Brown's spinners told these papers* that they would only get the story if they agreed not to carry any quotes from David Davis, Nick Clegg or any other opposition spokesman. Not only that, they weren't even allowed to tell the Tories or LibDems about the very existence of the story. Now, have a look a those links in the above para again. It's not difficult to spot that not a single one of the stories contains a quote from David Davis or Nick Clegg? Coincidence? No. At 7.30pm on Saturday night the Press Association got hold of the story from one of the nationals. They hadn't been included in the 'briefings' from McBride and Ellams. They wrote the story complete with an extensive quote from David Davis, yet not a single Sunday paper carried it. Davis pointed out that Brown's intervention threatened to blow apart the cross-party discussions which had been going on between Blair and Cameron, and himself, Reid and Clegg. Newsworthy? I think so. The fact is that Blair and Cameron had reached agreement on a way forward on using phone tap evidence in court, and Davis had negotiated a way forward with Reid in a number of otherPatrick Hennessy was the first to fire a broadside against me, but he was quickly followed by Ian Kirby (News of the World), Nick Watt (Observer) and Marie Woolf (IoS). They all denied that Brown's spin team had leant on them. I explained that I knew that one paper had indeed been leant on and had assumed, because all their stories were more or less identical, that it had happened to the rest of them. But it still left open the question of why none of them had approached the opposition parties for a quote. Patrick Hennesy said...
areas. It was all set to be announced this Thursday by Reid in a Commons
Statement. Brown's intervention cut across all of this. Reid was left fuming
spluttering about Brown playing politics with terrorism and using it for his own
purposes. He could hardly be blamed....
"I didn't think the story needed a Tory or Lib Dem reaction"
I responded...
That is of course for him to decide, but I have to say that I find it astonishing that on an issue where Blair and Cameron, together with Red, Davis and Clegg were trying to build a cross party consensus (soemthing Hennessy must have known about), he didn't think it worth ringing Davis or Clegg to see what they thought about Brown crashing in on the issue. Of course, PA carried Davis's fairly strong comments from 7.30pm, well before the Sunday Telegraph's deadline.
Ian Kirby from the News of the World took a similar line...
On this story, I knew there was no need for a response because Shadow Home
Affairs spokesmen would be falling over themselves to air their opinions on
Saturday night and Sunday.
Today's Observer carries an article by Nick Watt (one of the journalists who denied being leant on) headlined BLAIR APOLOGY OVER CAMERON TERROR PLAN. The reason I am about to quote it at length is that it makes my point for me about why the journalists should indeed have got a Tory reaction to the Brown story last week.
So all of them missed a real story last week, just because they didn't pick up the phone to David or Clegg. Credit to Nick Watt for getting the story this week, though.Tony Blair has been forced to issue an unprecedented apology to David Cameron after a Tory anti-terrorism initiative was unveiled by Gordon Brown weeks after the Conservative leader passed on the idea in private to the Prime Minister. An embarrassed Downing Street gave the Prime Minister's apologies to Cameron's office last week after the Tory leader expressed his
anger when he found his idea trailed by Brown as a new tool for tackling terrorism. The extraordinary gesture from the Prime Minister to the leader of the Opposition was made after Brown called last weekend for a privy council review into whether telephone tap evidence should be admitted as evidence in court.
A series of Sunday newspapers, including The Observer, carried Brown's comments as a sign of
how he will adopt a tough approach to tackling terrorism. A furious Cameron instructed his office to contact Downing Street last Monday to find out what had happened, because he had suggested the idea to Blair in a private meeting in No 10 two weeks earlier. Cameron was particularly upset because the meeting with Blair was meant to establish a cross-party
consensus on dealing with the terrorist threat.
The Tory leader's office and Downing Street refused yesterday to comment on their exchanges. But The Observer understands that an embarrassed Blair instructed senior officials to convey his regrets to Cameron after sympathising with Tory complaints that Brown's intervention had at least given the impression that the terms of the Cameron/Blair meeting, held on private
privy council terms, had been breached. Brown emphatically denies doing anything wrong because he knew nothing of Cameron's proposal when he made his comments last weekend. 'Gordon has been thinking through how you build consensus on these issues,' a source said. 'It has been in gestation for some time. We only realised subsequently that this had been proposed by David Cameron to Tony Blair.'
