The Press Complaints Commission versus the Daily Telegraph

I had meant to blog about this when the PCC announced the ruling, but I was recovering from the election.

I am very pleased that the PCC have ruled against the Daily Telegraph, for two reasons.

The Daily Telegraph articles quoted a number of private comments made by senior Liberal Democrat MPs in their constituency surgeries which had been secretly recorded by the newspaper's journalists posing as constituents.

The MPs featured included the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, in addition to Under Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Ed Davey, Minister for Work and Pensions, Steve Webb, Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, Under Secretary of State for Transport, Norman Baker, Under Secretary of State to the Department for Communities and Local Government, Andrew Stunell, Parliamentary Secretary (Deputy Leader) to the Office of the Leader of the Commons, David Heath and Health Minister, Paul Burstow.

A pity the PCC spelt Andrew Stunell's name incorrectly.

I have worked directly for one of these, worked closely with four and worked with the other three.  In fact one was at my wedding earlier this year.

I therefore reserve the right to be biased against the Daily Telegraph.
I have read the ruling, a number of times and the most interesting paragraph is this one;

The newspaper denied that it had undertaken a ‘fishing expedition'; rather, it had acted upon specific information it had received from parliamentarians and members of the public. In private meetings at the Conservative party conference in 2010, the editor had been informed by Conservative ministers including a Cabinet minister (themselves informed by local party activists) that the public and private views of some Liberal Democrat ministers were increasingly at odds, particularly on the issue of Coalition policies which had been backed publicly. Similar concerns had also been expressed separately to senior reporters and the issue was raised with several MPs in the course of various engagements. A consistent theme began to emerge of growing Liberal Democrat private dissatisfaction. The newspaper said that the Conservative ministers were understandably reluctant to go on the record, or provide information or contacts in Liberal Democrat constituencies to back up their concerns.

The specific line within the paragraph above that caught my eye was this one;

In private meetings at the Conservative party conference in 2010, the editor had been informed by Conservative ministers including a Cabinet minister (themselves informed by local party activists) that the public and private views of some Liberal Democrat ministers were increasingly at odds, particularly on the issue of Coalition policies which had been backed publicly.

Wow, the editor must have been really shocked?

Come on DT, when Labour were in power they had Ministers and MPs expressing views against their own Government - did the Daily Telegraph think it was appropriate to go and pretend to be constituents and secretly film or record them?

No, because in other news the Pope is Catholic and bears crap in woods.

So, what is different?

The difference is that the media are not used to coalition government - unlike the Scottish media - and therefore don't know how to deal with it.  The only way they have come up with so far is to to attack, and find things to attack, sometimes like this story, on things that don't interest the public and breaking the rules to get the story.

Interestingly the ruling also states;

The newspaper had said that it had acted on information from various sources, who had been unwilling to go on the record.

I assume that includes the Conservative Ministers and Cabinet Minister?  Strange that.

Is it because they are jealous they didn't get more senior roles within the Government because Cameron went into coalition rather than going it alone in a minority government?

The second reason I am pleased that the ruling went against the Daily Telegraph was because knowing how hard MPs work and how important their constituency surgeries are, it is utterly appalling that the journalists wasted time pretending to be constituents.
 
This, as well as being sneaky and dishonest has deprived a real constituent with real problems from seeing their MP and potentially getting help.
 
When I worked for Vince Cable, he held his weekly advice surgery every Friday from 5pm to 7pm.  Joan and I often would be still in the office with Vince until 8pm, sometimes even later working through the people and trying to help.
 
I have to be honest, it is a bloody good job I didn't work for Vince when the sneaky journalists met him, because I would have been furious.  We put a lot of effort into helping constituents, so depriving a real person of time with their MP to explain a real life problem is nothing short of pathetic.
 
The Daily Telegraph were out of order on this occasion, they didn't generate news, and they have gone down in my estimation.  You can read the ruling here.

David Laws - the sheer hypocrisy....

