Telegraph undercover LibDem sting "broke press rules"

Pressing on with pressing constituency business

The Press Complaints Commission has said that the Daily Telegraph breached rules on the use of subterfuge when it sent reporters to secretly tape Lib Dem ministers. The Telegraph denied it was a "fishing expedition", arguing it had acted upon information "from multiple sources". They may well have got information from various sources, but as Tim Farron MP says today, it is not news to reveal that the Conservatives and LibDems have differences. As we already knew and know that, it can only have been malicious.

The Daily Telegraph I think has decided that it is now both holy revealer of personal wrongdoing and self-promoter of Conservatives in government. The first may have been admirable because it took investigative journalism on the right path. However, the latter is borne out of a distaste the Telegraph has for coalition politics.

The editors of the paper, high low and sub, have allowed themselves to believe that going undercover and provoking a conversation with an MP in the supposedly private and discreet constituency surgery is somehow to the public advantage. It is not. It is underhand not undercover. It is also a slight on our democracy. The Daily Telegraph should not want to sink to redtop level just to boost circulation. Politicians are fair game for what they get up to in their parliamentary work in the House of Commons or what they say or don't say in the media. But both constituents and MPs need to know that their concerns are being discussed in secret and not in preparation for fanfare reporting.

Vince Cable, one of the ministers recorded in the sting, said he was "delighted". He told the BBC, "My main concern, as one of the ministers involved was that we have been personally vindicated and that the relationship between members of Parliament and their constituents, the privacy and confidentiality of their relationship, that's been preserved."

I agree. All MPs, whatever their party, all councillors and all peers should be able to meet the electorate without fear or favour.

Vince Cable "attacks ruthless Tories"

Vince Cable looking cunning and ruthless

The way the written media would have it today Vince Cable has come out as some kind of venomous spiteful loser. I heard his comments on the Today Programme and they do not merit the nuancing that is being placed on his words. Yes, he did say that the Conservatives had been "ruthless, calculating and very tribal". But it was said in a way that acknowledged their right to be so. He sounded more regretful than antagonistic. In other words, he was only re-iterating what he has probably always thought about the Tories. We should all remember that LibDems are NOT Tories. But they did not enter into coalition in order to try on Tory clothes. "That suits you very well, Vince!" "You don't think it makes me look too Tory, do you?" Perish the thought.

The BBC is oddly obsessed by the Coalition. Mostly they are trying to drive wedges into it. The press is no better. I sometimes wonder what the British electorate really wants. Probably jam for breakfast, jam for every meal of the day. But given on a plate, of course. There is this crazed idea that people got a result they did not vote for. Yesterday a woman in Birmingham had a microphone thrust in her face. When told Labour made gains but would still be in opposition to the Conservative/LibDem Coalition in the Council House, she muttered that that was not what she voted for. She even included others in her sentiments. All she did was vote Labour. She does not get to add a whole string of conditions to that vote, with a horrid ultimatum added for good measure. But listen to the media and you'd think that voters were being conned.

In any system it is not the voters who decide who governs but the elected representatives. The electorate may choose a majority for a party, but the party gets to choose who will be ministers. David Cameron was perfectly clear last year. He failed to get a majority and he did a deal with the Liberal Democrats to govern in coalition for five years. Each side had to give and take. Now it could be said that the LibDems miscalculated and got a few things wrong and that led to yesterday's poll drubbing. But to say that you didn't vote for them to be in government seems utterly bizarre and crazy. Why would anyone vote for a candidate unless he or she was hellbent on a pure protest. You vote for that person to win. If enough win they form a government. Now if the LibDems had formed a majority government, the tuition fees issue would be completely different. But they didn't. So they had to compromise.

From now on the LibDems in parliament are going into the next phase of their government role. No longer a perpetual opposition party. The LibDems will probably learn to be more calculating and a bit more tribal, and possibly ruthless. But what of the electorate? Will many still think that a vote on a ballot paper is a ticket to a cozy life without stresses, strains and problems? "I voted LibDem and got everything I ever wanted!". Do we really want that thought process in the electoral system?

Bernard Jenkin also came on the Today programme and suggested some LibDems could peel away and become like the National Liberals. Sounds good only in theory. The modern Liberal Democrat Party is nothing like the National Liberals. Vince Cable is no stranger to changing parties, but he would find it strange to change political philosophies. He started in the Liberal Party, then joined the Labour Party, then left in 1982 for the Social Democratic Party as it started up, and then agreed to merge with his original party and is now a Liberal Democrat. Hardly a Tory. But an effective minister, if he does what he says, in the Coalition.

