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/media/2013/mar/16/ed-miliband-press-regulation-commons-vote

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ed Miliband: 'We are at a crossroads. Will we be scared, or will we stand up?' Ed Miliband: 'We are at a crossroads. Will we be scared, or will we stand up?'
(7 months later)
Twenty months ago, Ed Miliband thought long and hard about how to publicly respond to the news that the mobile phone belonging to Milly Dowler, the 13-year-old murdered on her way home from school, had been hacked by the News of the World.Twenty months ago, Ed Miliband thought long and hard about how to publicly respond to the news that the mobile phone belonging to Milly Dowler, the 13-year-old murdered on her way home from school, had been hacked by the News of the World.
"Were we going to follow the pattern of the past of being scared of the press, or were we going to stand up and do the right thing?" says Miliband, sitting in his Westminster office where he pondered that potentially explosive problem in the summer of 2011."Were we going to follow the pattern of the past of being scared of the press, or were we going to stand up and do the right thing?" says Miliband, sitting in his Westminster office where he pondered that potentially explosive problem in the summer of 2011.
That day, the Labour leader decided to speak out and call for the resignation of News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks, dismissing fears – which he admits he harboured – of the "political cost" of upsetting the Murdoch empire. "Of course one was worried about the consequences," he concedes. "But I think the thing I have learned most in this job is you have to do the right thing, follow your instincts about what is right."That day, the Labour leader decided to speak out and call for the resignation of News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks, dismissing fears – which he admits he harboured – of the "political cost" of upsetting the Murdoch empire. "Of course one was worried about the consequences," he concedes. "But I think the thing I have learned most in this job is you have to do the right thing, follow your instincts about what is right."
Today, on the eve of the crucial Commons debate and vote to establish the future of press regulation in the UK, he believes politicians of all political creeds need to confront their own fears. "Now we are at this moment which is a sort of crossroads: do we change or is it more of the same?" he says. "Is it the thing that failed us in the past. I think we need to choose the right course, and I think it is a test of politics."Today, on the eve of the crucial Commons debate and vote to establish the future of press regulation in the UK, he believes politicians of all political creeds need to confront their own fears. "Now we are at this moment which is a sort of crossroads: do we change or is it more of the same?" he says. "Is it the thing that failed us in the past. I think we need to choose the right course, and I think it is a test of politics."
It has been an extraordinary couple of years for Britain's political classes and newspapers. Just 10 days after Miliband's summer "intervention" – the terminology of choice for his officials – Brooks resigned and, within 24 hours, was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications and on suspicion of making corrupt payments to public officials.It has been an extraordinary couple of years for Britain's political classes and newspapers. Just 10 days after Miliband's summer "intervention" – the terminology of choice for his officials – Brooks resigned and, within 24 hours, was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications and on suspicion of making corrupt payments to public officials.
The first lady of Murdoch's UK empire, a networker of astonishing talent, able to build close personal friendships with prime ministers of any political persuasion, has since been charged over phone hacking, alleged payments to public officials and perverting the course of justice. She awaits a September trial.The first lady of Murdoch's UK empire, a networker of astonishing talent, able to build close personal friendships with prime ministers of any political persuasion, has since been charged over phone hacking, alleged payments to public officials and perverting the course of justice. She awaits a September trial.
Her former company, which owns the Sun, the Times and Sunday Times, has been sued by more than 250 people and is, according to the latest reports, facing 600 fresh allegations of hacking.Her former company, which owns the Sun, the Times and Sunday Times, has been sued by more than 250 people and is, according to the latest reports, facing 600 fresh allegations of hacking.
An inquiry led by Lord Justice Leveson, meanwhile, held a spectacularly harsh light to the "ethics and practices" of the press and the politicians last summer and, in a gargantuan 1,987-page report in November, recommended a broad and complex system in which newspapers remained self-regulated but with a new body replacing the fatally criticised Press Complaints Commission and being recognised in law. In addition, Ofcom, the broadcasters' regulator, would act as a backstop, maintaining a keen eye on how things operated. Fleet Street was predictably forthright. The Daily Mail described the proposals as an attempt at state control, and discovered a "quasi-masonic nexus of the 'people who know best''' behind the proposal. The Daily Telegraph, among a flurry of condemnatory articles, gleefully reported an MP's belief that the "press laws" mooted "would be more at home in China".An inquiry led by Lord Justice Leveson, meanwhile, held a spectacularly harsh light to the "ethics and practices" of the press and the politicians last summer and, in a gargantuan 1,987-page report in November, recommended a broad and complex system in which newspapers remained self-regulated but with a new body replacing the fatally criticised Press Complaints Commission and being recognised in law. In addition, Ofcom, the broadcasters' regulator, would act as a backstop, maintaining a keen eye on how things operated. Fleet Street was predictably forthright. The Daily Mail described the proposals as an attempt at state control, and discovered a "quasi-masonic nexus of the 'people who know best''' behind the proposal. The Daily Telegraph, among a flurry of condemnatory articles, gleefully reported an MP's belief that the "press laws" mooted "would be more at home in China".
