The "post-Dave" era: Telegraph authorises attack on Cameron

Deputy Editor Benedict Brogan spells out just how far the Tory Party has gone towards replacing their leader.

Prompted by Boris Johnson's now-infamous interview with Eddie Mair on The Andrew Marr Show, the Telegraph has run a column today by its Deputy Editor, Benedict Brogan, which explores the possibility that David Cameron's tenure as Tory Party leader is near its end.

Brogan writes:

The threat of plots against [Cameron] has dissipated in recent weeks, in part because even the most irreconcilable MPs accept that defenestrating a prime minister in the middle of an economic crisis would be not just bad for the party, but for the nation. Mentally, though, Tories behave as if Mr Cameron has already been ushered into the departure lounge. Those with ambition are willingly taking part in the beauty contest that has been underway for months. If we added up every MP who has at some point urged a friend to let it be known – “quietly, you understand” – that if the circumstances were right . . . then we would reach 20 without too much difficulty.

The Conservative conversation is no longer about Mr Cameron, but about who will succeed him in a leadership contest now predicated on defeat in 2015, and whether that person will be the one to put Britain back on its feet.

He heavily implies that the Telegraph has intelligence that the 20 MPs required to trigger a leadership contest are already assembled, and are now just waiting for a good time and an emerging alternative. He goes on to consider Boris Johnson, Theresa May and MPs of the 2010 intake as possible challengers for Cameron's crown, and eventually concludes that "unless he can win back his party’s attention, the search for his successor will only intensify".

Coming from such an established right-wing commentator as Brogan, it's not hard to see how his identification of a "post-Dave" state of mind in the party will stick. The implication, too, is that if you are a Tory MP and you're considering a leadership challenge, the Telegraph would like to hear from you.

David Cameron delivering his speech on immigration in Ipswich earlier this week. Photograph: Getty Images

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

Garry Knight via Creative Commons
Show Hide image

Why Barack Obama was right to release Chelsea Manning

A Presidential act of mercy is good for Manning, but also for the US.

In early 2010, a young US military intelligence analyst on an army base near Baghdad slipped a Lady Gaga CD into a computer and sang along to the music. In fact, the soldier's apparently upbeat mood hid two facts. 

First, the soldier later known as Chelsea Manning was completely alienated from army culture, and the callous way she believed it treated civilians in Iraq. And second, she was quietly erasing the music on her CDs and replacing it with files holding explosive military data, which she would release to the world via Wikileaks. 

To some, Manning is a free speech hero. To others, she is a traitor. President Barack Obama’s decision to commute her 35-year sentence before leaving office has been blasted as “outrageous” by leading Republican Paul Ryan. Other Republican critics argue Obama is rewarding an act that endangered the lives of soldiers and intelligence operatives while giving ammunition to Russia. 

They have a point. Liberals banging the drum against Russia’s leak offensive during the US election cannot simultaneously argue leaks are inherently good. 

But even if you think Manning was deeply misguided in her use of Lady Gaga CDs, there are strong reasons why we should celebrate her release. 

1. She was not judged on the public interest

Manning was motivated by what she believed to be human rights abuses in Iraq, but her public interest defence has never been tested. 

The leaks were undoubtedly of public interest. As Manning said in the podcast she recorded with Amnesty International: “When we made mistakes, planning operations, innocent people died.” 

Thanks to Manning’s leak, we also know about the Vatican hiding sex abuse scandals in Ireland, plus the UK promising to protect US interests during the Chilcot Inquiry. 

In countries such as Germany, Canada and Denmark, whistle blowers in sensitive areas can use a public interest defence. In the US, however, such a defence does not exist – meaning it is impossible for Manning to legally argue her actions were in the public good. 

2. She was deemed worse than rapists and murderers

Her sentence was out of proportion to her crime. Compare her 35-year sentence to that received by William Millay, a young police officer, also in 2013. Caught in the act of trying to sell classified documents to someone he believed was a Russian intelligence officer, he was given 16 years

According to Amnesty International: “Manning’s sentence was much longer than other members of the military convicted of charges such as murder, rape and war crimes, as well as any others who were convicted of leaking classified materials to the public.”

3. Her time in jail was particularly miserable 

Manning’s conditions in jail do nothing to dispel the idea she has been treated extraordinarily harshly. When initially placed in solitary confinement, she needed permission to do anything in her cell, even walking around to exercise. 

When she requested treatment for her gender dysphoria, the military prison’s initial response was a blanket refusal – despite the fact many civilian prisons accept the idea that trans inmates are entitled to hormones. Manning has attempted suicide several times. She finally received permission to receive gender transition surgery in 2016 after a hunger strike

4. Julian Assange can stop acting like a martyr

Internationally, Manning’s continued incarceration was likely to do more harm than good. She has said she is sorry “for hurting the US”. Her worldwide following has turned her into an icon of US hypocrisy on free speech.

Then there's the fact Wikileaks said its founder Julian Assange would agree to be extradited to the US if Manning was released. Now that Manning is months away from freedom, his excuses for staying in the Equadorian London Embassy to avoid Swedish rape allegations are somewhat feebler.  

As for the President - under whose watch Manning was prosecuted - he may be leaving his office with his legacy in peril, but with one stroke of his pen, he has changed a life. Manning, now 29, could have expected to leave prison in her late 50s. Instead, she'll be free before her 30th birthday. And perhaps the Equadorian ambassador will finally get his room back. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.