The Coalition is there for the main purpose of forming a stable government to tackle the deficit and the general economic mess the country is in. If they fail, that voter in Birmingham will be ready with her big X at the polling booth, all bristling with rage. If they succeed, she will probably still vote Labour but won't be moaning the next day!

Vince Cable, Bordan Tkachuk, Stuart Baggs and the pesky press!

I've been doing a bit of web surfing. Setting people up appears to be the new game in town. Or at least this week's Christmas present for some. Personally I think that the giggling Telegraph reporter heard on the tape setting up Vince Cable just about shows up the present mentality in reporting.

The Telegraph got some juicy bits. They don't like the Coalition and they think LibDems in general are dodgy dealers. The fact that the Conservatives failed to win outright is lost on the Telegraph editors. They have "An Agenda". An agenda which impels them to be selective in as much as they cut out the bits they feel may torpedo the agenda. Then what happens to such devious behaviour? They in turn get a whistleblower divulging the fact that they held back on stuff about Murdoch. Cynical, or what?

We all know politics is tough going. But we don't need flibbertigibbets going round sneaking on private conversations. Stupid young woman. She won't get another "off the record" remark in her entire journalistic career. She's just kiboshed that. We'll now get far less of the free speech. In fact, it's almost gone in a flash. Just tight-lipped cocktail talk without the cocktails. Oh, and what will we hear from Ed Prissimiliband the first time one of his lot says anything indiscreet?

Now to Bordan Tkachuk (pictured). Who's he some may say. He's one of Lord Sugar's trusted associates. I'm a great fan of the Apprentice and I think Bordan is just right as a TV supporting act. In the interview stage episode Bordan grills Stuart "The Brand" Baggs by asserting that Baggs has something wrong on his CV. This is usual stuff in the show. It's designed to unsettled the candidate. When I watched this I took it for granted that Baggs had overstepped the mark. But I'm no computer expert. Gimlet-eyed (and eared) techies knew instantly that Bordan was wrong on points. Apparently he doesn't know his protocols from his providers. In this case, Stuart Baggs was bombarded by a "fact" that his brain couldn't comprehend or conclusively agree with or deny. He just sat back and accepted whatever was said.

Interestingly, Bordan had his own run in with the press some years back when he was misreported. It even went to court. The trouble with the media, both TV and press is that we are all a commodity to them. Vince Cable, Bordan Tkachuk, Stuart Baggs, et al. All been in, through and out of the ringer. Some try to come back and put others through it as a form of cathartic release.

All I know is that all three that I have mentioned here appear decent, yet fallible, humans, just like almost all of us. All that's happened is they just didn't have their wits about them 24/7 (as an Apprentice contestant might say). But who on earth does? Certainly not giggling Telegraph reporters.

I hope 2011 will see an end to "setting people up" and all this sneaky stuff. Transparency, yes! But this is not the way to get it.

Vince Cable set up by Daily Telegraph "constituents"

I feel sorry for Vince Cable. He's been stitched up by some journalists from the Daily Telegraph. A bit of a mean trick, I'd say. Not really Telegraph stuff in the main. More Murdoch's minions' territory. No wonder they were always portrayed as pigs in Spitting Image. A bit unfair to pigs, I always thought.

So what if Vince Cable's got opinions. He's not said anything that outrageous. He hasn't leaked government secrets. He hasn't got a Russian mistress. He hasn't sexed up a dossier. He hasn't lied about foreigners. Not much to get bothered about really. Except the Daily Telegraph can't stand the Coalition. So why not have a go at Vince. Send some posh ferrets down to Twickenham and get the man singing like a canary. Well, in that they succeeded. But it doesn't make them look like decent people.

Sir Denis Thatcher's friend Bill Deedes used to be a bigwig at the Telegraph. If they were around today, I dare say they'd be shocked. "I say Bill, that Vince Cable chap's been done over by some of your pipsqueaks. I mean, he's a liberal wotsit, I know, but that's just not cricket. A bit below the belt, if you get my drift!"

Spivs and gamblers to be rounded up?

Vince Cable has refused to apologise for attacking excessive bank bonuses paid to "spivs and gamblers". CBI director general Richard Lambert said Mr Cable was right to call for shareholders to act in the wider public interest, but he added, "It's odd that he thinks it sensible to use such emotional language. The case for corporate takeovers is that they allow control of poorly run businesses to pass into more efficient hands. Mr Cable has harsh things to say about the capitalist system. It will be interesting to hear his ideas for an alternative."

