Clegg defends Coulson

“I have no reason to disbelieve him,” says the Deputy Prime Minister.

Nick Clegg, on The Andrew Marr Show this morning, was forced to defend the Tories' former communications chief Andy Coulson, who resigned from his post on Friday. These were his comments:

If you listen to what David Cameron has said, he said very emphatically that he thought it was right to give Andy Coulson a second chance. Andy Coulson has been very clear that he was not in any way responsible for phone-hacking and had no knowledge of it. I have no reason to disbelieve him.

Clegg plays a careful game here, relying on Cameron's judgement (which has repeatedly been drawn into question over the Coulson affair) rather than voicing his own. And his backing of Coulson is guarded: having "no reason" to disbelieve someone is not the same as whole-heartedly defending them.

It can't be comfortable for Clegg – being forced to speak out on behalf of a man whom his party publicly denounced before the coalition formed (in 2009, Chris Huhne stated of Coulson that "a future prime minister cannot have someone who is involved in these sorts of underhand tactics").

On the matter of who would be replacing Coulson (speculation about who this will be is intense – read the last point in Mehdi Hasan's post), Clegg distanced himself again:

It is primarily a decision for the Prime Minister. He is the Prime Minister's spokesman but he is also responsible for communicating government policy, so of course I will play a role as well.

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

Getty
Show Hide image

The Manchester attack will define this election: Broadcasters have a careful line to tread

It's right that the government should be given a chance to respond, but they must not be allowed to use it to campaign.

Every election campaign has its story, its place in the political history of this country. 2017 will forever be known for Manchester and the horror of the attack on Britain's young; and fighting terrorism will be a theme, overt or underlying, of what we see and hear between now and polling day.

The broadcasters have covered the events comprehensively yet sensitively. But they are aware that we're in an election campaign too; and when other news drives aside the carefully-balanced campaign formats, ministerial appearances give them a dilemma.

The fact is that what the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are doing in response to Manchester is newsworthy. It was Theresa May's duty to implement the recommendations of her security advisers on the elevation of the terror alert, and it would have been unthinkable for the news channels not to broadcast her various statements.

But it is also true that, if the bomb hadn't been detonated, Tuesday would have been a day in which the PM would have been under relentless damaging scrutiny for her u-turn on social care. All the opposition parties would have been in full cry across the airwaves. Yet in the tragic circumstances we found ourselves, nobody could argue that Downing Street appearances on the terror attack should prompt equal airtime for everyone from Labour to Plaid Cymru.

There are precedents for ministers needing to step out of their party roles during a campaign, and not be counted against the stopwatch balance of coverage. Irish terrorism was a factor in previous elections and the PM or Northern Ireland secretary were able to speak on behalf of the UK government. It applied to the foot and mouth epidemic that was occupying ministers' time in 2001. Prime ministers have gone to foreign meetings before, too. Mrs Thatcher went to an economic summit in photogenic Venice with her soulmate Ronald Reagan three days before the 1987 election, to the irritation of Neil Kinnock.

There are plenty of critics who will be vigilant about any quest for party advantage in the way that Theresa May and Amber Rudd now make their TV and radio appearances; and it’s inevitable that a party arguing that it offers strength and stability will not object to being judged against these criteria in extreme and distressing times.

So it's necessary for both broadcasters and politicians to be careful, and there are some fine judgements to be made. For instance, it was completely justifiable to interview Amber Rudd about the latest information from Manchester and her annoyance with American intelligence leaks. I was less comfortable with her being asked in the same interview about the Prevent strategy, and with her response that actions would follow "after June", which edges into party territory and would be a legitimate area to seek an opposition response.

When the campaigning resumes, these challenges become even greater. Deciding when the Prime Minister is speaking for the government and nation, or when she is leader of the Conservative Party, will never be black and white. But I would expect to see the broadcast bulletins trying to draw clearer lines about what is a political report and what is the latest from Manchester or from G7. They must also resist any efforts to time ministerial pronouncements with what's convenient for the party strategists' campaign grid.

There might also usefully be more effort to report straight what the parties are saying in the final days, with less spin and tactical analysis from the correspondents. The narrative of this election has been changed by tragedy, and the best response is to let the politicians and the public engage as directly as possible in deciding what direction the nation should now take.

Roger Mosey is the Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge. He was formerly editorial director and the director of London 2012 at the BBC.

0800 7318496