This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/may/02/politics-live-blog-leveson-pmqs
The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Politics live blog: Wednesday 2 May | Politics live blog: Wednesday 2 May |
| (40 minutes later) | |
| 12.27pm: Nick Clegg (pictured) has written to Liberal Democrat campaigners wishing them good luck in tomorrow's elections. Here's an extract from his email. | |
| Liberal Democrat councillors have a well-deserved reputation for dedication and commitment to their local communities. And our record on freezing council tax, protecting local libraries and giving pay rises for the lowest paid council workers shows the difference we make when we run local councils. | |
| Labour may choose to lie in what they tell people about our record in government, but I remain very proud of what we have achieved: raising the income tax threshold and cutting taxes for 23 million ordinary working people, implementing the Pupil Premium, creating record numbers of apprenticeships and delivering the 'triple lock' guarantee for pensions. | |
| 11.56am: Public Affairs News says that Tony Blair has hired a new communications adviser (Rachel Grant, from the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) and that he wants to "re-engage" with the UK. But he does not want to get involved in domestic politics. The magazine quotes a source close to Blair. | |
| "He wants to re-engage in the UK ," said the source. "He has things to say and he thinks it's the right time. | |
| "The question is how he re-enters the UK scene without re-entering domestic politics and interfering with the Labour Party. He wants to intervene where he can add value to political debate, but it will be above party politics." | |
| I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome. | |
| 11.09am: You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here. | 11.09am: You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here. |
| As for the rest of the papers, here are some articles and stories that are particularly interesting. • Daniel Finkelstein in the Times (paywall) says two important facts explain the government's problems. | As for the rest of the papers, here are some articles and stories that are particularly interesting. • Daniel Finkelstein in the Times (paywall) says two important facts explain the government's problems. |
| Two big, fat overwhelming things are true about this Government: two things that describe it and limit it; two things that have vastly more explanatory power than anything else I have seen advanced as an explanation of its current political problems. | Two big, fat overwhelming things are true about this Government: two things that describe it and limit it; two things that have vastly more explanatory power than anything else I have seen advanced as an explanation of its current political problems. |
| First, the Prime Minister's party does not have a parliamentary majority. To govern he needs to make a fresh deal every day with a political force very different from his own. And second, the Government has no money, the economy isn't growing and the public are paying off debts and seeing their standard of living deteriorate. | First, the Prime Minister's party does not have a parliamentary majority. To govern he needs to make a fresh deal every day with a political force very different from his own. And second, the Government has no money, the economy isn't growing and the public are paying off debts and seeing their standard of living deteriorate. |
| • Dan Hodges in the Daily Telegraph recalls what it was like working for Ken Livingstone as a press officer at Transport for London. | • Dan Hodges in the Daily Telegraph recalls what it was like working for Ken Livingstone as a press officer at Transport for London. |
| This desire for control bordered on the pathological. No statement was too trivial to be checked at least two or three times. No fact was too minor to be challenged – and changed – if it didn't portray Ken in the best light. Some incidents were amusing. When the Tour de France came to London, Ken's team were desperate to show that the investment, and disruption, had been worthwhile. "How many can we say watched it?" I was asked. "About 750,000." "Can't we get it up to a million?" "Not sure. The police do the crowd figures." We checked with Scotland Yard. "Well, it's usually only the Queen who gets a million," our contact said. "But just this once…" | This desire for control bordered on the pathological. No statement was too trivial to be checked at least two or three times. No fact was too minor to be challenged – and changed – if it didn't portray Ken in the best light. Some incidents were amusing. When the Tour de France came to London, Ken's team were desperate to show that the investment, and disruption, had been worthwhile. "How many can we say watched it?" I was asked. "About 750,000." "Can't we get it up to a million?" "Not sure. The police do the crowd figures." We checked with Scotland Yard. "Well, it's usually only the Queen who gets a million," our contact said. "But just this once…" |