But David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, last night criticised the Chancellor. 'I am strongly in favour of taking a consensual approach to this,' Davis told The Observer. 'If you want to maintain a consensus you do not blow into the public domain half way through the discussions. That will be seen as scoring political points rather than advancing the national interest.' Davis was also surprised to discover one of his ideas - to allow police to question terrorist suspects after they have been charged - floated by Brown. 'I agreed to that at a meeting in the cabinet office with four senior civil servants in 2005 after the 7 July attacks,' he told The Observer.
An irritated John Reid, who has been holding cross-party talks with Davis and Nick Clegg, of the Liberal Democrats, confirmed that the telephone tap idea had come from the Tories. 'On intercept, I can confirm that the idea of looking at the matter in privy council terms arose from a suggestion made by the leader of the Opposition in discussions with the Prime Minister,' the Home Secretary told MPs on Thursday. 'I was happy to accept that and I announced today that, in principle, we will do that.'Reid's comments and Blair's apology will raise questions about the state of communications between the Prime Minister and Chancellor just weeks before Brown takes over in No 10. Brown's anti-terrorism initiative, which he has been working on for months, was virtually identical to the plan outlined by Reid in the Commons. This suggests that the Home Office and Downing Street
incorporated Brown's ideas on phone taps without telling the him they had been suggested by Cameron. Brown is understood to believe that the Tories may be playing fast and loose. He has been examining the idea of holding a privy council inquiry on telephone tap evidence for some time and has been consulting outside the government. There are fears that some of Brown's thoughts may have been passed to the Tories during this consultation. There will also be questions about whether Cameron's cordial relations with No 10 will be maintained once
Brown takes over.
But let's move on from that because it raises some serious questions about Gordon Brown. Why, for example, did he make a policy speech and then brief newspapers on an issue he clearly wasn't fully briefed on himself? Why did he not pick up the phone to Number Ten or the Home Secretary to check on the latest state of play? Why did he freelance on an issue of national security when he must have known that Reid was about to make firm proposals only a few days later? In short, why did he play politics with terror? His actions have mad e a growing cross-party consensus more difficult to take forward. He should be grateful that the Conservatives and LibDems haven't taken their bats and balls home completely. His new Home Secretary will have quite a job to do in rebuilding relations.
Incidentally, Ian Kirby in the News of the World says that Jack Straw has agreed to be the new Home Secretary. A source told him: "Jack could have had his pick of the top jobs, but this is one he'll be able to slot into straight away." I don't doubt this is true, but it did cross my mind that if he could have his pick of the top jobs, wouldn't he have gone back to the Foreign Office where he could have renewed his friendship with Condi Rice?!
73 comments:
Hmmm- now Brown has severely narked off the Tories and the Libbies is he not in danger of alienating the sandal brigade with regard to a 'coalition' in a potential Hung Parliament...
Iain, I think you are in danger of confusing yourself with a journalist - I think you owe an apology to Patrick Hennessy, and no amount of bluster from you will get you off the hook on that one.
Iain, congratulations. Your story and Patrick Hennessy's lame response was the first thing I thought of when I saw this on political betting this morning.
How disgraceful of Hennessy to brush off that it needed a Tory response when the story was all about cross-party co-operation - which GB was destroying!
Now Blair apologises to Cameron and Reid confirms phone tap evidence was David Cameron's idea, and that GB breached privy council terms. Now what, Hennessy? The PM apologised and you've been caught out badly. Have the guts to admit you've been scooped. Same goes for the rest of the posting journalists.
Well done to the Observer for breaking this, even though they are a Labour paper. Shows integrity.
Did Blair also apologise to Nick Clegg for the PC breach.
Usually I think you are a smug and annoying blogger. But well done on this one, the press were bang to rights last week for their complicity in the Brown spin attack.
