee. I doubt that the Home Affairs Committee Chairman Keith Vaz would have allowed Murdoch Jr to talk at such length while saying so little. 

The long pauses employed by Murdoch senior and the groping manner of his son first gave me the impression that they were wired into their legal team but perhaps it was all part of the planned response. After sitting through all the evidence the only real excitement came when a protester hit Murdoch senior in the face with a shaving-foam pie, receiving a right hook from the much younger Mrs Murdoch for his trouble. 

Much later than expected Rebekah Brooks was called to give evidence but I was left none the wiser whether all three senior managers of the most influential media empire were completely ignorant of malpractice within their own organisation or whether their briefings were such that they simply managed to give nothing away. For an organisation that prided itself on exposing wrong-doing they failed to notice it in their own organisation. Earlier in the day, we heard the observation in response to evidence from the Metropolitan police to the Home Affairs Select Committee, that the Met and the News of the World were on a merry-go-round with the Met employing ex-NoW journalists and Met officers working for News Corp.


Next it is the turn of the Prime Minister to explain why, contrary to all the advice given to him, he employed Chancellor George Osborne's choice of ex-NoW editor Andy Coulson as his spin doctor. Will he will be as ignorant as the rest of them? Deceived, sorry and bewildered as characterised by Murdoch senior: “I feel that the people I trusted, I don't know at what level, let me down and I think they behaved disgracefully, betrayed the company and me and it's for them to pay. I think that frankly I'm the best person to clear this up.” Hmmm!


Postscript

A report on the Home Affairs Select Committee conclusions can be read here.

So what will be under the next stone?

Those at No 10 are now saying that the Met's Chief has questions to answer following revelations concerning their involvement with the Murdoch empire.  Earlier it was those in No 10 who had questions to answer following accusations of lack of judgement by the Prime Minister. As each side blames each other the size of the web is seen to be ever wider.


The performance of senior police officers before the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee was a revelation in itself with all the blame for the problem being heaped on News Corp's unwillingness to be co-operative, an interesting testimony from senior police officers charged with upholding the law. The evidence of former Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman who went on to be employed by News Corp as a journalist was delivered in a manner which I thought ignorant if not contemptuous. From talking with others I gather I was not alone in wondering how he managed to get employed at all let alone rise to Assistant Commissioner given the manner of his delivery in response to the Select Committee's genuine concerns. 


Every stone turned reveals yet another Murdoch link so how was the lid kept firmly on the story for so long? Reading this special report on how things were run in the News of the World shows that screwing information out of anybody in any circumstances at any cost was the name of the game. The willingness of journalists to invade the private lives of politicians and others enabled News Corp to impose their view with impunity advancing their own cause whether or not it was in our best interests. 


Many MPs and journalists now claim to have been unhappy with the situation but without the dogged persistence of the Guardian, a couple of MPs and the private actions of victims, no doubt we would have seen the BSkyB bid waved through enabling Murdoch's empire to tighten its grip even more on our apparently impotent politicians. All credit to them for their persistence.

Chicken and foul egg

Despite News Corp's 'bad egg' image, the PM is

reported to have chickened out of asking Murdoch

to withdraw his BSkyB bid.

Postscript

Shallow is the word that springs immediately to mind.


Kick the ball into touch until it becomes yesterday's news in six months time or so, perhaps closing his remaining titles in the meantime, then throw him the much more profitable BSkyB prize. Who is running Britain? Murdoch!

That was 'The News' that was...

As the News of the World closes after publishing for 168 years, it says much for our electoral system, and even more for the electorate, that our leaders felt the need to suck up to a man such as this. 


And he still expects to takeover BSkyB! Not if 38 Degrees can help it! You may care to sign their petition.

Stung!

No doubt The Telegraph thought itself rather smart luring one of the few trusted politicians into a trap by sending undercover journalists to Vince Cable's surgery. Having had their bit of fun at Dr Cable's expense The Telegraph sought to close the matter by publishing a 'transcript' of the meeting. While some will be surprised at the Minister's candour, others will find it a refreshing change from the devious outpourings the public is used to hearing.

What The Telegraph didn't bargain on was a whistle blower who knew that the full facts had not been published. They left out the bit about Rupert Murdoch's News International proposed take-over of the satellite broadcaster BSkyB which he already partly owns and which The Telegraph, among others, opposes.