It hasn't been entirely plain sailing for Miliband either. Shortly after his call for Brooks's resignation, a senior News International executive had a none-too-subtle message for Labour officials: "You've made it personal for Rebekah, now we're going to make it personal for you." It would be fair to say that Labour is unlikely to win the Sun's support for the 2015 general election, although Miliband says such things don't come into his calculations – perhaps unlike those of his predecessors.It hasn't been entirely plain sailing for Miliband either. Shortly after his call for Brooks's resignation, a senior News International executive had a none-too-subtle message for Labour officials: "You've made it personal for Rebekah, now we're going to make it personal for you." It would be fair to say that Labour is unlikely to win the Sun's support for the 2015 general election, although Miliband says such things don't come into his calculations – perhaps unlike those of his predecessors.
Nevertheless, among the Leveson hyperbole, there has been much for Miliband, post-report, to ponder about how to satisfy the high emotions of victims of the most egregious wrongs committed by some newspapers and the principle of freedom of the press so strongly, if sometimes hysterically, championed in the newspaper pages.Nevertheless, among the Leveson hyperbole, there has been much for Miliband, post-report, to ponder about how to satisfy the high emotions of victims of the most egregious wrongs committed by some newspapers and the principle of freedom of the press so strongly, if sometimes hysterically, championed in the newspaper pages.
From the start, David Cameron came out strongly against legislating in any way to establish the new regulatory regime, no matter how "light touch", regarding such a move as a dangerous step towards giving parliament an element of control over the press. He was not, he said, willing to pass that Rubicon.From the start, David Cameron came out strongly against legislating in any way to establish the new regulatory regime, no matter how "light touch", regarding such a move as a dangerous step towards giving parliament an element of control over the press. He was not, he said, willing to pass that Rubicon.
In the other corner, Miliband and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg were not convinced that fears of a measure of statute establishing the regulatory framework were overblown. Months of cross-party talks ensued. Then, last week, spectacularly and unexpectedly, they ended.In the other corner, Miliband and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg were not convinced that fears of a measure of statute establishing the regulatory framework were overblown. Months of cross-party talks ensued. Then, last week, spectacularly and unexpectedly, they ended.
"I was surprised on Thursday," Miliband says. "I was preparing for a speech for the British Chambers of Commerce and we were told that the prime minister had a proposition for us – that was the advance warning." He laughs. "The proposition was 'It is all off and I am walking away'.""I was surprised on Thursday," Miliband says. "I was preparing for a speech for the British Chambers of Commerce and we were told that the prime minister had a proposition for us – that was the advance warning." He laughs. "The proposition was 'It is all off and I am walking away'."
In a hastily convened press conference Cameron told reporters that there was just too much distance between the parties. He wanted a swift conclusion to the issue and said he was proposing a royal charter to recognise and creating the world's "toughest" regulatory system, which would allow the imposition of exemplary damages on newspapers which refuse to sign up.In a hastily convened press conference Cameron told reporters that there was just too much distance between the parties. He wanted a swift conclusion to the issue and said he was proposing a royal charter to recognise and creating the world's "toughest" regulatory system, which would allow the imposition of exemplary damages on newspapers which refuse to sign up.
Crucially, though, it would not involve any recognition in law. Cameron wanted a debate in parliament on it and challenged those who opposed the scheme to put up a rival solution for the Commons to vote on Monday.Crucially, though, it would not involve any recognition in law. Cameron wanted a debate in parliament on it and challenged those who opposed the scheme to put up a rival solution for the Commons to vote on Monday.
Clegg and Miliband expressed their astonishment and disappointment at Cameron's disappearing act and have since presented their own royal charter with three clear differences to the Downing Street version: there should be a clause in legislation ensuring that future governments cannot change or abolish the terms of the royal charter; the new regulator would be able to direct the scale and prominence of apologies when mistakes were made; and the press should not have a veto over members of the regulators' board.Clegg and Miliband expressed their astonishment and disappointment at Cameron's disappearing act and have since presented their own royal charter with three clear differences to the Downing Street version: there should be a clause in legislation ensuring that future governments cannot change or abolish the terms of the royal charter; the new regulator would be able to direct the scale and prominence of apologies when mistakes were made; and the press should not have a veto over members of the regulators' board.
