Jeremy Hunt at the Leveson inquiry: ‘I was sympathetic to BSkyB bid’
The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, explains he has a concern that the model of the newspaper industry is not viable in the long term, and that he saw the BSkyB bid ‘as an opportunity to help modernise the industry’. He says he was ‘sympathetic’ towards the bid, when asked by Robert Jay QC whether he was supportive of it
Stephen Lawrence murder: Met police report finds no evidence of corruption
The Metropolitan police has said it can find no evidence corruption shielded the killers of Stephen Lawrence, adding that the force had passed all the relevant material it held to the 1998 Macpherson inquiry.
Stephen’s mother, Doreen Lawrence, wants an independent inquiry into her concerns that corruption played a part in police failings after the murder of her son by a racist gang in April 1993. The home secretary, Theresa May, is considering her request.
The Met released the findings of its review on Thursday, which began in March after allegations about corruption in the Lawrence case made in the Guardian and Independent.
The claims centre on former Met commander Ray Adams, who was a senior officer in the south London area where Stephen was murdered, and former detective sergeant John Davidson who was a senior detective on the first, flawed murder investigation into the racist killing.
Adams and Davidson had been the subjects of internal corruption investigations, after which neither officer faced disciplinary or criminal charges. They retired on full police pensions and denied any wrongdoing. Adams, who left the force because of a bad back, went on to work at a Rupert Murdoch-owned company, NDS, in a senior security role.
The Met has released the findings after more than two months of investigation. It said: “No investigations, nor the inquiry, have uncovered evidence of corruption or collusion which could have adversely affected or otherwise influenced the path of the original investigation or subsequent investigations. The MPS disclosed all material in relation to adverse information held regarding three officers of concern (including those referenced in recent media coverage).”
The force said it reached its conclusion after examining several thousand archived documents and speaking to former officers. It added that material from Operation Russell, an investigation into Adams’s integrity, and an investigation into Davidson, were given to the Macpherson inquiry.
Its lead counsel, Edmund Lawson QC, now deceased, “came to the conclusion that the material was not relevant”. The material was not disclosed to the Lawrence family, who claimed at the inquiry that corruption had been a factor as well as police racism.
The Met review says findings from Operation Othona, an anti-corruption intelligence-gathering exercise conducted from 1993 to 1997, “concerned only finances and administration issues and not subjects”. Sources have claiemd it contained material about Adams.
Operation Russell raised questions about Adams’s conduct in the years before the Lawrence case, sources say, but found insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges. Adams told the Guardian said it exonerated him and denied any wrongdoing or knowing Davidson.
The investigation into Adams began in April 1987, by which time he was the Met’s head of criminal intelligence, in charge of gathering information on major criminals and networks. It ended with no criminal or misconduct charges being brought against him but lists concerns about Adams, in one instance describing his conduct as highly questionable and unprofessional.
The investigation was carried out by the Met’s complaints investigation bureau and was triggered by allegations that Adams had taken bribes from criminals and had improper relationships with informants, which he has strenuously denied. Some of the claims against Adams centred on his relationship with the subsequently convicted murderer Kenneth Noye.
At the Macpherson inquiry the Lawrence lawyers claimed Noye had a criminal associate, Clifford Norris, whose son, David Norris, was a prime suspect in the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
David Norris was convicted in January this year of the murder, along with Gary Dobson.
Commander Peter Spindler of the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards said: “We fully appreciate that Stephen’s family want all their questions rightly answered. We hope this review goes at least some way to address their concerns and those that have appeared in the media.
“At this stage there are no new allegations or evidence that would merit further investigation. However, should any new information arise relating to alleged corruption in the original investigation into Stephen’s murder, it would be seriously considered.”
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) also released a report saying nothing in recent media allegations about Davidson had affected the conclusion of its 2007 investigation, which found no evidence of corruption in the Met’s first Lawrence investigation.
The IPCC said it had interviewed Noye, who is serving a life sentence, but “not surprisingly, Noye did not provide any evidence to assist our investigation”. The watchdog said it was aware of calls for a new public inquiry but that was “a matter for the home secretary to consider”.
Its chief executive Jane Furniss added: “I commissioned this review as I was concerned by media reports that there may be new evidence to support a claim that police corruption in relation to former DS Davidson’s relationship with Clifford Norris, the father of David Norris, played a part in hampering the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation.”
The IPCC report in 2007 followed BBC allegations made by a former Met police officer turned supergrass, Neil Putnam, who claimed there was a corrupt relationship between Davidson and Clifford Norris.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/31/stephen-lawrence-murder-corruption-investigation
Jeremy Hunt congratulated James Murdoch on BSkyB deal bid progress
Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, texted James Murdoch congratulating him on getting approval from Brussels for News Corporation‘s £8bn BSkyB takeover, barely 90 minutes before news broke of Vince Cable‘s comment that he was at war with Rupert Murdoch.
In evidence revealed at the Leveson inquiry on Thursday morning, it also emerged that Hunt texted the chancellor, George Osborne, on the same day, 21 December 2010, warning that Vince Cable’s hostile comment about Rupert Murdoch was going to “screw up” the bid.
Hunt and Murdoch exchanged texts hours before he formerly took over responsibility for the proposed acquisition from Cable, after the business secretary’s comment to undercover Daily Telegraph reporters that he was at war with Murdoch became public.
Hunt texted James Murdoch at 12.46pm on 21 December, about five hours before he inherited Cable’s quasi-judicial responsibilities for the News Corp/Sky bid, saying: “Sorry to miss your call. Am on my mobile now, Jeremy.”
After a further exchange of texts about arranging a 4pm phone call later that day, at 12.57pm Hunt texted Murdoch: “Great and congrats on Brussels. Just Ofcom to go!”