A cabbie writes:
"I had that Condi Rice in the back of my Ministerial limo once...."
That's why, iain.
How many prominent female politicians want to renew their acquaintance with Jack Straw this side of the doors of hell?
If Brown is just going to steal everyone else's ideas and announce them as his own he will very quickly find that people stop cooperating with him!
Nah- he's learnt from Bliar about nicking other people's ideas! And look where it's got him.....
The journalists involved don't seem much interested in the issues raised here, but they sure as health want to hit back at Iain Dale in some way for the humiliation of being caught red handed! They look smaller and smaller by the day.
They have no idea how to use blogs to get a point across. That's probably becasue they don't have any points to make. They are just subservient post boxes.
Same old problem.
1) Brown is not a team player and hardly co-operates with No.10, let alone the opposition.
2) Lobby journalists are lazy and just re-hash No.10 handouts.
3) Meanwhile, terrorists continue to hatch their murderous plots.
Thank you for this Iain - there's no word about it as far as I can see in today's Sun Tel.
This household is getting closer and closer to the day when it gives up the Sun Tel, and maybe ever the Daily Tel, but doesn't have an idea what to replace it with. We don't expect it to be blindly Tory, but we would like it to be balanced and informative.
This is why spin works so well.
The spinner knows one key fact:
MSN JOURNOS ARE LAZY.
I'm not surprised at Brown's conduct. I don't think Stalin would have done differently.
Clothilde Simon
This tends to confirm my very worst fears about Brown.He is totally untrustworthy.If Ming wants to sup with him,he will need an inordinantly long spoon.If he continues to abuse Privy Council terms,it will eventually rebound badly on him once PM.
Brown would do well to remember that he is still the chancellor and Blair is the PM. Where does he get off spouting out government policy. If he thinks he has the power to ride over the opposition and his own colleagues now, what is he going to be like when he gets in power?
A salutary lesson. Brown is a disaster waiting to happen. Obviously we can't expect the mainstream media to scrutinise him properly so we'll have to.
I still find it astonishing that the journalists are colludingwith Brown and putting his interests before ours.
Nice find Iain :-)
Of course Jack Straw can't go back to the foreign office, it's in our constitution that the US president can veto cabinet appointments if they disagree with the US administration.
Brown's behaved here like the nastiest of schoolboy plagiarists, who hears his rival's whispered answer to a question and shoots up his hand 'Look at me sir, me, me me!' to give it first.
What a revealling image of Brown this adds to the other disreputable images we have of the man.
On another note. Did anyone else notice that the picture of a 10 year old Brown in Saturday's telegraph seems to suggest that he had eye problems long before his much spun accident playing football is claimed to have damaged his sight?
In the picture, Brown's left eye does not appear to be properly formed or functioning. Did Brown perhaps have some congenital problem with his vision?
Yer, like all socialists he's a bit myopic.
Browns EU dilemma over on ConHome ignores the position of EPP.Do we share the same view?
All this terror threat doo da.
Just been down to the Labour hustings in Oxford.
Remarkably despite the fact that I had no pass or ticket to gain entry I still managed to get a handshake from the next PM before asking him if as the next Prime Minister he would be moving towards the left of the political spectrum.
His reply was: "We've made that mistake before and look where it got us!"
Brown entered the building dressed rather casually for a Sunday afternoon in a suit and open shirt with no tie.
Also outside the building were lots of young people wearing Hazel Blears t shirts who also got a pleasant handshake from the next PM whilst handing out her literature and a couple of more older members distributing material on behalf of Peter Hain.
Only a very small protest outside too which rather surprised me - after reading the hype in the Oxford Mail I was expecting at least 100 but in the end there wasn't even twenty.
Could have had far better things to do like getting my backside over to the NHS SOS protest in Welwyn Garden City this afternoon but have to be at work at 5am tomorrow morning so wasn't worth the risk.
Anyway, it was all interesting stuff and to be quite honest I'm now in two minds as to whether to wash my hands again!
Iain
Just to prove your point read the idiotic story in the Times today about Brown fighting to get the UK opt outs from the treaty!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1909768.ece
It perfectly shows the depths to which he will sink to mislead the public.
