 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Andy Coulson joined the Conservative Press Office before the General Election. If he had access to private information, some of which came from politicians who had their phones hacked, would this not bring the election result into question? Using private information for personal political advantage was what Watergate was all about and that led to the end of Nixon.
Having private information concerning rival politicians would undoubtedly be a huge advantage. Although it has to be said that the phone hacking that is being discussed in the news occurred many years ago. And none of it was on behalf of the Conservative Party.
Good point though.
...and do remember that "hacking" isnt a wall-to-wall eavesdropping of every phonecell someone makes, but the fortunate interception of an undeleted voicemail message from a correspondent of the target.
With that, Im not sure you can win elections.
they didnt 🙂
i think he is raising the possibility that some of his mates did this to the labour opposition to help the Tories.
Interesting but I doubt we will find anything.
Both Labour and the Tories indulged in some very underhand tactics on the run up to the election and neither deserved (or got) my vote.
Hmmm, if that had been going on you'd imagine the Tories might actually have won a majority.
With that, Im not sure you can win elections.
Well the Tories didn't win the election............which just goes to prove that they must've of hacked their rivals phones !!! 😀
Actually the smallest advantage can win you an election if the result is that close.
you can probably swing it more emphatically with a friendly aussie-shit-stirrer in your pocket than a dodgy voicemail 🙂
Yeah, it clearly wasn't on behalf of the Conservative Party, which I suppose is a key difference to Watergate, but you can imagine that, as editor of a tabloid that appears to have been involved in widescale hacking and payment of police officers, Coulson would have been able to furnish the Conservative Party with 'useful' information. Cameron was aware of the accusations-that was why Andy Coulson resigned as Editor.
It's worth picking up Oborne's article on Cameron. It's in the 'graph. You gotta smile when that odious bastard is telling Cameron he's in the sewer. 🙂
you think obourne is odious?
I wouldn't be his biggest fan, no. I really don't like that he hides his irishness by getting rid of the apostrophe either 🙂
always with the Oirish with you DD! 😉
They're all odious. Every single one of them.
hmm, not sure Id go with that. I like som eof Oborne's work:
[img] 
[/img]
But we stray OT...is Cameron now "damaged goods"? What do we think (partisan issues aside)?
there's a bit of sticky shit, but fundamentally all he did was employ someone with a faint whiff of ordure before the facts were out. Cameron isnt party to the acts of the news of the world and only the noisy left will keep banging on trying to make that link.
I think Roop will come off worse.
The fact that Coulson resigned over the issue of hacked phones, and that was known at the time, makes it difficult for Cameron to act surprised and deny any knowledge of such activities. Suppose his desire to 'cosy up' to News International overcame good judgement. Though I think politicians,Labour and Conservative, have over estimated the power and influence of the Sun and News of the World during general elections.
As would the noisy right were the positions reversed. There is also the personal friendship with Brooks, the chummy get togethers chez Cameron, etc. Who knows really. There's quite a bit of dust to settle over the next few weeks.
all he did was employ someone with a faint whiff of ordure before the facts were out
Cameron knew the full facts when he employed him, ie. Andy Coulson had been forced to resign as NoW editor over a scandal.
"faint whiff" indeed..........you should be a spin doctor for Downing Street 😀
Im making a distinction between a bit of a scandal, and wiping voicemails from a dead girls phone.
Im pretty sure there's a scale of naughtiness...
So you think that hacking voicemails is ok then ? (just as long as they don't wipe off any messages) "Yeah" thinks Cameron, "we could use a guy like him on our team".
mleh. Im reckoning that team cameron were rather more focussed on hiring a savvy media player with a track record for tapping into the soft gooey idiocy of the nation. Morality probably took a back seat
you make some a fair points Stoner but Cameron has two options
1. he knew therefore he is corrupt.
2. he could not see that the the editor who resigned was tainted goods and therefore he has terrible judgement.
Neither is a good option
You are right he may have been blind sided and it was a genuine oversight but he surely considered the risks of hiring him as he is not stupid.
