The Cameron ethic: convenience

By Sunder Katwala / @nextleft

If Tory communications director Andy Coulson knew about the systemic illegal activity which took place by his staff when he was editor of the News of the World, he is surely finished in politics and public life.

The Guardian report uncovers enormous and systemic illegal activity by reporters on the Sun and the News of the World newspapers, to hack into an estimated two or three thousand mobile phones. When Royal reporter Clive Goodman was jailed, the newspaper claimed he was the only reporter involved. That position is untenable, despite Coulson’s statement last night.

Former Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil, speaking on Newsnight, was incredulous at the idea that Coulson could have been unaware of an operation on that scale, or could have been oblivious to how his reporters got their stories.

And yet David Cameron is “relaxed” about the story about the Tory party director of communications. This is not a good thing to be relaxed about.

Yet it is of a piece with Cameron’s approach to the expenses crisis.

Cameron has been very keen to project the impression that he has been exceptionally tough and decisive over MPs’ expenses – particularly stressing that some in his own party feel bruised. (And no doubt the knights of the shires have their shop stewards too).

There is a large element of mythology in this – most disgruntlement is really about the political expediency of the Cameron approach.

What Cameron has done is to loudly take on and dismiss the expendable – allowing him to protect allies closely.

So George Osborne is thought safe by his leader, though, as John Rentoul has pointed out, there is little relevant difference with the cases of Hazel Blears or Kittty Ussher, except the scale of Osborne’s profits.

Meanwhile, Cameron wrote a warm personal endorsement letter to Bill Cash, in another interesting sign that he is working hard to maintain good relations with Euroscpetics, Cameron wrote, so that the veteran Eurosceptic could go into his constituency reselection with a clear exoneration from the party leader. (It is difficult to see that Labour MP Ian Gibson was more culpable than Cash (though many feel Gibson may have been particularly harshly treated).

Keeping Coulson may prove too difficult, But the attempt to do suggests that the only ethic that matters is one of convenience – and that different rules apply to the inner circle.

It is also equally important to realise that this is not just, or primarily, a story about Andy Coulson, though that is a natural initial point of focus for political (as opposed to media) reporting and scrutiny.

Andy Coulson’s problem is that few if any media experts believe the claim that he could not have known about this type of operation is in any way credible, if he was doing his job.

However, the political impact for the Conservatives could easily be contained. David Cameron always took a (calculated) gamble in appointing Coulson, given the circumstances of his resignation as editor of the News of the World when his reporter was jailed in the Royal bugging scandal, particularly if he took on trust the claim of no involvement or knowledge of a one-off incident.

The Conservatives would face only temporary embarassment if there was swift action in the next couple of days. If, on the other hand, there is an attempt to manage the story and to see which way the wind is blowing, then that would appear to many people to be condoning a rogue culture of self-granted impunity to the law, and to be taking an entirely relativist view of professional ethics, so that there are different rules for your friends.

At that point, Cameron’s own character and judgement would be seriously in question. I feel he is likely to avoid this, despite his initial response, but we will have to wait and see.

Equally important is to understand that the story appears to be a much bigger one than the political role of the Conservative Party’s head of communications and the most senior aide to the main who would be our next Prime Minister.

News International have a much wider series of questions about who knew what when. The role of the recently promoted Rebekah Wade will be one focus of scrutiny. The instinct is to contain the story and to say as little as possible. This may prove untenable.

There will be rightly be scrutiny of how parts of the News International group cover the story – in particular that The Times and Sky News demonstrate journalistic integrity and credibility in following up the story just as they would if it were not about their parent company. And it remains to be seen whether the practices and culture of other news organisations suggest any wider pattern. The media needs to demonstrate that it has the appetite to follow through on these issues – as The Guardian has done – otherwise it becomes the one source of power not effectively scrutinised in an age of increased transparency and accountability.

There are also questions to be asked about the role of the police and prosecution services, and about the lamentable failure of the current arrangements for press oversight by the Press Complaints Commission, given that this proved no barrier to the systemic flouting not just of the PCC self-imposed code but of the wider criminal law.

It will be interesting to see if the centre-right and right-wing blogosphere respond. At the time of the Damian Green arrest I wrote a post on liberal principles and partisan allegiances suggesting that:

“So let me propose a credibility test for such issues: do we take a similar view about the principles involved, regardless of whether a member of their own party or another party is involved?”

To a large extent, liberal and left bloggers did achieve that over the Damian Green affair, and in being very clear in their criticisms of Derek Draper and Damian McBride. Indeed, many of us felt that it was necessary to be tougher when it was our own side being damaged by such shenanigans. So let us see if the right also responds just as they would were a senior aide to Brown or Clegg in charge of and responsibile for those conducting illegal activities in this way, or if the approach is rather to attempt to minimise the issue, or even defend the indefensible.

There has been a good deal of discussion about strengthening the role and relevance of Parliament. A Select Committee investigation with public hearings could prove an important way to ensure that the broader questions of law and ethics are not obscured by some important questions about leading political and media personalities.