This was a reference to a decision that day by the European commission to give the green light to the BSkyB takeover on competition grounds.
At about 2.30pm on 21 December the BBC’s Robert Peston broke the Cable story. At 4pm Hunt spoke to James Murdoch on the phone, as they had earlier arranged. Within 20 minutes, Hunt was having text and email exchanges with Osborne and Andy Coulson, the then director of communications at Downing Street, about what to do about Cable’s comment.
Hunt told the Leveson inquiry on Thursday morning that during the 4pm phone call with James Murdoch, the News Corp executive was “expressing his concern that there was bias in the [bid] process” because of what Cable said and “I think my email to Andy Coulson and text message to George were my response to Mr Murdoch’s call”.
His email to Coulson timed at 16.10pm said: “Could we chat about this. Am seriously worried Vince will do real damage to coalition with his comments.”
Two minutes earlier, at 16.08pm, he texted Osborne: “Cld we chat about Murdoch Sky bid am seriously worried we are going to screw this up. Jeremy.”
Almost immediately he fires off another text to the chancellor: “Just been called by James M. His lawyers are meeting now and saying it calls into question legitimacy of whole process from beginning ‘acute bias’ etc.”
Osborne responds to intimate that Hunt has got the job of overseeing the News Corp/Sky bid, texting him at 16.58pm: “I hope you like our solution”.
At this point Hunt admitted that it was “mooted” that he would take over from Cable but it did not become public until about “an hour later”. Downing Street formally announced David Cameron’s decision to give Hunt responsibility for the bid just before 6pm.
Earlier on Thursday, Hunt told the Leveson inquiry it was “entirely appropriate” for him to have a mobile phone conversation with James Murdoch in November 2010 despite being given legal advice not to become involved in News Corp’s BSkyB bid.
The culture secretary said he “just heard Mr Murdoch out, and basically heard what he had to say about what was on his mind at that time” during the phone conversation on 16 November 2010, when Cable still had responsibility for the bid.
“I thought it was entirely appropriate to hear what a big player in my industry was saying about a particular situation. Indeed, I thought that was my duty to do so,” he added.
But Hunt said he would do things differently now because of the “massive number of conspiracy theories” that have abounded over his role in the News Corp bid.
“Having been through the BSkyB bid and the process that I’ve been through, I would take a different view about the presence of officials in conversations that a culture secretary has with media proprietors,” Hunt said. “I think actually going forward I would always want to have officials present and taking notes.”
A meeting between Hunt and Murdoch was cancelled the day before the phone call because his office had received legal advice it would be inappropriate.
Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked: “If a meeting is inappropriate … why is a telephone call appropriate?”
Hunt said: “Well, I didn’t see the telephone call as a replacement for the meeting. My interpretation of the advice was that I should not involve myself in a quasi-judicial process that’s being run by another secretary of state [Vince Cable].”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/31/jeremy-hunt-james-murdoch-bskyb
Council tax rebate reforms ‘risk poll tax repeat’
Plans to give local authorities control over council tax rebate at the same time as cutting funding by a tenth could result in the poor driven out by boroughs seeking to save money – and raises the prospect of a replay of the poll tax debacle, a report claims.
A damning assessment by the Institute for Fiscal Studies of the proposed council tax benefit changes, which start next April, says that although the reform’s £480m-a-year savings equate to an average £19 per household, the working poor would be hit hardest.
The government proposes to allow councils to design a local benefit system but in return says it will cut funding for it by 10%. With 5.9 million recipients, it is more widely claimed than any other means-tested benefit or tax credit.
The cut in funding will be larger, says the thinktank, in areas where council tax benefit spending is highest – the more deprived areas of Britain. It estimates the cut in funding will range from around £5 per dwelling in the wealthy City of London to £38 per household in Haringey, the fourth most deprived borough in the capital.
The report also notes that the requirement to protect pensioners in England means that the cut in funding of a tenth translates into a 19% cut in support for working-age claimants.
Those local authorities where pensioners account for an above-average share of council tax benefit spending would need to make larger percentage cuts to support for working-age recipients. For one in 10 English local authorities it would be more than 25%, with the highest value being 33% in East Dorset and in Craven, North Yorkshire.
The IFS also says cuts to council tax support are bound to hit lower-income households, as 85% of the benefit goes to the lower-income half of households and almost half goes just to the lowest-income fifth.
The report’s authors warns that to limit their spending councils will have “an incentive to discourage low-income families from living in the area” and that raises the possibility that councils will – like the ill-fated poll tax of the early 1990s – be left to chase desperately poor people through the courts for small amounts of unpaid tax.
The poll tax led to riots and played a part in the downfall of Margaret Thatcher. Recalling these events, the IFS says in 1990 “the perceived unfairness of the tax was associated with non-compliance on a scale rarely seen in the UK”.
However, the new scheme replicates some of the worst aspects of the poll tax. “These policies mean that all households, even those on the lowest incomes, would have to pay some council tax. The poll tax experience showed how difficult it can be to collect small amounts of tax from low-income households that are not used to paying it,” they say, noting that the poll tax was “quickly replaced”.
The proposed scheme also risks “severely undermining” the government’s flagship universal credit scheme, which will replace six of the seven main means-tested benefits and tax credits for those of working age with a single benefit. However, the seventh means-tested benefit will be “localised”.
James Browne, a senior research economist at the IFS and one of the authors of the report, said: “Cutting support for council tax and localising it are two distinct policy choices: either could have been done without the other. Whether you think that cutting council tax support for low-income families is the best way to reduce government borrowing by £500m will depend on your views about how much redistribution the state ought to do.
“But the advantages of localisation seem to be outweighed by the disadvantages, particularly as it has the potential to undermine many of the positive impacts of universal credit.”