Roop probably cares more about BskyB deal than this.
If there is a link to him knowing directly [phone tapping etc] then it affects the view of him as a proper person etc. I doubt such a link will appear but I also suspect it is true.
deadlydarcy - MemberBut we stray OT...is Cameron now "damaged goods"? What do we think (partisan issues aside)?
Yes - but most people don't follow politics so this will not matter in a few months time - unless we get some really good dirt on Cameron. It does weaken him - but not hugely
what the sassenach said ^
unless there's something that comes out that links brooks/coulson/cameron in political dirt, then it's just a case of nasty journalism where one of the players ended up sitting in No. 10.
It'll be hard to provide direct proof of a link, but it's not hard to imagine moments during the election campaign when news/information appeared and the Labour campaign team wondered where it could have come from.
I agree that Cameron hasn't helped himself by reiterating his faith in Andy Coulson today. Hard to see how he'll wriggle out of it without questions over his judgement or the sense that he is tainted by association.
is this not getting blown out of all proportion. how many times have i heard the M word this week how many times have i seen news international products ... at the end of the day its bad juju, but did anybody die, was anybody maimed ddi any body starve to death.. and yet that is happening right now and nobody seems to be listening to that story..
Interesting
The Murdoch 'empire' was fine when it was supporting the grinning-spiv Blair, but when it saw how indescribably dreadful was the maladministration of the incontinent failed oaf and socially inept Brown and changed sides, all of a sudden it was the 'pits' - Labour said not a word against Murdoch and NI until, well, oh, funnily enough till they announced they were backing the tories, funny that!
During the 12 years New Labour was having a veritable love Fest with News International, there was scullldugery afoot, admitted both in parliament and to the police, and NOTHING was done about it - its proven now that the police knew about this for years, and no action was taken - if anyone honestly believes that this was covered up without sanction at the highest levels of the then government, then they are smoking crack!
I also don't recall Labour making much of a fuss when "persons unknown" phoned HMRC pretending to be (evil tory) Lord Ashcroft, and gaining information on his private tax affairs, revelations that found their way into the Times... or when persons unknown got hold of the (evil tory) Conservative party banking records looking for donations from Ashcroft - strange eh!
Let's have a little history lesson......
Blair gets elected and guess who rocks up at Downing St for tea and biccies? why Rupert Murdoch of course. Who gets wined and dined in No10 parties, our friend Rebecca. private dinners with Cherie and PR guru Freud at Cecconi's
Repeat the above for Brown.
Fast forward...
Phone hacking is discovered at NOTW vice News International, it goes to court and then M'Learned friend on the bench exclaims that it isn't phone hacking at all but mere 'retrieval of messages', so far so good for Mr Murdoch et al.
The police get involved but oddly enough keep schtum about the salient points for [b]five years[/b]. Blimey.
Fast Forward again...
Quelle suprise - it all comes out in the wash, and its all the fault of the evil tories, for stuff that happened five years before they came to power, when the tories were the veritable bete noir of News International - frankly, its ****g laughable! Surprised nobody's blamed Thatcher yet!
The Murdoch 'empire' was fine when it was supporting the grinning-spiv Blair
Oh Jesus help us...in the Predictability Stakes, z-11 romps home by around 15 lengths. Anything productive to add?
Bah, you have spoiled a what was looking like a good clean thread, zulu.
Nice to hear a few folk agreeing with each other about something on here for once. No political party should have to be beholden to an enormous news empire. Otherwise it's next stop Italy. This poo-storm will be fine for all parties and indeed the easily hood-winkable public once the dust has settled.
I should think lots of people on the LHS of the political spectrum always felt uncomfortable with the association with NI.
As pointed out either earlier in this thread or another one (by ernie I think), NI got behind NuLab because it didn't want to be seen to back a loser as much as NuLab courting NI. Anyway, much as zulu is squirming at how bad CallMeDave is beginning to look, the thread should remain interesting and non-partisan.
the thread should remain interesting and non-partisan.
