Today’s Guardian carries a report by Patrick Wintour which shows the frustrations of the News Corporation camp as they tried and failed to develop the same sort of close relationship with Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable as they had with Jeremy Hunt and Alex Salmond.
The article outlines several fruitless attempts from senior figures within News Corporation to arrange a meeting with Cable to discuss their proposed takeover of BSkyB. Vince at that time had quasi-judicial responsibility for that decision.
My favourite part of the article is the response of Giles Wilkes, Vince’s Special Adviser, on being asked “when would be good for you?” for a meeting.
“Let us assume it is when a Google of Vince Cable, News International and Sky does not turn anything up. I am sure we are both interested in staying within the proper bounds of conduct.”
Compare and contrast to Alex Salmond’s adviser who was apparently telling Murdoch’s Head of Public Affairs that “he (Salmond) will call Hunt whenever we need him to”.
You can read the article in full here.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1322
In defence of free trade
Reform voters back PR and banning foreign donations
New book that undermines Starmer
Underneath the Tay Rail Bridge #dundeewestend
Roland
David Evans
Nonconformistradical
19 Comments
Along with yesterdays’ revelations, does anyone have an idea as to the ‘Lib Dem MP, former SKY employee with major SKY customer centres in his constituency…” is?
All credit to Vince Cable on this one, but who is this other individual, so keen to lobby on News International’s behalf?
Another +1 for Vince’s reputation. Shame he got caught out by that sting.
Vince Cable acted with integrity throughout this affair. Shame the same cannot be said of Cameron, Osborne or Hunt. And what of the unnamed MP, an ex – BSKYB employee who seems so keen to lobby on his old employers’ behalf?
Vince and his team deserve full credits.
However, the Guardian article raises a pile of questions for the lobbying heart of the leadership of the party, which Caron completely ignores.
The list of senior LibDems who were advising/helping Murdoch and News International on how to square off Vince Cable makes curdling reading.
1/ Murdoch’s chief lobbyist says that David Laws MP (Clegg’s closest adviser) had told NI that Cable had probably made his decision “without even reading the legal advice”.
2/ Lib Dem Vicky Price (Chris Huhne’s ex-wife) also told NI that Cable probably had not read the legal advice.
3/ Paul Marshall (Adviser to Nick Clegg) provided advice to Murdoch on how to get round the critics of the BSkyB deal.
4/ Lib Dem MP told NI that he would lobby Cable to support the Murdoch takeover on economic grounds.
5/ Nick Clegg’s Chief of Staff Jonny Oates told NI that they would insist on Cable meet with NI.
6/ Oates similarly told NI that they were absolutely furious and Cable’s comments were unacceptable.
7/ Jeremy Hunt repeatedly told NI/Murdoch that “the government” was fully supportive of the deal. This implies agreement from Clegg and Alexander?
8/ Lord Oakeshott was described as “VERY receptive to an approach from Murdoch WSJ Editor Patience Wheatcroft”
All of the above demonstrate how deeply so many senior allies of Nick Clegg were up to their eyeballs in helping Murdoch overcome Vince Cable’s hugely important opposition to the further increase in power of Rupert Murdoch over our “democratic systems”.
The political lobbying cancer is endemic in the leadership sections of the party and is seriously damaging to it and to the party and to the country at large.
It doesn’t matter how professional Vince was before he screwed up, he screwed up, and screwed up badly. It’s a shame. But it does negate his behaviour prior to the Telegraph sting. He’s no better than Hunt.
Vince is one of the few left standing after recent events: canny and prudent. What is more, he’s been far more right than wrong.
I suspect it may be generational as much as anything.
Compare and contrast to Alex Salmond’s adviser who was apparently telling Murdoch’s Head of Public Affairs that “he (Salmond) will call Hunt whenever we need him to”.
They’re simply not comparable. As you stated, “Vince had quasi-judicial responsibility for that decision”. Salmond had no such responsibility or even influence over it. Cable (quite rightly) avoided any chance of his being accused of having done some sort of shady deal, while Salmond was in no position to offer any deal in the first place.
Even if the claims in the email are accurate (and given that it’s at least a 3rd hand account , we can hardly be sure of that), Salmond is guilty of nothing more than currying favour with NI, which, while distasteful on first principles, is hardly scandalous or dishonest in any way.
And what Donnachadh McCarthy said. I was most struck by Paul Marshall’s attitude, which seemed to be that Rupert Murdoch was a wonderfully successful businessman, and therefore deserved all the help possible from government and from himself personally. Does he not despise what Murdoch has helped to do to our political culture and how he has impeded liberalism?