How can the chancellor fight for opt outs from an optional treaty proposed by a group of which we chose to join, pay membership fees and already have a veto to stop any laws.
This farcical situation shows how politicians are deliberately misleading the public. The EU has no power over any country at all. The entire EU project has shown all of Europe its agenda. create a federal state by deception, you cant vote it down, you cant use an existing veto to veto it and you must accept its laws....
Mindless Rubbish
You cannot hope to bribe or twist
(thank God) the British journalist.
But seeing what the man will do Unbribed,
there's no occasion to.
Humbert Wolfe
ghsoIf the Conservative party try and exploit this they are going to end up with egg on their faces because the evidence of the debate is out there for all to see.
So, Brown proposed a logical policy of allowing phone tap evidence in court in terrorism cases, Cameron spoke to Blair about it in private, so what?
Let's just sit back and enjoy Brown's brief period in office. The only thing that will save him will be a terrorist attack of such magnitude that he can conjure up a Ramsay Macdonald-type National Government of all the talentless.
Shagger Norris as Mayoral candidate and News of the Screws pumping the press.That'll Bole em over!
Labour had their 'Two shags'. So the Torries are recycling 'Five zhags!'
To establish 'green credentials' will he drive a Prius or a Priapus?
Business as usual with the Scottish sociopath. Wouldn't it be a novelty if our press actually tried to scrutinise his behaviour and policies, you know, did some work instead of letting politicians spoon feed them and if they're good give their plump tums a tickle. What a lazy bunch of cloth heads. I doubt they can think for themselves any more
Judith,
When one becomes disenchanted with the DT's political coverage, you notice that the rest of the paper is boring rubbish as well.
Stop throwing your toys out of your pram Dale and get a grip luv.
anon@12:41- you've lost me! WTF does 'clothilde' mean?! i watch 'Countdown' and i'm sure that hasn't turned up! Unless it's a reference to some vague historical thingy dating from years back with some Roman Catholocism bunk thrown in... I mean- who does cryptic nowadays!? Unless you're a LibbyDem 'policymaker'!
judith [12.07 PM] fr [3.54 PM] Yes, I get a bit cheesed off with the Sunday Telegraph nowadays. Too many girly pix and celeb stories. But we need Christopher Booker, so I have to keep buying it.
Newspapers grow daily more boring because they no longer pay real jounalists to sniff out real stories. They just pay people to sit at their desks and do minimal re-writes on the agency stuff.
Geoffrey Booking said...
Anyway, it was all interesting stuff and to be quite honest I'm now in two minds as to whether to wash my hands again!
Mr Booking having witnessed Browns nasal excavations I suggest that you get your hands steam cleaned in Dettol never mind washing them.
The interesting thing is that we all know Patrick Henessey reads this blog - as do his fellow hacks that commented on Iain's original story.
So we know you can see these comments, gents.
It's major cowardice for you not to come on here and admit just how wrong you were not to go to the opposition for comment.
Blair and Reid just apologised for the act you hagiographised Brown for. And it was a Tory policy.
Shame on you.
good read
macleod-Does the real Lady know about you? In the head age about thirty.
PS-you missed Kelly's Heroes!
This is scary stuff. I wonder how much propaganda has been dispensed by government in the guise of "jounalism". I know the BBC is at it all the time, but I hadn't realized that newsprint had been compromised.
It seems like the blogs have taken up the role that the papers used to fill. Good work Iain!
They are utterly exploited and abused by Gordon and yet still they felt compelled to remonstrate so ineffectively to the contrary here. Selective backbone and indignance, makes you proud of our so called free press doesn't it? I guess people who are completely dominated and bullied resent exposure of their abject and degraded state.
They are a naieve and submissive crew. Complete compliance to Gordon and betrayal of the principles of democracy without a moment's pause for thought or prick of conscience.