The local government minister, Bob Neill, said: “Labour fostered a culture of welfare dependency with council tax benefit more than doubling on their watch.
“People who have worked hard all their lives and paid taxes need to know the spiralling benefits bill is being controlled and that work pays.
“It is right that local authorities, who collect council tax, have a strong incentive to put in place a fairer local council tax support scheme that helps their residents get back into employment based on local priorities.
“I find it astonishing that the IFS are following the Labour party’s lead and recommending the abolition of the single person’s discount.
“We shouldn’t be punishing single mums and pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and paid their taxes simply because they live on their own. There is a gross sense of injustice at raising taxes that could force people out of their homes.”
Labour said that the universal credit programme risked descending into chaos. Stephen Timms, the shadow work and pensions minister, said: “We’ve been warning for the last 18 months that universal credit was so badly thought through that chaos would ensue. Now, the IFS has revealed that the new benefit will be torpedoed by changes to council tax benefit. One part of government doesn’t seem to know what the other part is doing.
“It looks like two parts of government are simply at war with each other; and it’s poor old ratepayers who could pick up the tab, with higher bills or worse services. Thousands could find themselves suddenly better off on benefits than in work.
“With the work programme sinking, the benefits bill spiralling up by £9bn and huge questions over universal credit, the government’s welfare reforms are looking more chaotic by the minute.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/may/31/council-tax-reforms-poll-tax-ifs
Jeremy Hunt at the Leveson inquiry
The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:
News Corp DCMS: thousands of texts, emails phone calls. Meanwhile opponents of the bid got this yfrog.com/mmwmonj
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 31, 2012
The Guardian was part of the coalition of media groups, including Telegraph Media Group and the BBC, that publicly opposed the BSkyB takeover. This opposition group had just one meeting with Hunt on 24 March 2011 and was told to deal only with Victoria Kaye, a DCMS official, throughout the bid process.
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
So, why did James Murdoch call Jeremy Hunt on December 21 at 12.45? To talk about the EU approval or had he got wind of Cable’s remarks…
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 31, 2012
We now have video of Hunt telling the inquiry that he was “sympathetic” to News Corp’s BSkyB bid.
Here is a brief summary of Jeremy Hunt’s evidence so far:
• Hunt texted James Murdoch on 21 December 2010 – hours before he was given responsibility for BSkyB bid – congratulating him on European clearance for News Corp’s £8bn takeover. “Just Ofcom to go,” he told Murdoch.
• Hunt texted George Osborne saying “seriously worried we are going to screw this up” minutes after Vince Cable’s anti-Murdoch remarks were made public.
• Osborne replied “hope you like the solution” – a reference to No 10 handing Hunt responsibility for the controversial takeover.
• Hunt accepted he expressed a “positive view” in a private text message to James Murdoch on 21 December 2010.
• We did not know phone hacking was “a volcano waiting to erupt”, Hunt told the inquiry.
• Closure of the News of the World raised corporate governance concerns about News Corp for the first time, said Hunt.
• News Corp’s Frédéric Michel urged need for the BSkyB takeover to be completed by June 2011 otherwise it would be “catastrophic for many important reasons”.
The inquiry has now broken for lunch.
It will resume at 2pm, when Hunt will continue giving evidence.
Jay now turns to an email from Hunt to Smith describing News Corp’s undertakings in lieu as “pretty thorough”.
He added in the email: “Feels like the world doesn’t trust the Murdochs as far as they can be thrown”.
Asked to explain this remark, Hunt says his office had received tens of thousands of objections to the bid and that it was an accurate description of the mood of the country at that time.
The Guardian’s deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Hunt: Smith was “a very uncomplaining, decent, hardworking person” who didn’t fill him in on all the pressure he ws receiving from News Corp
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 31, 2012
Hunt says:
News Corp is a very determined company and they are always putting everyone under pressure to do things quickly.
Hunt adds that he wanted to do things “briskly but properly”.
He says he would not have been surprised if Smith told him that News Corp was “getting a bit uppity now”, as Jay puts it.
Hunt says Michel’s concern “certainly wasn’t” passed on to him, and that Smith would not have known that the lobbyist was “delphically” referring to phone hacking.
Hunt says the DCMS did not know that phone hacking was a “volcano that was about to erupt”.
Neither he nor Smith knew what was to emerge over phone hacking, Hunt says.
Jay turns to an email on 12 May 2011 from Michel to Smith.
Michel told Smith of the need to get the bid completed by June otherwise it would be “catastrophic for many important reasons”.
Hunt explains that phone hacking was of “growing concern to News Corp and they were worried that it would derail the bid”.
“They might have been more aware than we were that there were more and more explosive revelations down the track,” he adds.
Hunt says of the BSkyB bid process:
I was wanting to structure the process so that no one would believe I had any discretion.
Hunt says he was being open-minded, fair and “had this lock on the process that in the end we were going to get advice from Ofcom and the OFT on the UILs [undertakings in lieu] before I made my decision. And it was going to have a big impact on that decision”.
Asked about another email, Hunt says it is “standard practice” to give companies advance notice of statements made about them in parliament.
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Press room of non favourite journalists read jeremy’s email about his favourite journalists A Porter + P Foster with great interest.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 31, 2012
The inquiry hears that Hunt’s special adviser on the media, Sue Beeby, asked him whether he could give “our two favourite journalists” an exclusive.
The journalists were Andrew Porter of the Telegraph and Patrick Foster, the ex-Times journalist.
Beebe then told Hunt “spoken to Patrick [Foster, the former Times journalist] and given him [redacted] this is on the proviso that he writes a bit about Labour. He’s happy to do that.”