| Other attempts at manipulation were more serious. Ken's decision to introduce free travel for the under-16s had resulted in a big spike in crime on the bus network, most of it fairly trivial. Still, the figures were quite clear, and people kept submitting Freedom of Information requests to get them. The mayor's office was constantly pushing us to find a way to refute the allegation that crime was up, even though it plainly was. | Other attempts at manipulation were more serious. Ken's decision to introduce free travel for the under-16s had resulted in a big spike in crime on the bus network, most of it fairly trivial. Still, the figures were quite clear, and people kept submitting Freedom of Information requests to get them. The mayor's office was constantly pushing us to find a way to refute the allegation that crime was up, even though it plainly was. |
| • Ed Miliband tells the Independent in an interview that Boris Johnson is a typical Tory. | • Ed Miliband tells the Independent in an interview that Boris Johnson is a typical Tory. |
| Boris Johnson's strategy for these mayoral elections is based on pretending he is not a Tory. He tries not to be seen in public with David Cameron and most of his election literature makes no reference to him being the Conservative candidate. But Boris Johnson has proven to be a typical Tory as mayor, raising fares, cutting services and standing up only for the powerful or wealthy in London. | Boris Johnson's strategy for these mayoral elections is based on pretending he is not a Tory. He tries not to be seen in public with David Cameron and most of his election literature makes no reference to him being the Conservative candidate. But Boris Johnson has proven to be a typical Tory as mayor, raising fares, cutting services and standing up only for the powerful or wealthy in London. |
| • Boris Johnson tells the Sun in an interview that he would not have presented the budget that George Osborne did. | |
Huge numbers of people in London depend on their cars. Fuel duty is becoming a big factor in people's cost of living. I believe in trying to ease these burdens ... | Huge numbers of people in London depend on their cars. Fuel duty is becoming a big factor in people's cost of living. I believe in trying to ease these burdens ... |
| It wasn't my Budget. I haven't seen all the Treasury figures, but it's highly unlikely I would have presented that Budget. | |
| • Christopher Williams in the Daily Telegraph says analyses of online searches and social networking suggest Boris Johnson will win the London mayoral contest. | • Christopher Williams in the Daily Telegraph says analyses of online searches and social networking suggest Boris Johnson will win the London mayoral contest. |
| Google Insights, a service that helps digital advertisers track web trends, shows that last week there were almost five times more searches for "Boris Johnson" than for "Ken Livingstone" via google.co.uk. Britons looked up the Conservative candidate online 11,629 times, compared to 2,337 searches for Mr Livingstone ... | Google Insights, a service that helps digital advertisers track web trends, shows that last week there were almost five times more searches for "Boris Johnson" than for "Ken Livingstone" via google.co.uk. Britons looked up the Conservative candidate online 11,629 times, compared to 2,337 searches for Mr Livingstone ... |
| The Tory lead in Google searches is repeated on social networks, according to analyses by iProspect and Lithium, another digital market firm, which both analysed posts on Facebook and Twitter, as well as forums and other web material. | The Tory lead in Google searches is repeated on social networks, according to analyses by iProspect and Lithium, another digital market firm, which both analysed posts on Facebook and Twitter, as well as forums and other web material. |
| Prospect said its "sentiment analysis" found 7 per cent more positive sentiment towards Mr Johnson than Mr Livingstone in the past month. | Prospect said its "sentiment analysis" found 7 per cent more positive sentiment towards Mr Johnson than Mr Livingstone in the past month. |
| The analysis aimed to capture how often each candidate was discussed, how often individuals mentioned them, as a measure of "passion", and the ratio of positive and negative language used. | The analysis aimed to capture how often each candidate was discussed, how often individuals mentioned them, as a measure of "passion", and the ratio of positive and negative language used. |
| Lithium said its social network sentiment analysis tools predicted 54 per cent of the vote for Mr Johnson, on a head-to-head basis with Mr Livingstone. | Lithium said its social network sentiment analysis tools predicted 54 per cent of the vote for Mr Johnson, on a head-to-head basis with Mr Livingstone. |
| • Rowena Mason in the Daily Telegraph says MPs will be offered free iPads. | • Rowena Mason in the Daily Telegraph says MPs will be offered free iPads. |
| The House of Commons has decided that all 650 MPs are eligible for brand new devices which sell for at least £400 each. | The House of Commons has decided that all 650 MPs are eligible for brand new devices which sell for at least £400 each. |
| The cost will be offset by around £50,000 as MPs will be required to hand back an old laptop or computer in return for an iPad. | The cost will be offset by around £50,000 as MPs will be required to hand back an old laptop or computer in return for an iPad. |
