Cameron, News International and Moral Authority

One of the more extraordinary claims I've heard since it was alleged that the News of the World have been hacking the phones of a missing schoolgirl and dead soldiers is that the ongoing scandal in some way robs Cameron of his moral authority. But seriously, folks, what moral authority? Cameron has always had all the moral authority of a slimline soft drink - he's not as bad for you as some of his rivals, but still not good in his own right. He was, and remains, an exercise in political triangulation - the last roll of the dice over half a decade ago by an increasingly desperate Tory party shell-shocked by three successive election defeats.

But if this scandal does destroy Cameron's moral authority, it does equal damage to the already tarnished reputations of his two immediate predecessors in Number 10. Blair and Brown courted Murdoch like the most desperate teenage boy at a teenage disco; they are key to propagating the myth that the backing of Murdoch means the difference between a win and a loss in a General Election. That hasn't, of course, stopped the perennially vengeful Brown sticking the boot in to the Murdoch empire as it continues to struggle. But that's the nature of the Brown and, since he has thankfully been relegated to where he belongs to the dustbin of history, rather tangential to the point. It is difficult to see any of the recent incumbents of No. 10 having any moral authority. And please don't tell me that Miliband Minor wouldn't have dropped his pants at the very first whiff of attention from the Murdoch empire prior to this scandal escalating.

The best way in which Cameron can be differentiated from the others who have sought or inhabited his current address is not down to moral authority but rather his judgement in employing Coulson. Both Brown and Blair employed repellent individuals to do their dirty work on the media for them, but both of those figures were only really discredited during their bosses' tenure at the top. Coulson was clearly damaged goods when Cameron hired him before Call Me Dave ever crossed the threshold at the No. 10. Why hire such a person? Why take the risk of it all blowing up in your face like it has done for young HugAHusky?

But those who believe that this is a resigning issue for Cameron are a mix of hopelessly optimistic and hopelessly naive. Cameron has been in office for just over a year and this is the first real shit that has any hope of sticking to him. This is the equivalent of the Ecclestone affair for one Anthony Blair. Cameron will take a (deserved) kicking for this but when the dust has settled I think it will make fuck all difference. Cameron will go on and this whole affair will probably end up no more than a couple of pages in his no doubt tedious and self-indulgent memoirs (which I very much look forward to not reading).

Cameron leaves this debacle with no moral authority - in other words, much the same way as he was when he went into it. He made a bad and naive judgement call when it came to Andy Coulson - something he definitely won't hang for. I mean, the last PM bankrupted the country so he could look like a jowly, greying version of Superman, and the PM before that dragged us into an unwinnable war just so he could posture next to George W Bush. And this is a classic example of the bar being set so low for Cameron that it is next to impossible for him to do something so comprehensively wrong that he has to resign for it. The sad reality is that this sort of thing is now par for the course for a modern PM, not something out of the ordinary. Even sadder, the man now in Number 10 never had moral authority to lose. This is modern Britain - and modern politics.

Jamie Oliver - The Smoking Gun?

Regular readers will know that I am not a fan of Jamie Oliver. In fact, I think that fat-tongued prick is an utter arsehole who shouldn't be allowed near a TV camera - let alone being given blanket coverage by the media when he chooses to say something.

Yet many disagree. Because, for a celebrity chef, Oliver seems to have a genuinely philanthropic streak. Not for Oliver the Gordon Ramsay approach to career management - traveling the world slagging off failing restaurant owners is not for the often tearful and misunderstood Oliver. No, he wants to change things and, unlike so many others in our society, actually does something about it other than flap his (fat) lips a bit.

So we come to the latest Oliver project - his Dream School. Aside from sounding a little bit like an unmade sequel to A Nightmare On Elm Street, the concept of a Dream School sounds like a lot like the chance for various celebrities to play at being teachers. Then again, the education system is in the need of urgent, radical reform. So why not let Jamie and his posse undertake it?

