Miliband warns the Mail that it can't rely on "rogue reporter" defence

An echo of the phone-hacking scandal as the Labour leader calls for the Mail papers to hold an inquiry into their "culture and practices".

Ed Miliband has given a series of interviews this morning (and last night to LabourList), reflecting on an extraordinary week for him. In all of his appearances, he emphasised that when he responded to the Daily Mail's attack on his father, he was "speaking as a son, not as a politican". 


"My dad's not alive anymore, he can't speak, but I can and that's why I did what I did," he told BBC Radio 5 Live.

While some have suggested that this is a battle he relishes, he stated again that it was not one he chose, but that after speaking to his mum (for whom this must have been a wrenching experience) and to his brother, he felt compelled to defend his father's "good name". 

The second point Miliband stressed was that he wanted the next election "to be about how we raise living standards, not press standards". He added, however, that in order for the 2015 contest to be "about the issues, not about smears", it was necessary to address the question of press ethics now. 

It is this that has led him to call for Mail proprietor Lord Rothermere to hold an investigation into the "culture and practices" of his newspapers on the grounds that what happened to him and his family (with his father smeared and his uncle's memorial service gatecrashed) was not an "isolated incident".

In a choice of words that recalled the phone-hacking scandal, he argued that the Mail could not blame "one rogue reporter, or one rogue features editor". As he told LabourList, "what is it about the culture and practice of the organisation that makes these kind of things acceptable? Because the decisions made by an individual in an organisation are shaped by the culture and practice of an organisation."

Many have rightly criticised the Mail on Sunday's decision to suspend two journalists over the intrusion of the memorial service, rather than forcing Geordie Greig and Paul Dacre (who serves as editor-in-chief of the Mail on Sunday) to take responsibility. 

Miliband has insisted throughout that this affair is "not about regulation, but about right and wrong", but the two are not easily separated. Few doubt that the Mail on Sunday's behaviour would breach the code of ethics included in the proposed system of press regulation.

Next week, ministers will decide whether to accept the press's preferred model of self-regulation, or that supported by MPs. That debate aside, could the Mail have done more to damage its cause this week?

Ed Miliband delivers his speech at the Labour conference in Brighton. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.