| However, the total bill for the new mobile tablets is still likely to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, especially after monthly costs of downloading data are included. | However, the total bill for the new mobile tablets is still likely to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, especially after monthly costs of downloading data are included. |
| A House of Commons advisory committee this year claimed MPs could save money by using mobile tablet-style computers to keep up to date with their parliamentary business. | A House of Commons advisory committee this year claimed MPs could save money by using mobile tablet-style computers to keep up to date with their parliamentary business. |
| Its recommendation was this week accepted by the House of Commons Commission, chaired by John Bercow, the Speaker. | Its recommendation was this week accepted by the House of Commons Commission, chaired by John Bercow, the Speaker. |
| 10.25am: Ministers are holding what has been dubbed a "whiplash summit" today. They want to cut the number of whiplash claims being submitted after driving accidents, following claims that this has become a £2bn racket which is driving up insurance premiums. | 10.25am: Ministers are holding what has been dubbed a "whiplash summit" today. They want to cut the number of whiplash claims being submitted after driving accidents, following claims that this has become a £2bn racket which is driving up insurance premiums. |
| Here's an extract from the story that the Press Assocation filed on this overnight. | Here's an extract from the story that the Press Assocation filed on this overnight. |
| Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said the government's plans will aim to tackle questionable medical evidence and make it "quicker, cheaper and easier for valid injury claims to be dealt with through the small claims court". Proposals, to be outlined in a consultation document this summer, will include consulting on the feasibility of introducing independent medical panels. The independent medical experts, who would have no direct links to either claimants or defendants, would replace the current assessment of whiplash injuries by either GPs or doctors employed by medical reporting organisations. Doctors can currently receive a fee of up to £195 to process these claims and some have a regular client base of solicitors. Other proposals include raising the limit for personal injury cases in the small claims court from £1,000 to £5,000. The government will also "strongly encourage insurers to pass on the savings back to their customers", Clarke said. He added: "It is scandalous that we have a system where it is cheaper for insurers to settle a spurious whiplash claim out of court than defend it, creating rocketing insurance premiums for honest drivers. "Our reforms will put a stop to this." But Karl Tonks, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil), said: "Whiplash injuries are real, they can be long term, and must not be trivialised. "Before it announces a raft of propositions which risk barring genuinely injured people from bringing legitimate claims, the government must have a wider debate about the real issues, and it must also hold the insurance industry to account. "I'm really concerned that in all the latest populist rhetoric about whiplash claims, everyone is being tarred with the same brush." | Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said the government's plans will aim to tackle questionable medical evidence and make it "quicker, cheaper and easier for valid injury claims to be dealt with through the small claims court". Proposals, to be outlined in a consultation document this summer, will include consulting on the feasibility of introducing independent medical panels. The independent medical experts, who would have no direct links to either claimants or defendants, would replace the current assessment of whiplash injuries by either GPs or doctors employed by medical reporting organisations. Doctors can currently receive a fee of up to £195 to process these claims and some have a regular client base of solicitors. Other proposals include raising the limit for personal injury cases in the small claims court from £1,000 to £5,000. The government will also "strongly encourage insurers to pass on the savings back to their customers", Clarke said. He added: "It is scandalous that we have a system where it is cheaper for insurers to settle a spurious whiplash claim out of court than defend it, creating rocketing insurance premiums for honest drivers. "Our reforms will put a stop to this." But Karl Tonks, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil), said: "Whiplash injuries are real, they can be long term, and must not be trivialised. "Before it announces a raft of propositions which risk barring genuinely injured people from bringing legitimate claims, the government must have a wider debate about the real issues, and it must also hold the insurance industry to account. "I'm really concerned that in all the latest populist rhetoric about whiplash claims, everyone is being tarred with the same brush." |