The thing is Vince Cable isn't seeking an alternative. He just wants the present set-up cleaned up with spanking new brooms. Mr.Lambert needs to get a grip. The present corporate rodeo cannot continue as it is. Firstly, let him come clean about what these bonuses are actually for. Secondly, let him reveal the remuneration committees and their workings. And third, let's have some concrete ideas for plc shareholder democracy. Currently it is all revolving doors and everybody taking in each other's washing.

If it were all about efficient hands I'd be the first to give Mr.Lambert a flag to wave. But the BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico shows that corporate efficiency and corporate expediency are fighting it out centre stage at that rodeo!

Vince Cable tells it as it is!

I was going to write masses of stuff on Vince Cable's critique of corporate Britain. But I can't just yet get it all out of my head for it to make much sense. So I went to Robert Peston's blog and found his first unmoderated comment from someone called "watriler". It goes:-

"The reaction to Cable's remarks reminds me of the quote "The religion of the Englishman is the law of supply and demand". In modern capitalism there is no free market except in that free enterprise is hardly controlled. Their aim is to eliminate or manage competition. Throw the text books away."

Couldn't put it better myself. Vince Cable said of Gordon Brown that he had gone from being Stalin to being Mr.Bean. British corporations have made sure that there are no Mr.Beans to cause trouble and have made sure their gravy trains remain on track. We must be mad to put up with it all.

On the radio this morning a woman from Price Waterhouse was complaining about the immigration policy. She apparently wants 63 erudite beancounters from outside the EU to "make a cultural difference" to PWC's business in London. She also popped in the now mandatory blackmailing threat that she and her co-workers "might leave the country".

What is it with these people? Is patriotism dead? Are they so craven to filthy lucre that nothing will get in their way? David Cameron says we are all in this together. I get the impression it is not about fighting the deficit but stopping these boardroom bozos from causing us any more problems.

Free enterprise is not an easy thing, but at least it allows people to develop their talents, try out their ideas and be free to work as they wish. On the other hand, the big business theory of today seems more like an effort to circle the wagons and keep the real entrepreneurs out. Pension deficits, uncontrolled remuneration committees, slapdash safety and forced redundancies are just a few of the negative aspects of corporate business.

If shareholders really did control these large companies, we might get some real change. But all the while they try to eliminate or manage competition and keep everything as it is, we won't.

Brown urges banks to 'come clean'

He does does he? How come he never asked them in detail about their so-called toxic loans before he handed out taxpayers' lines of credit (it isn't real cash!)? He really takes the biscuit for his affrontery!

He told the Financial Times the banks had to "come clean" about these bad debts so people could trust them again. How about him "coming clean". As Vince Cable says, in his excellent article in the Mail on Sunday, "The Government wants the banks to come clean on their bad debt. Why on earth weren’t they asked to do this when they first obtained help from taxpayers?"

The answer is that both Brown and Darling are skirting around the problem in order to keep their electoral chances alive. Forget all that. They will fare a lot better with the electorate if they do what is right, which is forensically obtaining the facts. If some banks go to the wall, so be it. Far better a dodgy bank goes down the pan than the WHOLE COUNTRY!!

Strictly Andy Mandy

Peter Mandelson has let it be known that he is slightly envious of John Sargent's dancing technique. He's also got an eye on the ratings. So Peter wants to be considered as a Strictly Come Dancing competitor. I think this is an excellent idea. Whilst I deplore his political habits, I must confess that there is a bit to be admired about Mandelson. Now I'm not going overboard, just recognising that he does have an element of star quality about him.

Peter is no shrinking violet. More a rose with thorns in the wrong places. However, I strongly suggest that the BBC gives serious thought to this. Mandelson on the floor will be a ratings success for the BBC. Detractors and fans will watch in equal measure. Can you imagine the brilliance of it all?

Bruce: "Craig, your comments, please."
Craig: "Well, you do surprise me! Not exactly a star performance, but you managed to come back from your early mistake. I'd say you've gone from Prince of Darkness to Queen of the Dancefloor!"
Bruce: "Nicely put, Craig, I'm sure. Bruno?"
Bruno: "He took the words out of my mouth! What more can I say? A tour de force, darling!"

It will be fantastic. If the BBC is worried about political balance, then Vince Cable is desperate for a go too. That leaves the matter of who the Tory Twinkletoes will be.

Any suggestions?