The inquiry hears that Smith forwarded a leaked email from Ed Miliband’s communications director, Tom Baldwin, to Hunt in which Baldwin warned not to link phone hacking to the BSkyB bid.
Hunt replied “Classic!! One for the despatch box or next time we’re accused of being pro-Murdoch.”
Asked about this, Hunt says he saw a “great irony” in it.
We now have video of Hunt saying his phone call to Murdoch was”entirely appropriate”.
The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:
After Dowler NotW closure it finally dawned on Hunt tt there might be big governance issues within News Corp#Leveson
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 31, 2012
After the Guardian’s Milly Dowler revelations in early July 2011, Hunt wrote to Ofcom and the OFT asking them whether they stood by advice from the beginning of June on the plurality issues.
Hunt says he thought in July: “Is this a company that actually doesn’t have control of what’s going on in its own company, even if the management don’t know about it?”
He adds that he never received the advice from Ofcom and OFT because News Corp withdrew its bid for BSkyB a few days later.
Hunt says after the closure of the News of the World he wondered whether there was a corporate governance issue at News Corporation.
I asked myself: ‘If they found it necessary to close down the whole paper, is there a corporate governance issue here?’
Hunt says he then sought legal advice over whether phone hacking was relevant.
He says on 18 April he got legal advice that hacking could impinge if there was an issue of trust.
Hunt maintains that this was a News International issue, but did not believe there was an issue of trust with News Corp.
In April, News International finally dropped its “one rogue reporter defence” and admitted the practice was more widespread.
Hunt says that the phone-hacking issue was developing in parallel to his consideration of this bid.
On 26 January 2011, the Met police launched Operation Weeting, the investigation into phone hacking – Hunt says his perspective at this point was “it is a police matter”.
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Hunt’s problem in the Jan to June phase is his decision to ignore hacking issue – not his negotiations w Murdoch.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 31, 2012
Ultimately, Hunt says, News Corp’s purchase of the remaining shares in BSkyB without Sky News would have made the news channel “massively more independent of James Murdoch than it was then and it is now”.
Hunt says from March to June there was consultation on News Corp’s undertakings in lieu (the offer to spin off Sky News).
Hunt told Murdoch he had 24 hours to accede to Ofcom and the OFT’s concerns on News Corp’s undertakings.
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Hunt on better terrain here as he talks about negotiations with Murdoch over Sky News spin off. Murdoch was angry abt Hunt asking for it.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 31, 2012
Murdoch first thought he did not need to spin off Sky News at all and was “tantamount to killing the deal,” according to Hunt.
Murdoch also wanted to remain chairman of Sky News after the potential deal, which Ofcom opposed.
The Guardian’s Paul Owen has put together a timeline of what happened on on 21 December 2010, when Hunt replaced Vince Cable as minister with responsibility for overseeing the Sky bid:
The Leveson inquiry has heard evidence from Jeremy Hunt about the day he was handed responsibility for dealing with News Corporation’s bid for full control of BSkyB – and revealed a previously-unpublished text message from Hunt to James Murdoch in support of the bid earlier that day.
Vince Cable, the business secretary, was stripped of responsibility for dealing with the bid on 21 December 2010 after the BBC published comments recorded by undercover Daily Telegraph journalists in which Cable said he had “declared war” on Rupert Murdoch, comments which were interpreted as showing that he was biased against the bid.
Around midday: The European commission unconditionally approved News Corporation’s bid to take full control of BSkyB on competition grounds.
12.57pm: Jeremy Hunt text to James Murdoch: “Great and congrats on Brussels. Just Ofcom to go.”
2.30pm: The BBC publishes Vince Cable’s comments to undercover Daily Telegraph reporters, in which the business secretary said: “I don’t know if you have been following what has been happening with the Murdoch press, where I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win.”
3.56pm: News Corporation statement: “News Corp is shocked and dismayed by reports of Mr Cable’s comments. They raise serious questions about fairness and due process.”
4pm: Hunt has a phone call with James Murdoch, discussing Cable’s comments.
4.08pm: Hunt texts George Osborne, the chancellor, to say he is “seriously worried we are going to screw this up” regarding the BSkyB bid, and, in a second text, says Murdoch is accusing Cable of “acute bias” over the bid.
4.58pm: Osborne texts Hunt: “I hope you like our solution.”
5.45pm: Downing Street announces that Cable has been stripped of responsibility for the BSkyB decision and that responsibility has been handed to Hunt.
Hunt told News Corp that he would ask both OFT and Ofcom for advice on the undertakings, which did not please Murdoch.
Murdoch believed Ofcom was “hostile” to News Corp, says Hunt.
Hunt says he believed News Corp’s undertakings in lieu – an offer to spin-off Sky News into a separate, independent company – were “a pretty big offer”.
Hunt still believed he should refer the bid to the Competition Commission after his meeting with Richards. Then News Corp said it wanted to make undertakings in lieu in order to present a referral to the Competition Commission. Hunt says he had a legal duty to consider the bid.
Jay asks when the minutes of Hunt’s meeting with Ofcom’s Richards were made available to News Corp.
Hunt says he does not know.
Hunt then met the Ofcom chief executive, Ed Richards, on 10 January 2011.
Hunt met News Corporation representatives on 6 January 2011, the inquiry hears.
This was a formal meeting between Hunt, other DCMS officials and Murdoch.
Ofcom told Hunt the previous week, on 31 December 2010, that there was a plurality problem with the bid which might require a referral to the Competition Commission.
Hunt told Murdoch at this meeting that he was going to refer the bid to the Competition Commission.
News Corp told Hunt at the meeting that they had concerns about Ofcom’s analysis and that they wanted to consider remedies.