| 10.11am: William Hague was on Radio 5 Live this morning. He made it pretty clear that he disagreed with the Commons culture committee finding about Rupert Murdoch not being a fit person to run a major international company. I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome. | 10.11am: William Hague was on Radio 5 Live this morning. He made it pretty clear that he disagreed with the Commons culture committee finding about Rupert Murdoch not being a fit person to run a major international company. I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome. |
| I don't know [Rupert Murdoch] that well actually. What I would say about him - and actually all newspaper proprietors who have this difficult relationship with politicians - I don't think I've ever liked or disliked these proprietors they are just people you have to deal with. I'm not a very judgemental person. They are great business people, let us be clear about that. Of course people who run big businesses around the world are very capable people and they all have their charming ways, and they all have their downsides as well. | I don't know [Rupert Murdoch] that well actually. What I would say about him - and actually all newspaper proprietors who have this difficult relationship with politicians - I don't think I've ever liked or disliked these proprietors they are just people you have to deal with. I'm not a very judgemental person. They are great business people, let us be clear about that. Of course people who run big businesses around the world are very capable people and they all have their charming ways, and they all have their downsides as well. |
| 9.39am: Members of the Commons culture committee are still arguing about the phone hacking report they published yesterday. Louise Mensch, a Conservative, said the committee did not spend any time discussing the claim that Rupert Murdoch was not a fit person to run a major company. But Paul Farrelly, a Labour member of the committee, told the Today programme this morning that the issue was dicussed. We've got a story about it here. | 9.39am: Members of the Commons culture committee are still arguing about the phone hacking report they published yesterday. Louise Mensch, a Conservative, said the committee did not spend any time discussing the claim that Rupert Murdoch was not a fit person to run a major company. But Paul Farrelly, a Labour member of the committee, told the Today programme this morning that the issue was dicussed. We've got a story about it here. |
| After Farrelly spoke to Today, Mensch took to Twitter to say she was not backing down. | After Farrelly spoke to Today, Mensch took to Twitter to say she was not backing down. |
| Radio 4 today asked me for a quote but said they would not have me on; a great pity as we did not discuss "fit and proper". | Radio 4 today asked me for a quote but said they would not have me on; a great pity as we did not discuss "fit and proper". |
| — Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 2, 2012 | — Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 2, 2012 |
| 9.14am: Leveson will not cover exactly what went wrong at News International in detail in the first part of his inquiry because he does not want to prejudice any criminal proceedings. In his 25-page "Application of Rule 13" ruling (see 9.00am), which I'm afraid I've only skimmed, he also seems to be playing down the prospects of the report he will publish after part 1 of his inquiry is over containing extensive criticism of individuals. | 9.14am: Leveson will not cover exactly what went wrong at News International in detail in the first part of his inquiry because he does not want to prejudice any criminal proceedings. In his 25-page "Application of Rule 13" ruling (see 9.00am), which I'm afraid I've only skimmed, he also seems to be playing down the prospects of the report he will publish after part 1 of his inquiry is over containing extensive criticism of individuals. |
| He says he is more interested in finding out what was wrong with the culture of the press in general. | He says he is more interested in finding out what was wrong with the culture of the press in general. |
| In this Part of the Inquiry, I am not addressing the detail for its own sake but, rather, the culture, practices and ethics of the press in general. The purpose (as defined by the Terms of Reference) is specifically to be able to make recommendations about an effective regulatory regime which itself requires me to look primarily at whether the present regulatory regime has either succeeded or failed: that is the reason why a narrative of facts is essential ...The identity of those who are responsible for any breach of standards is incidental to this exercise and does not take forward the necessary analysis. | In this Part of the Inquiry, I am not addressing the detail for its own sake but, rather, the culture, practices and ethics of the press in general. The purpose (as defined by the Terms of Reference) is specifically to be able to make recommendations about an effective regulatory regime which itself requires me to look primarily at whether the present regulatory regime has either succeeded or failed: that is the reason why a narrative of facts is essential ...The identity of those who are responsible for any breach of standards is incidental to this exercise and does not take forward the necessary analysis. |
