The Ludicrous Idea of Cameron Resigning

Cameron is now the bookmaker's favourite to be unseated as party leader first. All I can say to this is "oh please".

What has Cameron actually done wrong? Well, he displayed poor judgement when he employed one Andy Coulson. Poor judgement, mind, because of what that man has allegedly done in the past, not because of anything he did in power. I mean, there's no evidence of Coulson invovling himself in... say... a dodgy dossier now, is there? And Cameron's lapse of judgement really is small fry compared to the sort of mistakes made by his predecessors in the role - Brown nearly bankrupted us while trying to prop up failed banks and his own spurious and false claim to have ended boom and bust; Blair dragged us into an illegal and largely unwinnable war so he could continue to act as the fluffer for the most idiotic president of recent times; Major sank the economy for a bit through his desperation to be part of the ERM. A bit of perspective here would be good, people. Cameron fucked up - but employing Coulson is really rather low on the list of fuck-ups when it comes to those who have inhabited Number 10.

And the other charges - that Cameron is too close to News International, for example, are true both of the most recent Labour Prime Ministers. And it is probably worth asking when this phone hacking took place - on Cameron's watch? Err, no, it appears it took place under Nu Labour, when both Brown and Blair where desperately courting the man who is now public enemy Number One - Rupert Murdoch.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing this because I support Cameron or the Tories - regular readers of this blog will know just how little I rate both the man and his party. But we really have lost the plot if we are going to demand the resignation of a PM because he employed the wrong person to talk to the press on his behalf. The whole thing reeks of hysteria and hyperbole. And the thing most likely to sink Cameron isn't the accusations - which, as things stand, are a mild squall in a very small thimble of tea - but his failure to stand up and just brush off the calls for him to go. Cameron needs to get a grip; so do those calling for him to go.

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.

The Boredom of Modern Politics

See, there's a problem with being a political blogger at the moment. And it is this; currently, politics is just plain boring. We have a government that, despite all the predictions to the contrary, is functioning reasonably well (in terms of being united) despite being a coalition. And they don't do a great deal either; sure, we get the occasional, irritating nudge, but the Nu Labour days - when the announcement of illiberal and poorly thought through policy was a weekly, or even daily, event. There was far more to tear into under Nu Labour; the relatively cautious coalition needs to do more to increase the sum total of freedom in our society, but because they aren't proactively attacking it as much as Labour, it is difficult to truly get wound up by them.

And the opposition? They're a broken record of unconvincing and unrealistic opposition to spending cuts. There is nothing to inspire in Miliband Minor's leadership or his party - nothing to inspire hope or rage. There's just the reassuring thought that his lot are out of power and likely to remain so for a while that's worth commenting on.

And what of the resignations? I don't give a fuck about Coulson anymore; he's resignation has been the most anticipated event since the Queen Mum's death. And Alan Johnson resigning for personal reasons is a bit of a nothing as well; firstly, he wasn't up to the job and secondly as a person, he may well have personal reasons that restrict him from doing a very high-profile public role such as Shadow Chancellor. Even the resignations are boring at the moment.

Consequently, coming up with daily blogposts about politics is challenging at the moment. There is, quite simply, not a lot happening - or at least not a lot happening that is worth commenting on. Which is why posting on here may become erratic once again in the near future...

The Guardian on Coulson

Of course, The Guardian was going to milk the Coulson resignation for all it was worth; it is what they do as basic Labour propagandists. There is something faintly humorous in the fact that a story that broke yesterday is still at the top of their website, while the breaking news of Brian Cowen's resignation is at Number Three. What also amuses me is that their current story is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy - the story will continue to run and run, the paper says - at the same time as making it run and run by giving it a level of attention that it frankly does not deserve.

But what is the true icing on the cake for me is the fact that the paper is so desperate to breathe further life into the story that they are quoting one Alistair Campbell. Yes, that Alistair Campbell - he of the dodgy dossier fame, and the apparent inspiration for Malcom Tucker. Campbell should know about scandal; what he managed to "achieve" while doing communications at Number 10 far exceed anything Coulson did, or is likely to do in the whole course of his life. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Coulson would have to start a war in order to be as damaging as Campbell.

No doubt The Guardian will continue to run with this story until there is nothing left other than constant repetition of what is already known and what no-one cares about anymore. Hell, the world could end tomorrow and they would still be banging on about how this looks bad for Cameron. It's what they do, and it also why their paper is often so tedious and struggles to make any real money these days.

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?