Are the Non-Murdoch media now threatening a select committee member?

Some concerning tweets about Louise Mensch MP.

I know Louise Mensch MP slightly. I was at university at the same time and we have some mutual friends. At Freshers' Fayre she tried to sign me up for the "Rock Society" (I manfully resisted, being a Stranglers and Damned fan).

I am certainly not a political supporter of hers, but she is not someone to be under-estimated and she is rightly regarded as being among the more able of the new intake of MPs. And so, against this background, I was rather concerned to see certain tweets last night.

Martin Bright, formerly of this magazine, asked publicly:

Are the media trying to intimidate @LouiseMensch?

Now, why would they do that? Well, as is well known, Mensch asked Rupert Murdoch directly if he had considered resigning at this week's select committee hearing. But I suspect that Martin did not mean anyone at News International.

There has rightly been attention paid to Mensch's incorrect claim that Piers Morgan had openly boasted in some book about phone hacking. I understand she will now retract that statement when Parliament reconvenes. All the same, the fact does remain that Piers Morgan was editor of the Daily Mirror during part of the time covered by the ICO report, "What Price Privacy".

Her substantive point is that hacking and blagging was prevalent throughout the British tabloid press. It is widely believed that the tabloid press is apprehensive that the phone hacking and blagging scandal would spread beyond News International.

Two days after the Select Committee, it was reported that the police had asked for the evidence in the so-called "Motorman" files. If this is correct, then this means newspaper groups other than News International are now in the frame for certain offences.

Mensch tells me that this week she suddenly started to receive a lot of attention from the non-Murdoch tabloid groups. I am told that her office even received a strange call from a newspaper, immediately after the Select Committee hearings ended: the ominous question posed was "Can you confirm you are pregnant?". There have been a range of other press contacts.

Guido Fawkes has now tweeted there are orders to "get Mensch" from the "very top" and there would be a damaging story about her private life this coming Sunday. I do not know if that is correct; but it certainly is not a pleasant prospect for anyone.

In fact this all becoming very odd, and it is also worrying. To her credit, Mensch has decided not to be intimidated by this sudden tabloid interest in her private life, and has chosen to reveal the apparent intimidation to the New Statesman. If this is an intended intimidation exercise, then it would raise the troubling concern that may be some attempt to pressure or discredit a member of a parliamentary select committee.

It will be interesting to see what Sunday brings, and - indeed - what Mensch and the select committee have to do in response.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent for the New Statesman.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Getty
Show Hide image

You're wrong about Leave voters - four surprising facts about the 52 per cent

Leave voters are not as anti-immigrant as you think. 

He is an old man from a coastal town. He’s uneducated by modern standards, and worked for an industry that is now defunct. He spends his retirement shooting suspicious looks at anyone who looks “forrun” and wincing at the sound of Polish voices. He voted to quit the EU. He’s Mr Leave.

In the aftermath of Brexit, this caricature has haunted the imagination of many a Remain voter. But a new report from the think tank British Future shows it is a false one. Just as a quarter of Remain voters also backed the Tories in 2015 (sorry, progressive alliancers), Leave voters have different views on immigration, sovereignty and the economy. 

Here are some of the most surprising insights from the polling, which was carried out with pollsters ICM:

1. Leave voters cared most about sovereignty

While a quarter of Leave voters cited immigration as their number one reason, more than half said they were motivated by “taking power back from Brussels”. 

In contrast to the caricature of the ancient xenophobe, the older a Leave voter, the more likely sovereignty was their motivation. 

2. Leave voters also hated Nigel Farage’s poster

For those who hated the Leave campaign’s focus on immigration, the lowest point was UKIP leader Nigel Farage’s unveiling of a poster showing refugees crossing Europe and the caption: “Breaking Point.”

It was also the low point for many Leave voters. Roughly a third said the poster overstepped the mark, and this rose to half of voters who only made up their mind to quit during the campaign. A majority of Leave voters and UKIP supporters felt the debate on immigration got dangerously overheated.

Overall, three-quarters of the British public agree with the statement:

“What we need now is a sensible policy to manage immigration so we control who comes here but still keep the immigration that’s good for our economy and society, and maintains our tradition of offering sanctuary to refugees.”

3. Leave voters want EU migrants to stay

The new prime minister, Theresa May, is refusing to guarantee the right of EU citizens living in the UK to stay – which makes her more extreme than most UKIP voters.

Three-quarters of Leave voters and 78 per cent of UKIP voters think EU migrants should be able to stay. 

In fact, a fifth of those who feel confident about the benefits of immigration to the UK, voted Leave.

4. Leave voters have to wait longer for the bus

While voters in the farmlands of Eastern England were most likely to vote to Leave, in some areas with similar demographics the vote was much stronger than in others.

South Holland, where 73.6 per cent voted to leave, is a rural, agricultural area with poor transport links. The jobs are low-paid, and often only zero-hours contracts. Many were filled by EU migrants. 

By contrast, nearby South Kesteven has three market towns, and the jobs market is less reliant on the food production industry. The transport links are better. Just 59.9 per cent voted Leave. 

A similar pattern can be seen in Stoke-on-Trent (69.4 per cent Leave) and Knowsley (51.6 per cent Leave). Both places have experienced industrial decline, but Knowsley is much better connected to Liverpool city centre.

So what should we make of all this? The British Future report concludes:

Even on a disagreement this big, we – Leave and Remain, old and young, graduate and non-­‐graduate, metropolitan and provincial -­‐ still have more in common than that which divides us, to quote a maiden speech that tragically gained a new poignancy with the murder of its author, Jo Cox MP.

"Build bridges, not walls" has long been a slogan of internationalists. But preserving and strengthening the 48 per cent and 52 per cent tribes will not build a bridge, it will build a wall. It is time to tear it down.