John Ward May 1, 2012 Uncategorized

How David Cameron blatantly deceived yesterday’s Emergency PMQ

The masthead of The Slog reads ‘A diary of deception and distortion’.

This is how our despicable cynic of a Prime Minister got out of jail during Emergency PMQs yesterday:

“I have seen no evidence that Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt acted improperly in handling News Corp’s proposed takeover of the broadcaster BSkyB.”

That’s absolutely true. Wanna know why?

He hasn’t read the Hunt email correspondence with Newscorp.

See today’s Daily Torygraph

Cameron said he saw no point in an independent Enquiry.

But this morning, those wanting Hunt to go in a Comres poll outnumbered his supporters 3-1. In fact, only 16% of UK adults think Hunt should stay.

Now I see a tweet from Max Carnage on Twitter saying the Department of Social Affairs tipped him off that ‘Jeremy Hunt is A-OK.

This is no getting ridiculous. Jeremy Hunt must go, and go now.

30Comments

Add yours

1

supafeckinmingster on May 2, 2012 at 11:41 pm

BT: “John’s systematic assaults on Cameron & Osborne may get anger off his chest but they will open the door to an election defeat by the Tory Party ”

Sorry old chap/chapette, but I respectfully disagree. The main instigator of a likely Tory party defeat in the next election will not be JW, or any contributor to this site, And it won’t be Labour either. it will be courtesy of an organisation commonly referred to as “The Conservative Party” specifically, the Parliamentary section of same. Labour will simply be “Collateral Beneficiaries”.

If the Tories spent all of 5 minutes standing up for the values of the ordinary poor souls, who vote for them on the expectation that they will do just that, they wouldn’t have to worry about “Milipede’s strategy with all his stone-throwing and bric bats.” The false-red, bastard sons & daughters of Blair would be an irrelevance. Instead DC is obsessed with image; how does this play, how does that look, etc etc. It’s depressing.

LikeLike
2

Bankrupt Taxpayer on May 2, 2012 at 9:45 pm

@supafeckinmingster: John’s systematic assaults on Cameron & Osborne may get anger off his chest but they will open the door to an election defeat by the Tory Party and for Milipede and his gang of Marxists to walk into office. Milipede won’t *win* the election, Cameron will *lose* it. THAT is Milipede’s strategy with all his stone-throwing and bric bats.
He’ll win on policies because his policies are more Marxist than Brown’s.

John says he hates socialism and so do you above, but believe me: *unless* you have a plan to overthrow the whole political establishment by c2015 when election day comes round, you will have the same old same old choices. There is no choice of “I don’t like any of them, they’re all reptiles”. It will be one or the other. Period. People who understand the evilness and venality of socialism may then regret their actions in bringing Cameron down. That’s all I’m saying.

LikeLike
3

Bankrupt Taxpayer on May 2, 2012 at 9:30 pm

@supafeckinmingster: Sure, I dislike Red Ed & Co. I’m also very disappointed and angry with the ineffective coalition govt who are following the wrong policies IMO.

On Cameron…I saw his comments in The Commons as playing it straight down the line and reserving his position on whether to sack Hunt when he gives evidence to Leveson. DC clearly left that door open. What would make me and others angry is if Hunt blows it and Cameon still doesn’t sack him. But I don’t think that’ll happen.

Don’t forget that the HoC special PMQs was demanded by the little shite Milipede for the sole purpose of throwing shite and scoring some points whilst ignoring the far bigger crimes by his own Labour govt in power. Too bad for him that Cameron wiped the floor with him.

LikeLike
4

Woodgnome on May 2, 2012 at 3:18 pm

Was talking to my local MP about this earlier (he’s Labour but less of a prat than most of them) and the general feeling amongst back-benchers on both sides of the house is apparently that they want the matter investigated honestly and thoroughly. And that they then want Hunt bloodied and thrown naked to piranha IF there is the slightest proof of wrong-doing.

I was also quite emphatically told that this is NOT the prevailing opinion in the higher echelons of any of the major parties – could it be that no-one wants to set an inconvenient precedent of actually punishing bad behaviour amongst the elite level of the political class?

LikeLike
5

Morningstar on May 2, 2012 at 7:46 am

So he cant discuss them with Mr Hunt ! Do you really think he won’t be ‘preparing himself’ by having Mr Hunts wife talk to Samantha about the best washing up liquid ? It is naive to think for a second that they will not find some way to get their acts in order and complimentary. They have a top table to stay sat at ! I think the phrase they use these days is ‘plausable deniability’. Because they are not straight enough to use the phrase ‘believeable distortions of the truth’.

LikeLike
6

Morningstar on May 2, 2012 at 7:41 am

Totally agree (JW) – I wouldn’t mind betting he had Sam ‘read’ them to him in bed after his ‘daddys windmill payment’ just so he could not be caught out lying if he said he hadn’t ‘seen’ them.

