Did the Lib Dems know about Huhne's points swap?

Newly-released emails show that Vicky Pryce claimed to have told Vince Cable and others about the incident.

Did senior Lib Dems know that Vicky Pryce accepted speeding points on Chris Huhne's behalf? That's the suggestion from a series of fascinating emails released from the trial following Pryce's conviction. 

In an email dated 9 April 2011, Huhne's former wife told the Sunday Times's Isabel Oakeshott: 

Actually I had told Vince [Cable] and Rachel [his wife] about points before when the three of us were having supper about a month ago – they were horrified at the time but VC has probably forgotten it by now. He was v tired that night.

Nine days later, she informed Oakeshott:

Having lunch with Miriam c tmr. Should I hint at anything? I told Vince there is something hanging over him [Huhne] and he wanted to tell Clegg.

On 26 April 2011, Oakeshott asked Pryce:

To what extent is Clegg aware that something is hanging over Huhne (you mentioned it to Miriam, didn't you?)

Pryce replied:

Yes, I have told VC [Vince Cable], Miriam C, MOak [Lord Oakeshott] … and a few other Lib Dem Lords and others working close to NC [Nick Clegg]. 

Unsurprisingly, the Lib Dems have been quick to deny any suggestion of a cover-up. A party spokesman said: "Vince, Matthew and Miriam are all clear that the allegation about driving points was not raised with them."

In addition, a spokesman for Cable said: "Vince and Rachel have no recollection of the issue of points being raised with them over the course of dinner with Vicky Price on 28 January 2011.

They have consulted their personal records which confirm that the issue first came to their attention in May 2011 when the story broke in the press."

Miriam González Durántez said: "I have never ever been told by Vicky or anybody else about the traffic points story. I got to know about this when everybody else did."

And Lord Oakeshott, a close ally of Cable and a third cousin of Isabel Oakeshott, said: "Vicky must have been under great pressure but I am sure she never raised a question of points with me". 

But were they aware of "indirect" and "non-specific" concerns? That's the question that will be asked. 

Vicky Pryce, ex-wife of Chris Huhne, arrives at Southwark Crown Court on March 7, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

@Simon_Cullen via Twitter
Show Hide image

All 27 things wrong with today’s Daily Mail front cover

Where do I even start?

Hello. Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong. Very wrong. So wrong that if you have seen today’s Daily Mail cover, you no doubt immediately turned to the person nearest to you to ask: “Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong.”

But just how wrong is the wrong Mail cover? Let me count the ways.

  1. Why does it say “web” and not “the web”?
  2. Perhaps they were looking on a spider’s web and to be honest that makes more sense because
  3. How does it take TWO MINUTES to use a search engine to find out that cars can kill people?
  4. Are the Mail team like your Year 8 Geography teacher, stuck in an infinite loop of typing G o o g l e . c o m into the Google search bar, the search bar that they could’ve just used to search for the thing they want?
  5. And then when they finally typed G o o g l e . c o m, did they laboriously fill in their search term and drag the cursor to click “Search” instead of just pressing Enter?
  6. The Daily Mail just won Newspaper of the Year at the Press Awards
  7. Are the Daily Mail – Newspaper of the Year – saying that Google should be banned?
  8. If so, do they think we should ban libraries, primary education, and the written word?
  9. Sadly, we know the answer to this
  10. Google – the greatest source of information in the history of human civilisation – is not a friend to terrorists; it is a friend to teachers, doctors, students, journalists, and teenage girls who aren’t quite sure how to put a tampon in for the first time
  11. Upon first look, this cover seemed so obviously, very clearly fake
  12. Yet it’s not fake
  13. It’s real
  14. More than Google, the Mail are aiding terrorists by pointing out how to find “manuals” online
  15. While subsets of Google (most notably AdSense) can be legitimately criticised for profiting from terrorism, the Mail is specifically going at Google dot com
  16. Again, do they want to ban Google dot com?
  17. Do they want to ban cars?
  18. Do they want to ban search results about cars?
  19. Because if so, where will that one guy from primary school get his latest profile picture from?
  20. Are they suggesting we use Bing?
  21. Why are they, once again, focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victims?
  22. The Mail is 65p
  23. It is hard to believe that there is a single person alive, Mail reader or not, that can agree with this headline
  24. Three people wrote this article
  25. Three people took two minutes to find out cars can drive into people
  26. Trees had to die for this to be printed
  27. It is the front cover of the Mail

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