Miliband's call for a judge-led inquiry gathers strength

MPs' failure to land a blow on Bob Diamond has bolstered the case for a full inquiry.

It was Lib Dem MP John Thurso's comparison of Bob Diamond with Geoffrey Boycott ("You have been occupying the crease for two and a half hours and I am not sure we are any further forward") that was the defining moment of yesterday's select committee hearing. Put simply, the bowlers weren't up to the job. Their ineptitude exemplified precisely why we need a judge-led inquiry into the Libor scandal.

The Commons will vote today on whether to hold a parliamentary inquiry (the government's preferred option) or a judicial inquiry (Labour's preferred option), with the coalition's sizeable majority almost certain to ensure that MPs back the former. Andrew Tyrie, the chair of the Treasury select committee, has indicated that he will refuse to preside over an inquiry that does not enjoy cross-party support, but today's Financial Times reports that George Osborne, on this occasion, has prepared a plan B. Should Tyrie refuse to chair the inquiry, John McFall, the former Labour chair of the committee, will be asked to lead it instead. McFall will only accept the post with Miliband's blessing, but the offer of a Labour chair will make it harder for Miliband to withhold his support.

Yet George Osborne's evidence-free assertion that Labour ministers were "clearly involved" in the rate-rigging scandal means that consensus could prove elusive. It's worth noting that Miliband isn't the only one banging the drum for a judicial inquiry. The Daily Mail, one of the few papers with the capacity to shift government policy, reaffirms the case for "a proper judge-led public inquiry" in its editorial column today. Indeed, the paper seconds Miliband's proposal of a swift inquiry into the Libor scandal (to report by Christmas), followed by a second year-long inquiry into the wider "culture and practices" of the City of London.

As I suggested yesterday, the unending argument over which party called for the least regulation, matters less than who is seen to have the right policy now. One of Cameron's biggest problems is that he leads a party that voters see as far too close to the banks (a party "bankrolled by the banks", in Miliband's words) and other vested interests. It is one that his opposition to a judge-led inquiry (backed by 75 per cent of voters, according to YouGov) will only increase.

Former Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond leaves Portcullis House after appearing before the Treasury Select Committee. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.