I dont trust these people a short millimeter (not a one of them) – let alone as far as I could throw them. They play with words to weasel the gullible and every single syllable needs to be fully analysed before assuming that there is so much as a truthful letter involved.

LikeLike
7

supafeckinmingster on May 2, 2012 at 12:27 am

MMP: I conclude the attraction to Louise Mensch is due to the resultant chemical/endorphin train-wreck in your being caused by the collision of positrons that your eyes are busy showering your brain with when one looks at LM, versus the negatrons (?) that every other sense in the human sensory array is simultaneously showering your brain with, that’s actually attractive.

It’s a high you can’t buy…………(unless you’re a multi-national media corp).

LikeLike
8

supafeckinmingster on May 2, 2012 at 12:05 am

C’mon BT: “That Telegraph article says “The Prime Minister has also been advised by Government lawyers that he cannot discuss with Mr Hunt the evidence about the Murdoch bid for BSkyB the minister will give to the Leveson Enquiry later this month.”…………..

………..and therefore he stands by Hunt?

Hiding behind “Government Lawyers” in a situation like this is equivalent to hiding behind the excuse “I was only following orders” in the midst of the fog of war. Because when it’s been seen that Cameron was totally wrong on this, that’s the excuse he’ll peddle. And it stinks.

Your dislike of Red-Ed shines through every word in your thread. Now I’m not saying that that’s either a good or a bad thing, I’m merely pointing out that it’s, shall we say, obvious.

Yes Millipede is pathetic. But he’s not PM. And I doubt he ever will be.

Sorry, but just because certain (practically all) elements of the Labour party are cretins, doesn’t by default make it a “smear campaign”.Hunt, and Cameron are equally, if not more, cretinous.

LikeLike
9

True_Belle (@True_Belle) on May 1, 2012 at 2:01 pm

With regard to your barbaric tone, I am shocked.

LikeLike
10

george on May 1, 2012 at 1:48 pm

” his reputation is being trashed”

Que ?
Millionaire expenses trougher who took £31K of our money to give his advisor a free pad. Gave back £9k. Bless.
Called the Hillsborough victims ‘drunken hooligans’ despite the inquiry pinning the blame on incompetent policing, opening gates to a full football enclosure and pushing fans back into the melee.
What reputation ?
Just another Huhne of the first water. And easily replaced and forgotten about.

LikeLike
11

Mr Maxi Psycho on May 1, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Louise Mensch is someone I find very attractive – however how obsequious and slimy and career driven can you get!!!…maybe thats what gives me the hots for her, I don’t know

LikeLike
12

Luther on May 1, 2012 at 12:51 pm

Leveson has let it be known (corectly IMHO) that it is not his competence. It’s like getting an economic forecast from the binman. Smoke and mirrors.

LikeLike
13

grahamwood32 on May 1, 2012 at 11:20 am

Kergoff. I’m sure others will be as puzzeled by this comment from you as I am: “but at least lets stick to the facts. Mr Cameron was warned by the Government legal advisers that he must not discuss the case with Mr Hunt nor should they align there evidence for the Leveson enquiry. Thus he could not refer to the hunt papers nor if he genuinely has not read them could now ask for them.”

1. Why is it assumed, and continues to be assumed by Cameron, that Levenson is the appropriate forum for Hunt to appear before, when Levenson himself has said that an enquiry into ministerial “code of conduct” is not within his remit, and that he refuses to entertain it?.
2. This being the case why does Cameron continue to avoid the proper authority for examining ministerial breach of the code of conduct (forget the guy’s name) who is pecifically appointed for this very purpose?
3. I cannot see how or why Cameron’s “legal advisers” can prevent him from reading for himself the released tranche of E mails between Hunt and his SPAD. This would be a legitimate and proper course for him to take, but would not commit DC to comment AT THAT STAGE in the H of C.
Cameron could then, witha greater measure of transparency simply declare that he had read the material, but was in no poisition to comment pending further enquiries to come – via the “proper” authority.
4. I still cannot get round the assertion that Cameron ” must not discuss the case” with Hunt. Why not? Hunt is still in position and a Minister and answerable to the PM is he not? Discussion? What authority have these self appointed censors? However, as I see it, once Cameron “does the right thing” (hypocritcal cliche he is so fond of) and Hunt is nominated to stand before the appointed authority, then of course such discussion would possibly be correctly held to be illegal. But hey, nothing is going to stop these two from talking it all through anyway is there – probably a mutual cover up since so much is at stake?