I fail to see how it can be "non-partisan" when we are discussing the use of private information for personal political advantage, considering the close relationship between NI and Blair, and the proven "blagging" of personal data from HRMC about key conservative figures, and the publication of stolen conservative party political funding details in NI publications.
Personally I doubt it made much difference tot he general election
No one comes out of it smelling of roses however
So, z-11, why can't you defend Dave and the Chipping Norton set instead of boring on about Blair, Brown, blah flipping blah.
Or are you hoping to turn it into the z-11 Vs The Lefties thread for the bazillionth time?
best ignored IMO
Because he is a Child Of Thatcher.
Labby isn't interested in a proper discussion; he just needs to try to beat others. S'why it's pointless responding to him really, unless you're a masochist and like banging your head against a brick wall.
I don't need to argue with anyone as I know I am right. 🙂
What about Hackney and the General Election? Is important.
Well DD - for a start, I think there's no way on earth that this was not covered up and not cracked down on at the time unless it was sanctioned by the PM.
All well and good to claim it was police corruption, but these allegations were made at the time, and magically nothing happened! do you really believe that someone in the police managed to cover all this up?
I get sick of the "all the tories fault" approach to everything, when it was clearly illegality sanctioned by Blair and his mates.
do you really believe that someone in the police managed to cover all this up?
Do you really believe that they din't?
No Elfin, not for one second.
Its clear that the police were aware of the "hacking" of the Soham parents phones several years ago, same with the Bellfield case - someone took the decision to suppress that fact, and not to nail the people responsible. that person had to be at the highest level of the police, and too many people at various levels would have been aware of it for it not to be called into question, so that person cannot have taken the decision alone - given how sensitive it clearly was, do you honestly believe they would have risked their career, when the case was bound to be subject to the highest level of scrutiny - there is no way that there was not political sanction for that decision.
the real scandal here lies much, much deeper than Coulson and the police, and I cannot believe that people are falling for the bullshit smokescreen being put out that blames Brooks or Murdoch, for what was a very cosy relationship all round.
No Elfin, not for one second.
Ok then.
More fool you...
During the 12 years New Labour was having a veritable love Fest with News International
A veritable love Fest ? you come out with some bollocks Zulu-Eleven dontcha ?
Have you ever read the Sun ? In those 12 years barely a day passed without the Sun criticising, attacking, and slagging off the Labour government, Labour ministers, and the Labour Party in general. The usual stuff of course - political correctness gone mad, the EU, soft on criminals, treatment of Our Boys, incompetent ministers, human rights for terrorists, etc, etc. As well as more all-embracing issues such as the economy, taxation, immigration, education, etc.
Whilst at the same time needless to say, pouring praise onto Tory politicians.
This was published by the Sun in 2003 :
The Sun's "support" for Labour amounted to just recommending to their readers that they should vote Labour at the general election, whilst they slagged off Labour on a Daily basis between general elections..... "love fest" LOL ! 😀
And it's pretty damn obvious why Murdoch instructed the Sun's editors to "support" Labour. Firstly they were going to win anyway and form a government - so why then, completely unnecessarily, make enemies out of them ? Do you think Murdoch is "stupid" ? And secondly it would leave the British Prime minister indebted to him. Yes, I'm sure New Labour did Murdoch many favours as a result, as well as let him influence policy.
In the case of the Times Murdoch has a much more hands-off approach towards its editorial content, as he does with the Wall Street Journal. Although he did directly interfere and force the Times to support the Iraq War against their better judgement - he does things like that.
Of course I suspect that you do indeed sometimes read the Sun Zulu-Eleven, when the intellectual challenge of reading Dan Hannan in the Telegraph gets a bit too much, and you were fully aware of the Sun's hostility to the Labour governments of 1997-2010, and your "love fest" comment was just another example of you ignoring the [i]inconvenient truth[/i]........a practice which you are something of an expert at.