| He also says that, because he will not be able to criticise individuals facing possible criminal prosecution, it would be unfair to criticise others who may have been responsible for "less reprehensible conduct". | He also says that, because he will not be able to criticise individuals facing possible criminal prosecution, it would be unfair to criticise others who may have been responsible for "less reprehensible conduct". |
| The limits that I place on criticising individuals revolve around the fact that those caught up in Operation Weeting or Operation Elveden have not been asked about those issues and cannot be criticised in relation to that which is there under investigation so that, in connection with that type of activity, it does not seem fair specifically to criticise others for less reprehensible conduct although that will not prevent me from identifying the evidence upon which I reach conclusions as to culture, practices or ethics and I recognise that this will not prevent anyone from searching the transcripts to identify names or titles used to exemplify the concerns that I express. | The limits that I place on criticising individuals revolve around the fact that those caught up in Operation Weeting or Operation Elveden have not been asked about those issues and cannot be criticised in relation to that which is there under investigation so that, in connection with that type of activity, it does not seem fair specifically to criticise others for less reprehensible conduct although that will not prevent me from identifying the evidence upon which I reach conclusions as to culture, practices or ethics and I recognise that this will not prevent anyone from searching the transcripts to identify names or titles used to exemplify the concerns that I express. |
| Leveson stresses that this does not mean that he will not be criticising anyone at all. He will have something to say about phone hacking, he says. | Leveson stresses that this does not mean that he will not be criticising anyone at all. He will have something to say about phone hacking, he says. |
As I have already explained, I have no intention of making detailed findings of fact of the 'who did what' variety on any isolated basis, although some examples fully rehearsed in the evidence may exemplify rather wider conclusions about what I perceive to be the generally understood practices in, at least, some areas of the press. As a number of journalists have been prepared to speak specifically about interception of mobile telephone messages, it should not be a surprise if I reach conclusions about that. | As I have already explained, I have no intention of making detailed findings of fact of the 'who did what' variety on any isolated basis, although some examples fully rehearsed in the evidence may exemplify rather wider conclusions about what I perceive to be the generally understood practices in, at least, some areas of the press. As a number of journalists have been prepared to speak specifically about interception of mobile telephone messages, it should not be a surprise if I reach conclusions about that. |
| But generally he seems to be saying that he will not be publishing a wide-ranging, "name-and-shame" indictment. I can think of a few journos who might be quite relieved. | But generally he seems to be saying that he will not be publishing a wide-ranging, "name-and-shame" indictment. I can think of a few journos who might be quite relieved. |
| 9.00am: Bad news for everyone who's been enjoying the Leveson inquiry. It could be over a lot sooner than we thought. Yesterday Lord Justice Leveson published a 25-page ruling with the snappy title: Ruling on the Application of Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 (pdf). Under the public inquiry rules, people who are going to be significantly criticised in an inquiry report have a right to be warned in advance and the ruling explains how Leveson will apply this rule. It's written in dense legalese - one section is headed "What constitutes a 'person'" - but the final paragraph contains some hot news. David Cameron ordered Leveson to conduct his inquiry in two parts: the first part, which is supposed to conclude by the end of this year, will make recommendations for the reform of media regulation; and second part, which will conclude after any criminal prosecutions are over, is supposed to explain exactly what went wrong at News International. But Leveson now seems to think that part two will be superfluous. | 9.00am: Bad news for everyone who's been enjoying the Leveson inquiry. It could be over a lot sooner than we thought. Yesterday Lord Justice Leveson published a 25-page ruling with the snappy title: Ruling on the Application of Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 (pdf). Under the public inquiry rules, people who are going to be significantly criticised in an inquiry report have a right to be warned in advance and the ruling explains how Leveson will apply this rule. It's written in dense legalese - one section is headed "What constitutes a 'person'" - but the final paragraph contains some hot news. David Cameron ordered Leveson to conduct his inquiry in two parts: the first part, which is supposed to conclude by the end of this year, will make recommendations for the reform of media regulation; and second part, which will conclude after any criminal prosecutions are over, is supposed to explain exactly what went wrong at News International. But Leveson now seems to think that part two will be superfluous. |