LikeLike
14

Bankrupt Taxpayer on May 1, 2012 at 11:06 am

John, it matters not whether Cameron has seen or been briefed on the e-mails unofficially. IIUC the lawyers advice is that he is obliged to stand at arms length from the issue, so his *official* comments in the Commons yesterday must be accepted based upon that presumption, absent any evidence to the contrary.

Please note that IF Hunt makes a poop of giving evidence to Leveson, Cameron will be able to come back and say to him “I gave you the chance of exonerating yourself and you’ve blown it. Now you must go.” Nothing he said yesterday precludes that course of action and something like that may well happen. We will see.

But none of that lets Milipede and Hatemen off the hook for sheer hypocrisy and their willingness to demand Hunt’s resignation long before even reading the e-mails. Their behaviour is akin to mob rule and lynch party tactics, whilst carefully ignoring that THEY were guilty of far worse ‘crimes’ in office.

LikeLike
15

Bellevue on May 1, 2012 at 10:56 am

Furthermore, Kergoff, you say that you have begun watching these things from afar. The rest of us have been watching these things day in, day out for yonks — and we have all become rather cynical.
Following on from Tony ‘straight sort of guy’ Blair, we can now detect bollocks from 100 paces…….. and Cameron and co are just continuing the trend. He was very cross at being reminded of the sovereignty of parliament because Prime Ministers seem to think that they are ‘above’ accountability, honesty, answering the question.
The whole thing stinks, and the whole thing has stunk for the past 15-20 years.,

LikeLike
16

John Ward on May 1, 2012 at 10:53 am

Bellie
Hear hear. Gas a Cameroon today, you know it makes sense. Reinstate Hunting immediately.

LikeLike
17

Bankrupt Taxpayer on May 1, 2012 at 10:53 am

@MaxC: Totally agree. MSM are utterly disgraceful.
I didn’t know until the Commons pantomime yesterday that Hattie’s original call for Hunt’s resignation was given live on TV News a mere 15 mins after the e-mails had surfaced and she admitted that she’d not read them! She has no shame.

LikeLike
18

John Ward on May 1, 2012 at 10:50 am

Everyone re Cameron seeing the emails.
Sorry, but this is flimsy stuff.
1. The email evidence is in the public domain for anyone to read it. I’d bet you a £ to a penny that Cameron has been at least briefed on it. The fact that he hasn’t seen it goes to show what I’ve been saying about this clown for three years: sloppy, poor preparation.
2. There is no Ministerial convention requiring Cameron not to READ the 165pps…only not to SEE Hunt’s evidence or discuss it with him. Cameron used the weasel phrase ‘not seen’ to get himself out of a mess…just like his equally weaselly non-answers to 13 PMQs about discussions over cosy Christmas lunches.
3. You’re all falling back into ‘2 wrongs make a right’ nonsense. Jumping on Labour’s bandwagon would indeed not become me which is why I’m not doing that: I’m jumping on the bandwagon of the bleedin obvious.

You’re asking me to give these two reptiles the benefit of the doubt.

What doubt would that be exactly?

LikeLike
19

True_Belle (@True_Belle) on May 1, 2012 at 10:49 am

I have had enough of Mr spit and dribble on PMQs – Will he really have his panicky finger on the missile button in London.
Has he had any pyschological profiling?

I smelt him out when he was selected in the year dot, and that is the reason why i have been so anti Tory coupled with their lack of judgement ever since!

LikeLike
20

MaxC on May 1, 2012 at 10:37 am

@Bankrupt. The Sunday Politics show on ITV Sunday saw Andrew Neil savaging Harriet Harman and forcing her to admit that, though she disbelieved Murdoch’s evidence completely, she selectively chose to believe the bit about Hunt and on this flimsy basis called for Hunt’s resignation. It was a pleasure to see a politician dissected so forensically. However, the main ITV news that evening edited out the savaging and had la Harman reiterating her call for resignation. That is how MSM manipulates news – by artful, or carelss, editing.

LikeLike
21

Peter C on May 1, 2012 at 10:28 am

I think the key phrase in the article you link is: “There are conversations that have not taken place,” but not quite in the way it was intended.

It seems plain that the Tories were desperate to keep Murdoch on side hence the desperation to push aside Cable when he publicly showed his prejudice toward him. Since he could argue that prejudice was based on his and his advisers analysis of the Newscorp business practices he could not actually be sacked, the proper course for a Minister acting from personal or unfounded prejudice. Hunt was obviously parachuted in with the ‘unofficial’ instruction, a ‘conversation that did not take place’ in other words, to make sure the business was resolved in Murdoch’s favour. Thus we have standard political practice, decide the outcome then make sure that the ‘process’ decides in favour of it whatever the merits or their lack. In this case there may not have been any actual collusion twixt Tory and Murdoch, the mere fact that an empowered Murdoch media could be expected to be a bigger foil to the BBC, justifiably hated by the Tories for their bias, would be justification enough without the need for any specific quid pro quo.