The answer is in this paragraph - see if you can spot what it is:

He assembled an impressive staff room: the drama teacher was Simon Callow, politics was taught by Alastair Campbell, art by Rolf Harris, history by David Starkey, maths by Alvin Hall and sport by Daley Thompson; other figures such as Cherie Blair, Tinchy Stryder, Andrew Motion and Rankin also pitched in with lessons. The teachers were advised by award-winning secondary headmaster John D'Abbro.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I cheated. I highlighted the relevant section. But I'm sorry - the concept of Alastair Campbell teaching politics is surely the death knell for any school. Alastair Campbell is what many would rightly call a terrible cunt: he is the Machiavellian administrator who allowed Tony Blair to achieve power, go into a damaging nonsensical war and then propped up Blair in power just as most people realised how ghastly Blair was/is. He's a crucial henchman to an abhorrent PM. He did so much to destroy political discourse in this country. In fact, I can't talk anymore about Campbell without resorting to very creative swearing, so I'll hand you over to Michael Howard:

And that man - Alastair Cunting Campbell - is the politics teacher at Jamie's Dream School. It's a bit like making Sarah Palin your teacher for evolution - a dumb fucking idea.

Of course, Oliver needs to find some celebrities in order to attract attention to his project. Choosing Mr Smith at Tooting Bec Comp wouldn't have quite the same impact as choosing the man who facilitated the British involvement in Iraq. But then again, there are other political figures - far less tainted political figures - who could have done just as well. Why not use one of those? Why not use someone less compromised than Campbell? After all, that covers off pretty much political figure barring Tony Blair.

Because that's too difficult. And that's the problem with Oliver - the Smoking Gun or final proof of his idiocy, if you will. He wants to do the right thing, but he is so naive and so unthinking that he will pretty much say anything and engage with anyone in order to achieve whatever philanthropic intentions he might have. To misquote a famous saying, the road to Alastair Campbell is paved with good intentions...

Iain Dale: Missing the Point

Iain Dale not so much missing the point as turning in the opposite direction as it whooshes past him:

Andy Coulson is bloody good at his job. That's why the likes of The Guardian, Alastair Campbell, Prescott and Johnson are doing their best to jump on the back of the New York Times story about an ex News of the World journalist who was sacked by the paper for persistent drug and alcohol problems. You don't think he might have a grudge, do you?

The fact that someone might be good at their job doesn't mean that they haven't done dubious things in their past. Besides Alastair Campbell was good at his job; that doesn't stop him from being a total cunt now, does it?

And because someone was sacked for drug and alcohol problems doesn't mean that they can't tell the truth. Indeed, whistle-blowers are often those who feel betrayed - rightly or wrongly - by the organisations they report on. Take John Dean for example - he was fired by Nixon, and grew to have a grudge against that administration. However, that doesn't mean his testimony was any less truthful because of that grudge.

They all want Coulson's scalp. Well, sod 'em.

Of course they want Coulson's scalp - just as Tories love to get the scalps of Labourites. This is basic politics. And it works both ways, as Dale full well knows.

The Police investigated this and found that Coulson had nothing to answer for. So did the DCMS Select Committee. Clearly that's not good enough for Campbell and Prescott - those very models of good media practice and personal conduct.

And here we have the rub; the police did investigate, but it appears that investigation was - at best - flawed. So citing a flawed investigation in order to absolve a man who had to resign over the conduct of one his employees just isn't that credible, really.

Anyway, this story isn't just about Coulson - it is about the Met's collusion with the News of the World in order to stop a police investigation into criminal activity. That's why citing the previous investigation is pointless nonsense - the story is about the flaws of that investigation.

Whatever people thought of Andy Coulson's appointment back in 2006, over the last four years he has proved himself in the job. He's bloody good at it.

Again, so? Blair was good at his job - does that mean we should absolve him of all of the things he did wrong? No, of course not. But then Blair's Labour, and Coulson's a Tory. So Coulson is allowed, in the tribalistic view of Iain Dale, to get away with things that a Labourite should be condemned for.

His accusers are political opportunists who were part of a government which did far worse things than anything Coulson is accused of.

Yeah, but even if you accept that Coulson's detractors have done bad things that are worse than what Coulson is accused of, it doesn't mean that these potential crimes shouldn't be properly investigated. By that logic, we shouldn't expect the police to investigate burglaries because there are murderers out there.

As far as I am concerned they can go to hell. Coulson is innocent until proven guilty.

Unfortunately, with Met apparently colluding with the News of the World, it is impossible for Coulson to prove himself innocent, just as those wanting to prove him guilty can't do so either. This is the problem - if there isn't a thorough investigation, then we will never know what happened.