Differences, certainly, but not huge ones, Westminster insiders note. Critics contend that by putting anything in law, a precedent would have been set, the argument against parliament meddling in the industry would have been lost, and further amendments and bills would duly follow in time.Differences, certainly, but not huge ones, Westminster insiders note. Critics contend that by putting anything in law, a precedent would have been set, the argument against parliament meddling in the industry would have been lost, and further amendments and bills would duly follow in time.
So why did Cameron, agreeing as he does with much of that argument, move to a vote he might lose? One theory is that he saw the direction of travel of the talks, and did not want to receive the flak from the press for agreeing to the terms of the regulatory regime, including the legislative lock on the charter. So he made it possible for Miliband to achieve the result he wanted in the Commons, but at the expense of taking all the inevitable flak from the media from here until the election.So why did Cameron, agreeing as he does with much of that argument, move to a vote he might lose? One theory is that he saw the direction of travel of the talks, and did not want to receive the flak from the press for agreeing to the terms of the regulatory regime, including the legislative lock on the charter. So he made it possible for Miliband to achieve the result he wanted in the Commons, but at the expense of taking all the inevitable flak from the media from here until the election.
Miliband says he has no idea what was in Cameron's mind, but rolls his eyes at the idea that it could all be tactics. "It is sort of unbelievable isn't it?" he says. "I thought we were getting to the final stages of the negotiations.Miliband says he has no idea what was in Cameron's mind, but rolls his eyes at the idea that it could all be tactics. "It is sort of unbelievable isn't it?" he says. "I thought we were getting to the final stages of the negotiations.
"Clearly Cameron didn't just wake up that morning with this. Personally, I think it looks weak not strong. The weak thing is to say that I am going to take the side of the powerful interests, against the victims' interests, and I am going to let Ed Miliband do the right thing and I can say I couldn't do anything about. I just don't think that is very smart.""Clearly Cameron didn't just wake up that morning with this. Personally, I think it looks weak not strong. The weak thing is to say that I am going to take the side of the powerful interests, against the victims' interests, and I am going to let Ed Miliband do the right thing and I can say I couldn't do anything about. I just don't think that is very smart."
In the confusion and rumours of the last 48 hours an alternative version of events also emerged which suggests that the pressure group Hacked Off caught wind that a royal charter, without legislative backing, was being agreed and threatened Labour and the Lib Dems with a strongly worded press release condemning them. Labour were pushed into demanding the undeliverable and, domino-like, forced Cameron to close the talks down. That story in Saturday's papers has been described as "shabby" and "nonsense" by Labour officials.In the confusion and rumours of the last 48 hours an alternative version of events also emerged which suggests that the pressure group Hacked Off caught wind that a royal charter, without legislative backing, was being agreed and threatened Labour and the Lib Dems with a strongly worded press release condemning them. Labour were pushed into demanding the undeliverable and, domino-like, forced Cameron to close the talks down. That story in Saturday's papers has been described as "shabby" and "nonsense" by Labour officials.
Miliband is adamant that he did not respond to Hacked Off and force Cameron's hand. Far from it, he says. It was the prime minister who appeared to have done a volte face. "I thought on Monday or Tuesday that Cameron was going to agree to this [legislative] entrenchment. All our private indications were that this was quite possible. It is extremely mysterious to me that his proposal for a royal charter doesn't include something he seemed very, very open to."Miliband is adamant that he did not respond to Hacked Off and force Cameron's hand. Far from it, he says. It was the prime minister who appeared to have done a volte face. "I thought on Monday or Tuesday that Cameron was going to agree to this [legislative] entrenchment. All our private indications were that this was quite possible. It is extremely mysterious to me that his proposal for a royal charter doesn't include something he seemed very, very open to."
Mysterious though the process may have been, on Monday Miliband says it is highly likely that, after nearly two years of confusion, clarity will emerge on the future for press regulation.Mysterious though the process may have been, on Monday Miliband says it is highly likely that, after nearly two years of confusion, clarity will emerge on the future for press regulation.
The Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders hope, perhaps even expect, parliament to disregard any fears of retribution and support them to ensure that the media treatment meted out to Milly Dowler and her family will never be allowed to happen again.The Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders hope, perhaps even expect, parliament to disregard any fears of retribution and support them to ensure that the media treatment meted out to Milly Dowler and her family will never be allowed to happen again.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.