ITV’s Tom Bradby has just tweeted:
Hunt’s passion for the public interest aspects of the decision on plurality is not terribly convincing…
— tom bradby (@tombradby) May 31, 2012
The Guardian’s Severin Carrell has just tweeted about the Andy Coulson case:
Breaking: #Coulson will “vigorously contest the perjury allegations” against him “should they ever result in trial” #hacking #leveson
— Severin Carrell (@severincarrell) May 31, 2012
Jay turns to Hunt’s handling of the bid after 22 December 2010, when he was given quasi-judicial authority by No 10.
Hunt says in his witness statement that he went further than legally necessary to seek regulatory and legal advice on the media merger.
Hunt says he felt passionately about the public interest implications of media plurality “even more so than the commercial viability of the UK media industry”.
Hunt says:
We weren’t expecting 542 text messages to Mr Smith … when you do the analysis it looks like Mr Michel was trying to contact Mr Smith five times every working day, which is an extraordinary amount we didn’t anticipate at all.
Hunt is pressed on Michel.
He says there was “was a bit of pushiness” from Michel over the bid and that his text message replies to the News Corp lobbyist “got pretty brief”.
The inquiry resumes.
Hunt denies that Smith was an “extra layer of contact” with News Corp.
Jay argues that the lawyers were the primary layer of contact between News Corp and the DCMS and Smith was in addition to that.
Hunt denies again that it was an extra layer, saying that Smith was one of several points of contact during the bid.
We now have a transcript of Hunt’s texts on 21 December 2010:
12.46: Hunt to Murdoch: Sorry to miss your call. Am on my mobile now. Jeremy
12.52: Murdoch to Hunt: Have to run into next thing. Are you free anything after 2.15? I can shuffle after this
12.55: Hunt to Murdoch: How about 4?
Murdoch to Hunt: Done.
12.57: Hunt to Murdoch: Great and contrats on Brussels, just Ofcom to go!
16.10: Hunt to Coulson: Could we chat abvout this? Am seriously worried Vince will do real damage to coaltion with his comments …
16.08: Hunt to Osborne: Cld we chat about Murdoch Sky bid? Am seriously worried we are going to screw this up.
16.08: Hunt to Osborne: Just been called by James M. His lawyers are meeting now saying it calls ino question legitmach of whole process form beginning ‘acute bias’ etc
16.58 Osborne to Hunt: I hope you like the solution!
Here is a brief summary of Jeremy Hunt’s evidence so far:
• Hunt texted James Murdoch on 21 December 2010 – hours before he was given responsibility for BSkyB bid – congratulating him on European clearance for News Corp’s £8bn takeover. “Just Ofcom to go,” he told Murdoch.
• Hunt texted George Osborne saying “seriously worried we are going to screw this up” minutes after Vince Cable’s anti-Murdoch remarks were made public.
• Osborne replied “hope you like the solution” – a reference to No 10 handing Hunt responsibility for the controversial takeover.
• Hunt accepted he expressed a “positive view” of the BSkyB bid in a private text message to James Murdoch on 21 December 2010.
The Guardian’s Patrick Wintour has just tweeted:
Early possible draft of Hunt resignation letter to PM:”I hope you like the solution”.
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 31, 2012
The inquiry is now taking a short break.
Leveson asks Hunt whether it was “abundantly clear that enormous care had to be exercised” over the bid.
Hunt says that is “absolutely right”.
The Sunday Times political correspondent Isabel Oakeshott has just tweeted:
Leveson says his working relationship with Smith was exceptionally close. Incompatible with his defence, that Smith was going off-piste
— Isabel Oakeshott (@IsabelOakeshott) May 31, 2012
The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:
Hunt on his spad, A Smith: “He heard all the things I heard abt what we needed to be careful abt” He knew my mind#Leveson
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 31, 2012
Hunt agrees that Smith was “politically astute” but says he was “politically pretty neutral”.
“I doubt there’s a minister who worked more closely with a special adviser than I worked with Adam Smith,” he says.
He confirms that Smith knew his views on the BSkyB bid, but did not specifically ask for them.
The Guardian’s deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Hunt admits Smith was given no specific instructions about how to deal with News Crp, was just present in meetings whn officials gave advice
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 31, 2012
Hunt confirms he did not give Smith instructions on what not to do in his role in the BSkyB bid, adding that the special adviser knew the sensitivities.
Hunt says he saw Smith as an official point of contact for News Corp but not as a gobetween for Hunt and the media giant.
Hunt believed once given control of the bid that it was important to be fair and transparent. Jay asks if interactions with News Corp and opponents would have to be through official channels.
Adam Smith. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP
Hunt says he did not think courteous replies to text messages were off limits.
“He adds that “any formal interactions with respect of my decisions” should be through official channels, by which he means his special adviser Adam Smith.
The BBC’s Evan Davis has just tweeted:
I hope they don’t choose to replace one of us @BBCr4today presenters with Robert Jay.
— Evan Davis (@EvanHD) May 31, 2012
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Hunt’s subdued tone and demeanour suggests that he no longer 100% confident of his actions + fate
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 31, 2012
The Guardian’s Patrick Wintour has just tweeted:
Did not Andy Coulson say he had no involvement in News Corps bid at Number 10, yet Hunt is emailing him about Cable’s bias and seeking chat
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 31, 2012
Jay turns to the legal advice Hunt was given in the days after he had been given responsibility for the BSkyB bid.
Hunt says he believed his quasi-judicial role meant “he had to be fair to both sides” but that did not mean having an equal amount of meetings with both News Corp and opponents of the bid.
Because of my other duties as secretary of state I was going to be bumping into people who had views on the bid.
ITV’s Tom Bradby has just tweeted:
The harder questions are for Cameron. Hunt never made any secret that he was pro the bid. So why did Cameron give him responsibility for it?