Dale has lost himself, and his grip on logic, in the fact that some Labour types have been calling for the resignation of a Tory. That isn't the point, and it isn't the story. The issue is that the police may have colluded with a newspaper to hide the truth. It isn't a party political issue; it is an issue about the impartiality of the police force. It is a broad story with wide implications. Getting your panties in a twist about the involvement of Coulson is to miss the point.

Besides, does anyone doubt for a second that if this story was about the potentially criminal activity of a Labour party member then Dale would be demanding action, investigations and resignations?

Alastair Campbell: He's feeling a bit bullied, y'know...

A "tearful" (surely proof of some sort of karma) Alastair Campbell defending the "honourable" (pah!) Tony Blair:

"I've been through a lot on this Andrew. And I've been through a lot of that inquiry... and... Tony Blair, I think, is a totally honourable man."

Hmm. Those who deceive millions of people and then have to go through an inquiry tend to feel like they have been through a lot. Difficult to feel a lot of sympathy for them, though. It's a bit like being expected to pity Richard Nixon for being put through the mill over Watergate - next to impossible to actually achieve.

Oh, and using the word "totally honourable" in connection with Tony Blair without a "not" is basically saying "I am talking total shite."

But the shamelessness of the inspiration for Malcolm Tucker is startling:

Mr Campbell said the media was obsessed with "settling your scores and setting your own agenda".

"You did it again this morning, which is probably why I'm a bit upset, this constant sort of vilification.

"You compared the novel to the dossier, and it's all fiction and all the rest of it. It's not. And I just think the way that this whole issue has developed now where I don't think people are interested in the truth anymore, Andrew."

That's right, we've got Alastair Campbell - who helped to hound a man to his grave - complaining of vilification from others. At the same time as complaining that other people aren't interesting in the truth while discussing his part in constructing a dossier that lead this nation to war on an utterly false premise. I suppose the scope of his ambition could be admired - although I really can't think of any men less likely to achieve the aura of "put-upon truth-seeker" than the ever atrocious moral desert that is Alastair Campbell.

Leaving the Office the Malcolm Tucker Way

Much has been made (not least on this blog) about the close relationship between The Thick of It to what passes for politics in this country today. Which got me thinking about the ending to the most recent episode (spoilers ahead). Malcolm Tucker's behaviour after his forced resignation was breathtakingly bad, but completely in keeping with his character. He certainly didn't leave quietly. The shouting, the swearing, the threats of violence, the physical intimidation of others topped off by his ominous threat that they would see him again made it a particularly memorable departure from the corridors of power.

I've no idea whether the resignation of Alastair Campbell unfolded in such a dramatic way. However, I'm pretty sure that Downing Street will see a departure like the one depicted in The Thick of It before long. Think about it - the refusal to accept reality, the blind rage, the swearing, bullying and final threat to return: I reckon it is the perfect depiction of how Gordon Brown's departure will go...

Malcolm Tucker v. Damian McBride

Tomorrow - from broadsheets to wank rags - I want pages one, two and three to be a profile of Tom looking like a fucking political colossus, you know - Tom meeting the Pope, Tom in a NHS hospital chatting to little, baldie kiddies. I want pages four and five to be a timeline of British politics with ME at the center, looking fucking indispensable and fucking benign, and I want page six to be fucking Israel or some bullshit, not a fucking DoSAC deepshit legacy-distracting COCKUP.

Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It

Much has been made of the more than passing resemblance of the adorable, sweary Malcolm Tucker to one Alastair Campbell. And it is easy to see why; there are definite points of connection. Yet, as well as reflecting previous amoral bullies in 10 Downing Street, much of The Thick of It also predicted what has happened recently with that e-mail scandal. And whilst Malcolm Tucker is far better looking - in that he isn't a sweaty, pink faced pig of a man - you can also see a lot of him in Damian McBride. In fact, part of me wonders whether McBride saw The Thick of It and designed it wasn't so much a comedy as an educational video, teaching him how to do his job.

And then compare The Thick of It reflecting/predicting the outrageous behaviour of British political attack dogs with The West Wing apparently predicting the future of US politics. Because Barack Obama's journey to the White House does closely reflect that of Matt Santos. Political drama in the US shows an aspirational story of someone who was written off achieving high office. British political comedy in the UK reflects the appalling behaviour of those who protect our leaders. As well as coming up with new and inventive ways to insult and swear at people.