The emails so far seen are a flunky telling the recipient of proposed political largess that he was ‘sure’ to be happy with the outcome and not to worry. If that ‘conversation that did not take place’ can traced back to Hunt then he goes, if it can be traced back to Cameron then he goes, if it can’t they are safe despite it all being an obvious set up. Whatever way it goes it should be remembered that this episode is not an example of exceptional political dirty dealing or corruption, it is simply everyday politics, normal service if you like, that someone was stupid enough to let a smidgen of light creep into.

LikeLike
22

Maria das Santos on May 1, 2012 at 10:25 am

So,lets not play with the language,the Oxbridge elite are a bunch of lying twats-so what do we do?

LikeLike
23

Eaten on May 1, 2012 at 10:21 am

Better Bunter goes, but he’s gonna hold on to those Muffins longer than expected….

LikeLike
24

paul_gardner on May 1, 2012 at 10:21 am

I have to agree with Baunkrupt.

LikeLike
25

Bankrupt Taxpayer on May 1, 2012 at 10:17 am

@JW:
“How David Cameron blatantly deceived yesterday’s Emergency PMQ”

This may be unfair, John.
To be clear… Labour’s Red Ed & Co saw a pathetic opportunity to jump on the bandwagon yesterday and stick a knife into Cameron, whilst carefully ignoring the numerous violations, by Labour in office, when it comes to special advisors and who takes responsibility for them etc. Their attack failed and Cameron wiped the floor with Red Ed. Good.

That Telegraph article says “The Prime Minister has also been advised by Government lawyers that he cannot discuss with Mr Hunt the evidence about the Murdoch bid for BSkyB the minister will give to the Leveson Inquiry later this month.
Despite being unable to see or discuss the detailed evidence on Mr Hunt’s conduct…”

It looks like Cameron has not seen the e-mails because he is not allowed to see them (which I presume is because he’s responsible for Ministerial Code rules and must show impartiality). If that’s true, the most one can say about Cameron is that he was being disingenuous. Name me one politician who is not thus!

For me, the worst crime yesterday was Milipede throwing stones from inside a glasshouse. Truly pathetic and dishonest. It was also revealed that Hattie Hatemen had publicly called for Hunt’s resignation a few days ago without having seen a shred of the evidence! A dirty smear campaign by Labour?

LikeLike
26

tembo11 on May 1, 2012 at 10:13 am

the actions of the civil servant in front of the Select Committee and not giving straight / helpful answers as the Ministerial Code implies if not actually states adds weight to that line of thought

LikeLike
27

tembo11 on May 1, 2012 at 10:10 am

………We have been told emphatically by the PM that if the Leveson inquiry finds discriminating evidence he will act………..

Leveson won’t find any eveidence like that because by the time it all comes out the press will have mulled it over at length and the “not able to be a fair trial” excuse will be trotted out YET AGAIN

LikeLike
28

Mark on May 1, 2012 at 10:08 am

It seems like very strange tactics to me. If, as his words and demeanour suggest, Hunt believes that he acted impartially, surely he would want the evidence out there asap, so why wait for Levenson? Throughout the period of delay as he waits to give his evidence, his reputation is being trashed on the MSM and sites such as this. If his defence is to be “I acted properly but my crazy SPAD seems to have been up to no good” then the sooner he says it the better, accepting that he was repsonsible for the SPAD’s behaviour but deciding on balance that resignation was a step too far. People might have accepted that, but through the tactics deployed, everyone just assumes he is a crook.

LikeLike
29

Kergoff on May 1, 2012 at 9:55 am

@The slog I like reading your commentary, however to say I must protest today. Having nothing better to do all day than follow the political scene in the UK from afar I think I know as well as anyone else, that your comment today is not only onside but fails to give the total picture. You might not like Jeremy Hunt nor do I. You might not like the PM I must I stat to dislike him as well but at least lets stick to the facts. Mr Cameron was warned by the Government legal advisers that he must not discuss the case with Mr Hunt nor should they align there evidence for the Leveson enquiry. Thus he could not refer to the hunt papers nor if he genuinely has not read them could now ask for them..

We have been told emphatically by the PM that if the Leveson inquiry finds discriminating evidence he will act. He repeated this more than 8 times by my count in the House.

So let us have some reasonable reasoning in this argument and let us wait for another three weeks until the evidence has been given

Climbing on labours band wagon is most unbecoming.

LikeLike
30

MaxC on May 1, 2012 at 9:54 am

Well, Cameron hasn’t yet said “Hunt has my full support” which usually means “He’s going next week”. Why would he cling onto Hunt unless Hunt has got the goods on him?

LikeLike