The “Lib Dem MP” has been unmasked by Stephen Tall as Jim Tolson, then MSP for Dunfermline. http://stephentall.org/2012/04/25/jim-tolson-murdoch-news-corporation-bskyb/
Willie Rennie spoke about this on Good Morning Scotland – basically saying “where’s the trade?” What was Jim Tolson getting in return? Absolutely nothing. And he was talking about something in which there was a constituency interest.
Good on Giles Wilkes.
However, let’s not over-egg the pudding by pretending that current revelations about Jeremy Hunt’s inappropriate relations with Murdoch retrospectively justify boasting of prejudging a takeover bid.
This in no way lessens the need for Jeremy Hunt to account for his dealings with Murdoch and for the PM to give a better defence than the one he just proffered at PMQs.
Such a shame that Vince let his Special Adviser down….
I think the thing we need to accept is that Vince was spot on in his feelings for News International, Labour and the Tories have atrocious records with them. Vince had the quasi judicial authority in the case and he blew it by breaching the requirements of holding that authority. I dispute those who state that Vince is no better than Hunt. Vince screwed up trying to do the right thing. It appears Hunt never had any intention of doing so..
What we are not getting on this site is the proper attack on the Tories in this. Instead we are attacking Labour and the SNP. Unfortunately this will only serve to enforce the views of those who feel the party is being subsumed by the Tories. Whilst I accept Ministers will need to keep a lower profile, I would expect statements from the senior people not on the government payroll questioning Hunt’s ability to continue.
After all, plenty of Tories called for the head of Vince when he broke the rules….
It seems beyond doubt that there should be defined procedures. On one hand a group or company that will be affected by a decision needs to be able to argue its case, and opponents need to be able to see the arguments and present counter-arguments. On the other hand, the decison-maker needs to act, and be seen to be acting, without fear or favour.
Steve, it wasn’t that Vince “screwed up trying to do the right thing”, as if he simply slipped on a banana skin of process. His boast that he had “declared war” on Murdoch showed that he was determined to base his decision about a highly sensitive takeover bid not on the impartial and quasi-judicial basis that his role required but on his personal prejudices. (Indeed if the Guardian’s account of comments by David Laws and Vicky Pryce – that Vince probably hadn’t even read the legal advice – is anything to go by, his stance came as no surprise to those who knew him well.)
Whether or not you share those prejudices is immaterial. In fact, given that those were his views about Murdoch you could argue that he should have taken particular care to take his quasi-judicial responsibilities seriously. If he couldn’t do that he should have asked to be relieved of responsibility for the decision.
Anyway, that is history now, Vince suffered the humiliation of having his wings clipped, and I’m sure he’s allowed himself a wry smile or two over current events. Jeremy Hunt now has to account for the plainly inappropriate way in which privileged information was channelled to News Corp. I don’t think his explanation thus far (my special adviser over-stepped the mark) is anywhere near adequate.
I’m wondering why Clegg was so keen to get cover from the Murdoch press for his broken electoral promise on copyright reform. I wouldn’t have thought that the position adopted would have been too hard to defend even without such cover – unless something else was being hidden. I could think of rather more things were Clegg might have felt the need for cover first.
Vince did not do well, he did the same as Hunt did but from the other point of view. You are meant to judge on what is presented to you not allow personal bias cloud your judgement. In this Vince was wrong and even more wrong for saying it to someone he didnt know. Even if you allow your bias to affect a decision like this, you shouldnt be stupid enough to broadcast it to others. At the very least you have to look as if you are being impartial, even if you arent
It’s sad to hear of Nick Clegg’s “in crowd” being so unscrupulous. I’ve stood by Mr Cleeg up till now as I don’t think anyone else can possibly tell how they would react to all the stresses he has had to deal with – and most of the time he has got it right. But I guess maybe the time has come for ordinary members to start thinking about who should succeed Nick Clegg. It wouldn’t be the first time a leader has been brought down by the silliness of the people who should have been supporting him. Maybe I’m being too harsh; but this is my gut feeling at present. Nick, get rid of these sycophants!
As Andrew Neal reminded viewers today (while interviewing Ben Bradshaw), the BskyB bid was only made possible in the first place as Labour relaxed the laws on foreign media ownership. So, while labour are making much hay out of the issue, lets remember where the original problem stems from. And why did Labour relax the laws? There was only really one person who was going to benefit and that was their then best mate Rupert Murdoch. I wonder how many of the current Murdoch baiters were sitting MPs when this slipped through?
Murdoch and his key aides felt they were above the normal rules (maybe the law) because of their muscle and their close relationships with power.
However, I endorse the view that there is nothing wrong about an MP (MSP, MEP, councillor) whose electorate is affected by a decision lobbying on behalf of a company who would provide his or her constituents with jobs.