They'll be some that claim that this is down to cultural differences. That is, of course, horseshit. What it does reflect is a mix of TV producers consciously trying to reflect reality, and also where those countries are in their political cycles. In the US, the media jumped on the chance to point out the similarities between Santos and Obama, because both are seen to represent hope. And regardless of what you think of Obama's politics, he was elected on a sea of goodwill and a real hope that he might be able to do things differently. However, here in the UK, we've got another year of a failed Prime Minister desperately trying to spin his way into another term (or even just keeping his job until the election). Of course we're going to look at the dark as pitch The Thick of It, and note how that reflects reality. 

Tucker was a representation of Campbell, and now we can look at how neatly the programme he was in predicted the godawful, sleazy events of the McBride scandal*. It is symptomatic of a wider problem in British politics at the moment - namely it is an ideologically redundant place where the pursuit of power by any means possible is the be all and end all. And The Thick of It will continue to accurately show what British politics is like until we stop voting in the shower of shits currently in government in this country. 

*There is even an episode about the sending of a controversial e-mail...

Diary of the week

Malcolm Tucker is one of the great comedy creations of recent times – a brutal, shouting, sweary thug of man, trying to manage the nation’s media through bullying, censorship and intimidation. Of course, the scary thing about Malcolm Tucker is that he is based on a man who was at the centre of the NU Labour Project – Alastair Campbell.

Now if I were Campbell, then I would want my memoirs to perhaps show me in a slightly different light. Perhaps a wiser, more erudite character than the arrogant, bullying public façade so often presented in the media. I mean, he has already confessed that he has edited the diaries so as to not embarrass certain people. You might have thought that he would try to avoid embarrassing himself as well…

This review in The Guardian nicely sums the way Campbell presents himself and the government he served in:

"It captures strikingly the laddish, hungry, boastful side of New Labour, a thuggish competition to acquire and use power. The details are realistic and for the most part depressing."

It also notes the vitriol he felt towards people who worked within the New Labour hierachy:

"Short - "God, she does turn my stomach""

I’m inclined to agree, but as a right of centre Libertarian you might expect that. But Campbell? Short was acclaimed in some circles for her work in International Development, and fundamentally Blair – Campbell’s boss – was the one who employed Short. A little support from Campbell would be no bad thing.

"Campbell is far crueller about those who cannot hit back than those who can. He loves power and the men who hold it."

Yes, the man who idolises Robert Maxwell and physically attacked someone for dissing that fat cock after he drowned. And of course Campbell is crueller to those who can’t hit back – he is the very definition of a bully.

"He tells Blair that the section of the diaries sent to the Hutton inquiry contains "a fair bit of bad language". "Fuck?" asks Blair. "Yes." "Cunt?" "Probably." "Bloody hell, Alastair.""

Proud to reveal to his boss – the Prime Minister – that he is foul mouthed. And now has to embarrass his boss – the Prime Minister – by confirming that he is foul mouthed.

"He revels in brutality: he wants to "kill Gilligan""

Very nice- makes Campbell come across as a vicious pig of a man. And I wonder what would have happened if Campbell wrote that he wanted to "kill Kelly"? Thinking about it, he may well have done for all we know – even he must have been sensible enough to realise that he would have to excise such a comment…

But perhaps the most depressing revelation from The Guardian comes in this sentence:

"Tellingly, Stephen Byers' adviser, Jo Moore, is criticised not for thinking that 9/11 was a moment to bury bad news, but for saying it."

To sum up, Campbell’s diary shows that there was a boorish, nasty, foulmouthed bully. And Blair’s government was spin obsessed to the point of distraction. Of course, we already knew that, but it is depressing to have this confirmed by Campbell. And it is even more depressing to realise that Campbell, for all of his spin skills, cannot spin his own diaries despite admitting to editing them.

Perhaps Rachel Slyvester in The Daily Telegraph best sums the impact of the Campbell diaries:

"Politically, the diaries are not particularly revealing. Emotionally, however, they are fascinating. Mr Campbell should be lying on the psychiatrist's couch rather than walking down the corridors of power."

Couldn’t agree more.