A racket at News International?

The second module of the Leveson inquiry has an explosive start.

When last November, Tom Watson MP put to Rupert and James Murdoch that they were running a "Mafia" organisiation, it seemed that the dogged and fearless critic of News International had gone a step too far. And that was a pity, as up to that point Watson had asked a fine sequence of well-structured questions which the Murdochs were finding extremely difficult to evade.

The allegations that came out this morning at the Leveson inquiry suggest that Watson's comment was not as misconceived as it may have first appeared.

Let's break down a criminal enterprise into elements. Are there allegations of criminal activity? Yes, both in terms of hacking and corrupt payments. Was that alleged criminality for commercial purposes? Yes. Were there alleged wrongful payments to the police? Yes. Were there contacts with the police which provided alleged early warnings of investigations? Yes. Was the knowledge of any of this possessed at senior levels in the organization? It would appear so. Was there a deliberate silence to the outside world about what was known? Yes, again it would appear so. Were public officials misled? That seems the case with at least the PCC. And were police investigations closed down in circumstances for which there is still no good explanation? That would indeed appear to be the case.

However, all that we have so far are allegations and what can be inferred from the materials released. All those involved are entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence in respect of any criminal liability. Nonetheless, the scope of the allegations are now as serious as they can be, and there does seem to be evidence of a scale and system of improper payments which is worrying at best.

Still, Watson did perhaps go too far with his reference to the Mafia. A Mafia organisation is presumably one which exists for criminality as an end in itself. News International was always in the lawful business of publishing newspapers; it was just that a culture of criminality seems to have been allowed to develop as part of that otherwise entirely legal enterprise, and that such a culture seemed to have been knowingly insulated from any effective outside scrutiny. But it is a rather unfortunate defence to resort to say something is not being quite as bad as a Mafia. What appears to have gone wrong at News International seems bad enough on its own terms. For, if these allegations are borne out, then there was what can be fairly called a racket.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of 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

Why Clive Lewis was furious when a Trident pledge went missing from his speech

The shadow defence secretary is carving out his own line on security. 

Clive Lewis’s first conference speech as shadow defence secretary has been overshadowed by a row over a last-minute change to his speech, when a section saying that he “would not seek to change” Labour’s policy on renewing Trident submarines disappeared.

Lewis took the stage expecting to make the announcement and was only notified of the change via a post-it note, having reportedly signed it of with the leader’s office in advance. 

Lewis was, I’m told, “fucking furious”, and according to Kevin Schofield over at PoliticsHome, is said to have “punched a wall” in anger at the change. The finger of blame is being pointed at Jeremy Corbyn’s press chief, Seumas Milne.

What’s going on? The important political context is the finely-balanced struggle for power on Labour’s ruling national executive committee, which has tilted away from Corbyn after conference passed a resolution to give the leaders of the Welsh and Scottish parties the right to appoint a representative each to the body. (Corbyn, as leader, has the right to appoint three.)  

One of Corbyn’s more resolvable headaches on the NEC is the GMB, who are increasingly willing to challenge  the Labour leader, and who represent many of the people employed making the submarines themselves. An added source of tension in all this is that the GMB and Unite compete with one another for members in the nuclear industry, and that being seen to be the louder defender of their workers’ interests has proved a good recruiting agent for the GMB in recent years. 

Strike a deal with the GMB over Trident, and it could make passing wider changes to the party rulebook through party conference significantly easier. (Not least because the GMB also accounts for a large chunk of the trade union delegates on the conference floor.) 

So what happened? My understanding is that Milne was not freelancing but acting on clear instruction. Although Team Corbyn are well aware a nuclear deal could ease the path for the wider project, they also know that trying to get Corbyn to strike a pose he doesn’t agree with is a self-defeating task. 

“Jeremy’s biggest strength,” a senior ally of his told me, “is that you absolutely cannot get him to say something he doesn’t believe, and without that, he wouldn’t be leader. But it can make it harder for him to be the leader.”

Corbyn is also of the generation – as are John McDonnell and Diane Abbott – for whom going soft on Trident was symptomatic of Neil Kinnock’s rightward turn. Going easy on this issue was always going be nothing doing. 

There are three big winners in all this. The first, of course, are Corbyn’s internal opponents, who will continue to feel the benefits of the GMB’s support. The second is Iain McNicol, formerly of the GMB. While he enjoys the protection of the GMB, there simply isn’t a majority on the NEC to be found to get rid of him. Corbyn’s inner circle have been increasingly certain they cannot remove McNicol and will insead have to go around him, but this confirms it.

But the third big winner is Lewis. In his praise for NATO – dubbing it a “socialist” organisation, a reference to the fact the Attlee government were its co-creators – and in his rebuffed attempt to park the nuclear issue, he is making himeslf the natural home for those in Labour who agree with Corbyn on the economics but fear that on security issues he is dead on arrival with the electorate.  That position probably accounts for at least 40 per cent of the party membership and around 100 MPs. 

If tomorrow’s Labour party belongs to a figure who has remained in the trenches with Corbyn – which, in my view, is why Emily Thornberry remains worth a bet too – then Clive Lewis has done his chances after 2020 no small amount of good. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.