— tom bradby (@tombradby) May 31, 2012
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Fascinating insight on how mod govt works – emails to personal accounts, texts between principals in moments of crisis.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 31, 2012
Jay asks if the decision to give Hunt authority was made “overhastily”.
Hunt says it was not because No 10 received legal advice.
The situation demanded the government acted quickly because it was a very important merger decision … I think it was absolutely right that the prime minister acted decisively.
The Guardian’s Lisa O’Carroll has just tweeted:
Hunt had 2 secret calls with Murdoch, texts with Murdoch and Osborne re bid. Admits he shd have minuted meetings. How long can he last?
— lisa o’carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 31, 2012
“I’m not a lawyer but I would says I don’t believe there is a substantive difference,” says Hunt on his private remarks to Murdoch and Osborne about the bid.
He adds that it was “widely known” that he was sympathetic towards the BSkyB bid, but he was approaching it impartially.
The Guardian’s Patrick Wintour has just tweeted:
Hunt says he had not been appointed to oversee bid when he texted Murdoch at 16.58 to congratulate him,only had inkling he wld be appointed
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 31, 2012
Hunt argues that once given quasi-judicial authority over the bid he set up a process to set aside his sympathies.
The Guardian’s Josh Halliday has just tweeted:
Sounds like George Osborne had key behind-the-scenes role in government’s handling of BSkyB bid. Inconceivable he shouldn’t give evidence.
— Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) May 31, 2012
Jay presses Hunt on this, asking whether he believes this showed he had an apparent bias towards the bid.
Hunt answers “You don’t appoint a quasi-judicial role with your brain wiped clean,” and mantains that he “set aside” his personal view once he was given responsibility for the bid.
Hunt says he probably would not have sent the text congratulating Murdoch on the Brussels green light if he had responsibility for the bid.
“No I don’t think I would have sent that text,” he says.
Hunt was given responsibility at about 6pm that day.
I don’t think there’s anything substantively different in my text to Mr Murdoch – it just shows I was broadly sympathetic to the bid.
The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:
Osborne text msg to Hunt :”I hope you like our solution” (putting Hunt in charge)#Leveson
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 31, 2012
Hunt agrees he knew this meant he would be put in charge but was also wary that he had made positive comments about the bid previously.
He says he wanted No 10 not to announce him as taking charge in case these positive comments would preclude him from being able to take the role.
Osborne replied at 4.58pm the same day saying “I hope you like the solution.”
Hunt confirms this was a reference to him being given control of the BSkyB bid after Cable’s responsibility was discharged.
The inquiry hears that Hunt texted George Osborne twice at 4.08pm, saying “seriously worried we are going to screw this up” about the BSkyB bid after Cable’s comments broke.
George Osborne. Photograph: Olivia Harris/Reuters
Hunt texted Osborne a second time saying Murdoch was accusing Cable of “acute bias” over the bid.
Andy Coulson emailed Hunt later that day asking him to call and saying: “seriously worried Vince will do serious damage to coalition with his comments”.
Andy Coulson. Photograph: Olivia Harris/Reuters
Hunt says he does not believe he returned Coulson’s message.
Hunt discussed Cable’s comments in a phone call with James Murdoch at 4pm that day, he confirms.
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Wow – this is it surely? Hunt congratulated J Murdoch by text on getting sky bid through Brussels on Dec 21 – day he got approval job.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 31, 2012
Hunt sent Murdoch a text at 12.57pm on that day saying:
Great and congrats on Brussels. Just Ofcom to go.
Hunt accepts this was expressing a “somewhat positive view” of the fact that News Corp had been given European approval for the bid.
Murdoch and Hunt texted each other to arrange a phone call for 4pm on that day, Jay says.
Hunt says he is not sure whether he was aware of Cable’s “war on Murdoch” remarks at this time because they broke on mid- to late afternoon.
Jay turns to text messages on 21 December 2010, the day Cable was discharged from his oversight of the BSkyB bid.
The Guardian’s deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Hunt concedes Smith “self evidently knew your view on this crucial issue [view on BSky]” – therefore hard to characterise him as rogue spad
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 31, 2012
Michel and Smith met at the DCMS in the special advisers’ room – or “spads’ room” – on 6 December 2010, the inquiry hears.
Hunt says he did not know about the meeting at the time. “Smith was the contact point with all stakeholders,” he adds.
Hunt confirms that Smith knew his view on the takeover, described by Jay as a “critical issue”.
The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:
Hunt “now understands quasi-judicial much better” can see Vince C wd never hv agreed to the mtg he sought re bid #leveson
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 31, 2012
Hunt confirms he made the second draft of the memo, in which the “wrong place not just politically” reference was removed and the warning about “caving in” to opponents of the bid was beefed up.
Jay asks why Hunt called for a high-level meeting with David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable.
Hunt says he wanted the meeting because of the media policy implications, but adds:
I now realise it would not have been possible for Vince Cable to attend such a meeting.
Jay asks what Hunt means by “wrong place in terms of media policy”.
Hunt explains he has a concern that the model of the newspaper industry is not viable in the long term, and saw this bid “as an opportunity to help modernise the industry”.
He says he was “sympathetic” towards the bid, when asked by Jay whether he was supportive of it.
Hunt confirms he drafted the original memo.
He is asked what he meant by warning that the Tories could “end up in the wrong place not just politically” if they blocked the BSkyB bid.
Hunt explains that the Tories are traditionally a free market, pro-competition party and blocking such a business deal would have been inconsistent with their policy.
“I don’t think there’s any political win in any possible outcome as far as a Conservative-led government is concerned,” he adds.
Hunt is asked about his private memo to David Cameron on 19 November 2010.
