Deafening silence on the phone-hacking scandal

Aside from the Guardian, national papers have failed to comment on revelations about the phone-tappi

The New York Times today unveiled the results of a five-month investigation into the News of the World phone-tapping allegations, revealing that the former editor Andy Coulson (now, of course, the Prime Minister's media adviser) "actively encouraged" his reporter to make the interceptions.

My colleague George Eaton has covered the story in more detail but I just wanted to highlight one aspect: the findings have received very little attention from other newspapers.

Aside from the Guardian, which published a full account of the investigation, no other national paper gave it any space. The Times, the Telegraph, the Independent, the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Mirror all failed to cover the story at all. Considering that the investigation uncovers a widespread culture of phone-hacking at a major Sunday paper, with one source saying "Everyone knew. The office cat knew", I would have thought that Fleet Street would have more to say about the low tactics employed by one of its number.

Of course, two other big stories were receiving a great deal of attention today, with further analysis of Blair's memoirs and the resignation of William Hague's special adviser occupying most journalists.

But the Times front page today featured neither story. Instead, a story entitled "Hawking: God did not create the universe" dominated, revealing that Stephen Hawking has changed his mind about the possibility of divine involvement in quantum physics. Hours later, the paper's website is still covering the reaction to this news.

For the Murdoch-owned papers included in the list above, the motivation to ignore this story isn't hard to fathom. Just as the Times recently ignored Mark Thompson's comments about Sky, Murdoch's other titles will be under orders not to inflate the criticism of their sister-publication.

But the silence on the Coulson story from the rest is almost eerie. Papers are usually desperate to expose each other's failures. Why are they holding back?

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman. She writes a weekly podcast column.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.