As was noted on the original blog, the stories were notable for being similar and uncritical. What the journalists have yet to explain is what value, if any, they added. Was a good (seriously researched) story sacrificed for a sake of a supposed exclusive and then picked up by others on a 'cut and paste' basis, or was it simply that they all published what amounted to little more than the equivalent of a press release? Either way, they come out of it with little credit.
It would be interesting if any of them could actually explain what they brought to the story that was original.
Last March there were plans revealed in the Lords to abolish the Privy Coucil office and split it into more up to date (and doubtless functionless) parts; unfortunately the Labour party Executive failed to mention these plans to the Opposition, the Head of State or probably most of its own government.
It isn't in the least surprising that discussions held on Privy Council terms should be ragarded as having been held in open house by such constitutional thugs as the Brownite faction.
The Cons of course will always play by the book!
So, Iain's giving journalism lessons now! How to write a story etc, etc. And your qualifications are what exactly? Oh, apart from working for David Davis and being a failed wannabe MP (that'll make you pretty neutral on issues Brownite then? (And, no I'm not one of his mob.
You, still can't admit you got it wrong, can you? It's up to hack to decide who they do don't ring for a quote - not you. Or are you trying to coerce the Press to always go to your chums in the Tory Party for a quote - not exactly very democratic! Still, I'm sure you and everyone else here could all be better hacks than Hennessy et al! Bet you could pick the England team too - and run the country better etc etc. Armchair critics - dontcha luv em!
Jadedexhack, I am not giving any lessons in anything. This is a blog for christ sake, where I give my opinion. In my opinion they ought to have got a quote from Davis and/or Clegg. Today's Observer story corroborated that opinion. And if you can't see that nowonder you are an ex hack.
And yes, I could easily pick the England team. But I suspect you could too!
Newspapers ...just pay people to sit at their desks and do minimal re-writes on the agency stuff.
Until I started crossreading the online versions of the main papers I didn't have a clue about the extent to which the agency accounts are simply picked up and repeated across the world's press, sometimes many hundreds of times. A story appears across continents in an astonishing short time and in exactly the same words. It puts such immense power in the hands of the agency writers.
Ok, I'll get my coat.
The rendition evidence is pretty compelling. I just saw a BBC world doc on the issue and the sight of Straw obviously lying at a selct comittee surely proves the issue MUST be investigated. We dont care wot the americans do but we MUST find out what Bliar and his mate shave covered up.
He lied about WMD to start the war then used Saddams humans rights record to justify it later.
If he is shown to have knowingly violated human rights act then we can conclude te real story is still hidden.
How can we stop suicide bombers when we wont reveal the truth to their own people
Loving jadedexhack. More like illiterateexhack. Is your terrible punctuation the reason you're no longer a hack?
This is Gordon preying on the weak minded "Nick Robinsons" of this world.
Poor Nick must have read the Art of War and believed that "Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant." - but Nick has scooped more ice cream for his kids than stories for his listeners and has never stopped being the wise man's puppet.
Well done Ian.
My annual subscription to the DT looks under threat.
I know all hournalists are lazy but...
As for GB leaking, what can we expect. He's a politician.
Journalists serve one purpose for politicians: they make politicians look hardworking .... and clever.
I think that’s game set and match Mr. Dale , the most important point of the first post and the faux outrage it induced was the sheer slovenliness of the reporting . I was already aware at the time of the bizarre context of the announcement and I am not only not a journalist but not really all that interested in the Daily soap opera . Just how ignorant can these professionals ,soi disant ,be ?
It seemed peculiar that the same copy should have been pasted with no comment uniformly and whether or not there was an instruction it had to be indicative of either woeful journalistic standards or a servile attitude to Brown in the hope of rich pickings later .
In fact as Iain rightly identified it was the Press failing in their supposed duty by entering into a world of information sinecures. Whether an actual instruction was given or not is not greatly the point it may have been an apocryphal tale to demonstrate the reality of the process . If Iain says he has information I know he is telling the truth , beyond that its guesswork. As such things are unlikely to be in writing Patrick Hennessey’s snippy sulk fest and empty threats are of no consequence or relevance . That is not the way pressure is applied . I cannot help but be reminded of the Kite incident when his dim horsey side kick was similarly brattish having been subject to entirely justified criticism. What a pitiful duo , yapping like toy poodles , reeking of false sanctimony and wounded pride
I trust Iain you are lounging in the enveloping creamy bath of satisfaction that is the prize for all those who have been attacked and then unambiguously vindicated.
