Cameron rejects state-backed regulation but Miliband accepts it

Prime Minister says he has "serious concerns and misgivings" over writing the new press regulatory system into law.

As expected, a sharp political divide has opened up between Labour and the Conservatives over the Leveson report. In his statement to the Commons, David Cameron praised most of Leveson's recommendations but declared that he had "serious concerns and misgivings" over his call for a new system of press regulation to be underpinned by statute. This, he suggested, would set a dangerous precedent by "writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land". He warned that this would create "a vehicle for politicians, whether today or some time in the future, to impose regulation and obligations on the press".

But he ended by emphasising that the status quo "is not an option" and said that the press had "a limited period of time" to set up a new regulatory system that complies with "Leveson principles". And, while Cameron is opposed to state-backed regulation on principled as well as pragmatic grounds, he was careful not to rule it out completely.

In his response to Cameron, Ed Miliband began by immediately signalling his disagreement with the PM, stating that he hoped to "convince" him in the days and weeks ahead that "we should put our trust in Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations". Lest there be any doubt that Labour favours state-backed regulation, Miliband went on to say "[Leveson] recommends that both Ofcom’s role and these criteria of independence and effectiveness will be set out in statute, a law of this Parliament. A truly independent regulation of the press, guaranteed by law. Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals are measured, reasonable and proportionate. We on this side unequivocally endorse both the principles set out and his central recommendations."

Cameron is opposed to any form of state involvement, Miliband is unambiguously in favour. The divide could not be clearer. While both have agreed to cross-party talks, it's hard to see, at this stage, how their differences could be bridged.

David Cameron leaves Number 10 Downing Street. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

No, David Cameron’s speech was not “left wing”

Come on, guys.

There is a strange journalistic phenomenon that occurs when a party leader makes a speech. It is a blend of groupthink, relief, utter certainty, and online backslapping. It happened particularly quickly after David Cameron’s speech to Tory party conference today. A few pundits decided that – because he mentioned, like, diversity and social mobility – this was a centre-left speech. A leftwing speech, even. Or at least a clear grab for the liberal centre ground. And so that’s what everyone now believes. The analysis is decided. The commentary is written. Thank God for that.

Really? It’s quite easy, even as one of those nasty, wicked Tories, to mention that you actually don’t much like racism, and point out that you’d quite like poor children to get jobs, without moving onto Labour's "territory". Which normal person is in favour of discriminating against someone on the basis of race, or blocking opportunity on the basis of class? Of course he’s against that. He’s a politician operating in a liberal democracy. And this isn’t Ukip conference.

Looking at the whole package, it was actually quite a rightwing speech. It was a paean to defence – championing drones, protecting Britain from the evils of the world, and getting all excited about “launching the biggest aircraft carriers in our history”.

It was a festival of flagwaving guff about the British “character”, a celebration of shoehorning our history chronologically onto the curriculum, looking towards a “Greater Britain”, asking for more “national pride”. There was even a Bake Off pun.

He also deployed the illiberal device of inculcating a divide-and-rule fear of the “shadow of extremism – hanging over every single one of us”, informing us that children in UK madrassas are having their “heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate”, and saying Britain shouldn’t be “overwhelmed” with refugees, before quickly changing the subject to ousting Assad. How unashamedly centrist, of you, Mr Prime Minister.

Benefit cuts and a reduction of tax credits will mean the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for “equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of outcome” will be just that – with the outcome pretty bleak for those who end up losing any opportunity that comes with state support. And his excitement about diversity in his cabinet rings a little hollow the day following a tubthumping anti-immigration speech from his Home Secretary.

If this year's Tory conference wins the party votes, it’ll be because of its conservative commitment – not lefty love bombing.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.