.....of those Labour activists and mouth pieces on twitter and in the blogosphere for the turning on, of the anti machine.

It is sheer hypocrisy though, because when their MPs were being pictured walking into court for actual fraud the same bloggers/tweeters were all strangely silent.

I have long admired David Laws (not like that) politics and how he has handled himself within the Party and on the economics stage in the real world.

Has today's story in The Daily Telegraph also explained the reason why Alistair Campbell produced a framed photo of David Laws at the end of Thursday's BBC Question Time, is it he who tipped the Daily Telegraph off, who knows?

Or was Campbell going to put the framed photo of David in the seat where David had been due to sit, again who knows?

The Daily Telegraph's story claims that David Laws:

• Claimed between £700 and £950 a month between 2004 and 2007 to sub-let a room in a flat in Kennington, south London, owned by his partner who was also registered as living at the property;
• From 2007, David then began claiming £920 a month to rent the second bedroom from a new house bought by his partner, who also lived there.

David Laws has issued a statement, published in full by The Daily telegraph, as follows:

I’ve been involved in a relationship with James Lundie since around 2001 — about two years after first moving in with him. Our relationship has been unknown to both family and friends throughout that time. James and I are intensely private people. We made the decision to keep our relationship private and believed that was our right. Clearly that cannot now remain the case.

“My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality.

“I claimed back the costs of sharing a home in Kennington with James from 2001 to June 2007. In June 2007, James bought a new home in London and I continued to claim back my share of the costs. I extended the mortgage on my Somerset property, for which I do not claim any allowances or expenses, to help James purchase the new property.

“In 2006 the Green Book rules were changed to prohibit payments to partners. At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as ‘one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses’.

“Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses. For example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives. However, I now accept that this was open to interpretation and will immediately pay back the costs of the rent and other housing costs I claimed from the time the rules changed until August 2009.”

There are many people with different opinions on this out there, I have selected four that you can go and read directly for yourselves and my opinion follows.

Liberal Democrat Voice;

I think many people will have a fair amount of sympathy for David’s position. Clearly in an effort to maintain his privacy, he has kept secret his domestic arrangements; and any form of secrecy will lead some to place the worst possible interpretation on it.

Sara Bedford's blog, Always win when you're singing;

I’m not from the same wing of the Lib Dems as David Laws. I’m not a likely cheerleader for him. But his performance since his appointment to the cabinet has been astounding, with a mastery and articulation of his new brief which has delighted most of the political world. Don’t resign and give the Telegraph their pound of flesh David. Your party, the coalition and, the country’s economy need you.

Jerry Hayes on Think Politics website;

Has David Laws behaved corruptly? The answer was simply put in a tweet by the Financial Times journalist and serious thinker, Christopher Cook, last night. If Laws had declared his relationship he could have charged the taxpayer for the whole mortgage. So when banner headlines demand a scalp, I hope that David Cameron and Nick Clegg have the compassion and common sense to ride out the storm.

Tony Grew is parliamentary editor of ePolitix.com and writes in defence of David Laws.

It is an intense sadness to me that David Laws never felt able to step out into that new sunshine created by Tony Blair and New Labour. He was never able to learn that the vast majority of his colleagues and friends do not give a damn about who he shares his life with, as long as it made him happy.  Instead one of the richest MPs in parliament found himself in a ridiculous position - claiming rent from the taxpayer to refund his boyfriend, so that no-one would find out he was his boyfriend.

Now, my opinion for what it's worth is this, David Laws has tried to keep a difficult private life just that, private and has today paid the price for that because The Daily Telegraph don't respect that view, who ever it is.
 
Given David could have claimed the whole mortgage under the rules the taxpayers have not been shortchanged so David Laws should not resign, he is doing a great job and should be allowed to continue.
 
For me, it is really sad that here we are in May 2010 and a person's sexuality is front page news.
 
When will The Daily Telegraph grow up?