(Post of the Year so far !!)
Why isn't Hennessy researching the Sandra Howard cheese sandwhich story instead of blubbing in the loo?
Cut the personal abuse on this thread or I will close it.
Poo and pants Iain !
That's as abusive as my nephew gets, although he does occasioanlly say "boobies" too !
P.S. That was my attempt to be funny given all the abusive comments you've had to remove.
Iain, you also need to deleter comment number one. It is spam. I had the same comment too and his blog is full of pop ups.
I should make clear that the abusive comments were not directed at me, but at individual members of Her Majesty's Press!
According to this morning's Telegraph, "... the Brown camp hit back last night by saying that it was Mr Cameron who was pinching the Chancellor's policies - not the other way round."
I find that if you begin your comment
"I think that’s game set and match Mr. Dale " Iain can be suprising generous about the leeway he allows for off hand abuse .....
Jadedexhack,
Remember when you claimed on my blog last week that I had made up the rumour about Prezza being seriously ill. Was that an unsubstantiated allegation?
Are you stacking shelves nowadays?
This behaviour by the MSM is surely just the tip of the iceberg. They just don't like it when they're caught out and exposed.
Jack Straw back at the Home Office? Why? Because he made such a success of it last time?!
Ridiculissimus! I'm very sorry to say. Come on the lots of you. Dale, Blair, Reid, Cameron, Davis. All of you have every reason to want to piss on Gordon's chips. But this story is even more ridiculous than last week's "blogger as journalism expert" story.
The use of phone tap evidence in such cases has been in the ether and over the wires and in the water literally FOR YEARS.
Without Googling the history of that discussion my recollection is that Brown was in near the start but that Blair and Blair and Reid pissed on his chips then too, trying to push their 90 days internment against the grain.
This idea DOES NOT come from a cosy Blair-Cameron chat. It predates Cameron's rule and if Blair and Reid are apologizing and briefing on this now it is because they are spiteful yesterday's men. THAT is the real story here.
Do you REALLY think this is a new idea from David Cameron? Really? Sheesh. I was pretty amazed at this cack in the Observer to be quite honest.
CP .- But everything you say is demonstrably not true unless you are saying that everyone is lying. You are becoming a sort of DIY Lord Haw Haw and Brown already has plenty of those at our expense.
Has anybody made an official complaint on this to the press complaints commission?
There seem to be reasonable grounds for complaint under clause 1 of the code: "The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information".
I wouldn't expect them to uphold the complaint (it's only window dressing regulation after all). However, it would be amusing to watch them squirm, expecially on such an important subject as anti-terrorism.
CP: the argument here isn't who thought of the phone tap idea first; it's whether Gordon Brown and the MSM journalists are involved in a conspiracy against the people.
Is Gordon Brown putting conditions on the information his people release and/or giving it to selected journalists in return for favourable coverage? Is this in breach of the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889-1908? Are the MSM journalists also corrupt or just lazy or both?
Jack Straw was not in favour of the hunting ban. Maybe he'll steal a bit of Tory thunder and have the ban repealed.
Presumably you are just as outraged about this story that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph that carried a quote from David Davis but not from a government spokesman.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/10/nblair210.xml
The journalistic side of this story looks very silly (pete again). They keep trying to find fault with Iain Dale over this. It just confirms how humiliated they are, and rightly so that they are.
If people want to read Iain Dale's opinions, they can. It is quite clear that the journalists come from a world where bullying decides what is written and read or not. They want to transmit their practices into the blogosphere, it seems.
If Iain would permit swearing, I would have written some suitable term followed by 'off'. Take your filthy habits back to where you come from, you journalistic scum.
If you have something interesting to say, we're all ears. Petty point scoring does not work on blogs. It makes you look stupid.
Post a Comment