Many see the proposed take-over as an unwelcome concentration of media influence so the revelation may result in disappointment for them. While retaining his cabinet post as Business Secretary, Dr Cable has lost responsibility overseeing media, telecom and broadcasting companies to the now well known Jeremy Hunt the Culture Secretary who may find it difficult to follow Dr Cable's example. At least it should give the giggling 'reporters' something else to laugh about.

Campaign castrated

Before dinner I was watching the George Alagiah show at 6 o’clock on BBC1. He referred to today’s Gordon Brown ‘bigot’ gaffe four times. First in his preamble, then in the main story which was again summarised after the mid-show break (during which gesticulating George as the star of the show shuffles and sometimes signs his papers, pretending that he is not reading the idiot board), then finally in his closing summary. This from the BBC which the Right claim has a Left wing bias!

Having dealt reasonably deftly with a chance encounter with a certain Mrs Duffy, she and Mr Brown went their separate ways on good terms. Mr Brown climbed into his official car with his microphone inadvertently switched on and effectively castrated his new ‘communicating with the people’ campaign with a careless aside made in private, so he thought.

One might argue over whether the Prime Minister should have made such comments but leaving that aside, what did broadcasting a private conversation achieve? The effect on Mrs Duffy being forced to listen to hurtful comments eagerly egged on by one of Murdoch’s Sky reporters was devastating judging from her televised reaction. A struggling widow concerned about the future of her grandchildren, she had been justifiably pleased that she had done her best for them by expressing her concerns directly to the Prime Minister. Now she is left dazed at the centre of a media scrum with policemen guarding her door.

As ever The Telegraph has been at the forefront reminding the public of previous gaffs by public figures but let’s face it, many of us make comments which we wouldn’t want broadcast, sometimes in vain attempts at humour, other times out of sheer annoyance just to let off steam. Things said in the heat of the moment rarely add anything meaningful to debate. The issues remain the same and, in this instance, with the same question: Who is best placed to sort out the problems we all face? If it were Gordon Brown (I am not suggesting that he is) what service has been provided by divulging information that should have remained private? We are no wiser, nothing has been solved and a poor widow has been reduced from elation to despair. What a good show!

Round 2

From yesterday's Fabian Society Blog, Next Left:

"The Sun's political editor has been reported saying "It is my job to see that Cameron ****ing well gets into Downing Street”.

Despite earlier rumours, BBC political editor Nick Robinson has suggested tonight that The Sun did not, after discussions, buy the story or any exclusive interview with Mrs Gillian Duffy after today's political storm after Gordon Brown's insult, because they did not think it was "interesting" enough."

Need one say more?

Leaders Debate, Round 2

This time I watched the debate on the TV – until my wife found me dozing and transferred me to the computer. I don’t think I missed much so I was surprised at the result of the first poll for the Sun showing that Cameron was the clear winner with 36% of the votes, a result not sustained in other polls I should add. This time I thought the combatants more evenly matched indicating that there had been much hard work in the background since last week.

Again I thought the debate illuminating, not for what was said, but watching the facial expressions and body language when the leaders were not speaking. I thought Cameron looked the least confident, though much better than last week, while Clegg looked the most assured and Brown rather awkward. Most of the audience looked bored stiff with one member desperately trying to conceal a huge yawn.

The ‘get Clegg’ campaign fell badly after the Telegraph’s shameful attempted smear with ‘Twitters’ picking up the thread and blaming Clegg for everything from the death of Kennedy to responsibility for Samantha’s pregnancy. The desperation of the press may be explained by David Yelland, a former editor of the Sun, who explained that previously the Liberal Democrats were deliberately ignored by the press.

Yelland said, “Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.” Hmmm!

Postscript

More than 100 viewers have complained to the broadcasting regulator (Ofcom) accusing the debate Moderator (Sky News political editor Adam Boulton) of breaking strict impartiality rules by raising newspaper reports about political donations paid directly into the Liberal Democrat leader's bank account. There is no suggestion Clegg broke any rules and bank statements were produced to prove it.

Boulton -> Sky -> Murdoch - Hmmm again!

There's another interesting take on the broadcast in this Blog: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/04/sky_leaders_deb.html

PPS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/04/polling.html

- Hmmm yet again.