What next in the phone-hacking battle?

Why Les Hinton's evidence is crucial and a possible replacement for Andy Coulson

The news that Les Hinton, the former News International executive chairman, will give evidence to the Commons media committee as part of its inquiry into the alleged phone hacking by the News of the World is more significant than it appears.

It was Hinton, now chief executive of Dow Jones, who appeared before the committee after the News of the World's former royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glen Mulcaire were jailed in January 2007 for tapping the phones of royal staff.

The key exchange with the committee chairman, John Whittingdale, ran:

Whittingdale: You carried out a full, rigorous internal inquiry and you are absolutely convinced that Clive Goodman was the only person who knew what was going on?

Hinton: Yes, we have and I believe he was the only person, but that investigation, under the new editor, continues.

It's worth noting Hinton's use of the caveat "I believe", which offers him some wriggle room.

Whittingdale has since said that evidence that other reporters were involved in the hacking operation "might contradict" Hinton's testimony.

Expect questions to focus on the emails uncovered by the Guardian suggesting that Neville Thurlbeck, the paper's chief reporter, was also involved.

Let's hope that the committee has more success in its face-off with Hinton than it did with Andy Coulson, the News of the World editor at the time, who still shamelessly maintains that he had no knowledge of the affair.

As I've continually argued, if Coulson did know about the phone hacking then he's too wicked to be the Tories' spin chief, and if he didn't know then he's too stupid to be the Tories' spin chief.

But in the unlikely event that Coulson is forced to step down there may be a replacement waiting in the wings. Conservative sources tell me that Team Cameron regards Matthew d'Ancona, who recently resigned as editor of the Spectator, as the ideal candidate for the job.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.