In the draft, Hunt wrote:
James Murdoch is pretty furious at Vince’s referral to Ofcom. He doesn’t think he will get a fair hearing from Ofcom. I am privately concerned about this because News Corp are very litigious and we could end up in the wrong place in terms of media policy. Essentially what James Murdoch wants to do is to repeat what his father did with the move to Wapping and create the world’s first multiplatform media operator available from paper to web to TV to iPhone to iPad. Isn’t this what all media companies have to do ultimately? And if so we must be very careful that any attempt to block it is done on plurality grounds and not as a result of lobbying by competitors.
The UK has the chance to lead the way on this as we did in the 80s with the Wapping move but if we block it our media sector will suffer for years. In the end I am sure sensible controls can be put into any merger to ensure there is plurality but I think it would be totally wrong to cave into the Mark Thompson/Channel 4/Guardian line that this represents a substantial change of control given that we all know Sky is controlled by News Corp now anyway.
What next? Ofcom will issue their report saying whether it needs to go to the Competition Commission by 31 December. It would be totally wrong for the government to get involved in a competition issue which has to be decided at arm’s length. However I do think you, I, Vince and the DPM [deputy prime minister] should meet to discuss the policy issues that are thrown up as a result.
Hunt says he “just heard Mr Murdoch out” over the telephone. If he had wanted a meeting we would have said we could not intervene, he adds.
Murdoch used “colourful language” to express his frustration over the process, Hunt says.
The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:
Hunt admits spoke to J Murdoch on mb phone, despite all legal official advice. It was “entirely appropriate”#leveson
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 31, 2012
Hunt spoke to Murdoch on his mobile phone around this time.
Hunt maintains this was not a replacement for the meeting cancelled after legal advice.
Michel told Murdoch on 15 November 2010: “You could have a chat with him on his mobile which is completely fine and I will liaise with his team privately as well.”
Hunt says he now believes it is a good idea to have officials present when meeting media owners because of the “massive number of conspiracy theories about”.
Hunt says he was told that it was appropriate to have meetings with “stakeholders” where minutes were taken and officials were present. It was at his discretion to have unminuted meetings with no officials present, he adds.
Jay asks if Hunt was frustrated, as Michel claimed.
Hunt says:
I may have been frustrated. I was worried about a bid in my sector which could meant that thousands more jobs would be created and the main protagonists were concerned … So I may well have been worried.
On 15 November 2010, Michel emailed Murdoch saying about Hunt:
Hunt meeting – urgent. Jeremy tried to call you. He has received very strong legal advice not to meet us today as the current process is treated as a judicial one (not a policy one) and any meeting could be referred to and jeopardise the entire process.
Hunt says he does not believe he spoke to Michel before the News Corp lobbyist sent this email. He may have had a conversation with Adam Smith, Hunt says.
Hunt received further legal advice on 7 December 2010 stating “that’s probably not what JS [Jonathan Stephens, the permanent secretary] and JH wanted to hear”.
The Guardian’s deputy editor, Ian Katz, has tweeted:
Why was Hunt’s private email the only one he used, if not to avoid FOI? #Leveson
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 31, 2012
Jay turns to the legal advice given to Hunt on 19 November 2010.
He was told it would be “unwise” to make an intervention on the BSkyB bid.
Hunt explains that November 2010 was the first time he heard the phrase “quasi-judicial”.
“I thought I had an absolutely duty to be across the most important issue in that industry,” he adds.
Hunt says:
I think I had a concern about the situation where we had this very important, very significant merger in my sector where I didn’t think there was a particular problem with it, but the organisation concerned said they did feel they were facing a number of obstacles with it.
Hunt says he was asking for his “locus to express an opinion that might be taken into consideration by Dr Cable”.
He interpreted the advice to mean he should not have an external conversation that could be seen as an intervention in Cable’s oversight of the bid.
Hunt adds that he did not believe he could not speak to industry figures about the bid.
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Just been shown a sheet of Michel/Hunt texts. Nov 16 from FM to JH “thanks for the call with james today…
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 31, 2012
and
…greatly appreciated will work with adam to make sure we can send you helpful arguments”
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 31, 2012
Jay turns to Hunt’s meeting with James Murdoch on 12 November 2010.
Hunt received legal advice on that same day to “not have external discussions about the bid” nor write to Vince Cable.
Jay shows Hunt an email of 2 November 2010 and then on 9 November 2010 from Michel asking him to “meet JRM” on 15 November 2010.
Hunt texted back: “Great.”
The Guardian’s deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Some useful reading for Hunt at #Leveson. Bogdanor bit.ly/LQmj44Timeline bit.ly/I97mLM Cameron memo bit.ly/Ljbrfk
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 31, 2012
Hunt says he does not believe other officials knew he received the briefing documents “nor would I have made a secret of it”.
Asked why Smith sent the email to Hunt’s personal account, the minister says that is the only email account he uses; his private secretary looks after his official DCMS account.
Hunt is asked about the briefing documents from News Corp he described as “very powerful” in an email to Adam Smith, his special adviser.
Hunt explains that he did not believe there was a “major plurality issue” in the media merger.
Hay asks how well Hunt knew Michel.
Hunt says he never socialised with Michel but got to know him well because they both had children in the same hospital at the same time.
Frédéric Michel. Photograph: Andrew Parsons/i-Images
Hunt says he met Rebekah Brooks and Frédéric Michel at the Conservative conference in October 2010.
Rebekah Brooks. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images
He adds that the News Corp pair complained they would not get a fair hearing from Vince Cable.
Hunt says that he may have expressed surprise that Cable believed there may have been a plurality issue with the bid.
Hunt says he was told it was acceptable and at his discretion whether to have meetings with News Corp executives.
He admits having an unminuted meeting with Murdoch with no officials present on 20 June.
The Sky bid was probably discussed, he says.