| Before leaving the Ruling, I add one further comment which I emphasise has played no part in my thinking or my analysis of the appropriate approach but which is, to my mind, a point worth making although I do so with some diffidence. The public concern which led to the setting up of this Inquiry is beyond argument or debate. I do not know whether there will be prosecutions but, having regard to the number of arrests and the quantity of material seized (including the 300m emails which it is said have had to be analysed), if there are, it is likely that the process of pre-trial disclosure and trial will be lengthy so that Part 2 of this Inquiry will be delayed for very many months if not longer. In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is in everyone's interests that Part 1 goes as far as it possibly can. If the transparent way in which the Inquiry has been conducted, the Report and the response by government and the press (along with a new acceptable regulatory regime) addresses the public concern, at the conclusion of any trial or trials, consideration can be given by everyone to the value to be gained from a further inquiry into Part 2. That inquiry will involve yet more enormous cost (both to the public purse and the participants); it will trawl over material then more years out of date and is likely to take longer than the present Inquiry which has not over focussed on individual conduct. Obviously, the more restrictive in its analysis that Part 1 has been, the greater will be the legitimate public demand for Part 2. I repeat that this possibility has not affected my approach to what I perceive to be appropriate in law and, when necessary, in the exercise of my discretion but it is undeniably a sensible strategic consideration for those who have participated in this Inquiry. | Before leaving the Ruling, I add one further comment which I emphasise has played no part in my thinking or my analysis of the appropriate approach but which is, to my mind, a point worth making although I do so with some diffidence. The public concern which led to the setting up of this Inquiry is beyond argument or debate. I do not know whether there will be prosecutions but, having regard to the number of arrests and the quantity of material seized (including the 300m emails which it is said have had to be analysed), if there are, it is likely that the process of pre-trial disclosure and trial will be lengthy so that Part 2 of this Inquiry will be delayed for very many months if not longer. In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is in everyone's interests that Part 1 goes as far as it possibly can. If the transparent way in which the Inquiry has been conducted, the Report and the response by government and the press (along with a new acceptable regulatory regime) addresses the public concern, at the conclusion of any trial or trials, consideration can be given by everyone to the value to be gained from a further inquiry into Part 2. That inquiry will involve yet more enormous cost (both to the public purse and the participants); it will trawl over material then more years out of date and is likely to take longer than the present Inquiry which has not over focussed on individual conduct. Obviously, the more restrictive in its analysis that Part 1 has been, the greater will be the legitimate public demand for Part 2. I repeat that this possibility has not affected my approach to what I perceive to be appropriate in law and, when necessary, in the exercise of my discretion but it is undeniably a sensible strategic consideration for those who have participated in this Inquiry. |
| He seems to be saying: After part one is over, do I really have to keep going? | He seems to be saying: After part one is over, do I really have to keep going? |
| I'm highlighting this at length because, with parliament prorogued and the government in purdah because of the local elections tomorrow, there's not much else going on. Bu, as usual, I'll be covering any breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another in the afternoon. | I'm highlighting this at length because, with parliament prorogued and the government in purdah because of the local elections tomorrow, there's not much else going on. Bu, as usual, I'll be covering any breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another in the afternoon. |
| In response to a question from JamesCracknell, I'm also going to put up a post about what makes a "win" at PMQs. | In response to a question from JamesCracknell, I'm also going to put up a post about what makes a "win" at PMQs. |
| If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow. | If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow. |
| And if you're a hardcore fan, you can follow @gdnpoliticslive. It's an automated feed that tweets the start of every new post that I put on the blog. | And if you're a hardcore fan, you can follow @gdnpoliticslive. It's an automated feed that tweets the start of every new post that I put on the blog. |