Jay presses Hunt on when he first learned of News Corp’s BSkyB bid.
Hunt says he is not sure whether he was told about the bid before it was publicly announced, adding:
My view was that the Murdochs controlled BSkyB … so I didn’t think there was a significant change in plurality.
Hunt is asked whether he hid behind a tree to avoid being spotted at a party at which Murdoch was present.
The Daily Telegraph’s Iain Martin offers his first-hand account of the incident here.
Hunt says he spotted a large group of media journalists outside the entrance and thought “this is not the time to have an impromptu interview and so I moved into a different quadrangle”.
“There may or may not have been trees,” Hunt adds, before Leveson urges Jay to move on.
Hunt met News Corp executives on a trip to New York in September 2009.
He had “general discussions” with News Corp executives about broadcasting, but Murdoch was in London at the time. They spoke about impartiality rules, he says.
Jay asks if Hunt agreed with Murdoch on “top slicing” the BBC licence fee.
“Generally speaking I didn’t agree with him on the licence fee, full stop,” Hunt says.
He points out that Murdoch opposes the licence fee completely, whereas Hunt believes the BBC is an “important benchmark” for broadcasting quality.
Hunt says he disagreed with the thrust of Murdoch’s MacTaggart lecture remarks on the BBC.
Murdoch described the corporation’s size and ambitions as “chilling” and accused it of mounting a “land grab” in a beleaguered media market.
You can read the full text of his speech here.
Jay asks about meetings with James Murdoch.
In one meeting, Hunt and Murdoch spoke about reforming Ofcom.
James Murdoch. Photograph: Warren Allott/AFP/Getty Images
Hunt says his focus in the meeting was local TV and superfast broadband but “I did not manage to excite much interest from him in either of those two issues.”
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Hunt looks a little weary, but focused on being outwardly calm.
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 31, 2012
Hunt is asked about the comments on his personal website praising Rupert Murdoch’s contribution to the British economy.
He explains that this section on his website feature press articles about him and that comment was by a journalist from Broadcast magazine “but it’s not how I would describe myself”.
Hunt says he puts up “positive or negative” comments on his website because he believes they are helpful to his constituents.
Hunt has been an MP since 2005, shadow culture secretary, then culture secretary from May 2010.
Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt is sworn in and has taken the witness stand.
Robert Jay QC, lead counsel to the inquiry, is leading the questioning.
Leveson inquiry: Jeremy Hunt
9.52am: The Guardian’s John Plunkett has sent us this picture from outside the Royal Courts of Justice of protesters wearing Hunt and Cameron masks:
Leveson inquiry: protesters wearing Hunt and Cameron masks Photograph: John Plunkett for the Guardian
Hunt has submitted more than 160 pages of internal memos, emails and text messages to the Leveson inquiry, according to the BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson.
Robinson reports that Hunt originally believed that Adam Smith, his special adviser, had done nothing wrong in his contacts with News Corp’s Frédéric Michel and that the culture secretary was prepared to resign himself.
The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
My hunch: Jeremy Hunt has a ‘fairly good’ day; fends off the critics for a bit. But will he be culture sec long after the Olympics?
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 31, 2012
The Guardian’s Patrick Wintour has just tweeted:
J hunt seems to be briefing he offered to resign since he did not think, like his perm sect and the cab sect,his special adviser had erred
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 31, 2012
and
George Osborne is being reported as privately having opposed leveson’s broad terms of reference.
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 31, 2012
and
Labour will seek post-hunt evidence that cameron ask ind adviser on min code investigate hunt. If Cam says no, it is close to clearing Hunt.
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 31, 2012
Sky News’s Mark White has posted video on Twitter of protesters wearing Hunt masks doing the lambada:
Here is the list of questions Dan Sabbagh, Josh Halliday and Lisa O’Carroll ask Jeremy Hunt in the Guardian today:
1. Why did you agree to talk to James Murdoch on the telephone on 15 November, when you had been explicitly told by your permanent secretary that you could not meet him? Were you seeking to get information from him that could be used to influence David Cameron and pressurise Vince Cable?
2. Why did you draft a memo to the prime minister on 19 November, after having spoken to a “pretty furious” James Murdoch, asking that he intervene to rein in Vince Cable – after you had been told by the DCMS legal director, Patrick Kilgarriff, that it would be unwise to get involved?
3. What did you mean when you wrote that the coalition “could end up in the wrong place in terms of media policy” and that it would be a mistake to “cave in” to opponents of the bid? Why did you think it was appropriate to ask the prime minister to lean on Cable?
4. Why did you tone down your original memo? Why did you write in an earlier draft that the Tories “could end up in the wrong place politically?” Were you concerned that the Conservatives would lose the support of News Corporation and its newspapers? Did your conversation with James Murdoch on 15 November give rise to that concern?
5. Did you have any further discussion with Cameron, Osborne or other Conservative ministers after sending the memo as regards trying to influence Cable in the quasi-judicial process? And why did you tell parliament on 25 April 2012 that you made “absolutely no interventions seeking to influence a quasi-judicial decision that was at that time the responsibility of the secretary of state for business”?
6. When Gus O’Donnell was asked to determine if you could be an objective judge of the BSkyB bid, did you make him aware of the 19 November memo you wrote to the prime minister? If not, why not? Was it because it would have revealed the appearance of bias on your part?
7. Adam Smith said he knew “very much what [you] thought” and received an excellent performance review in December 2011. Given his acknowledged talent and knowledge of your ways of working, how can you maintain that you were unaware of “volume and tone” of Smith’s contacts with Fred Michel during the bid?
8. Did you receive any advice about whether it was appropriate for you to consider the phone-hacking issue as relevant to your decision on the Sky bid? If so, what did that advice state, and when was it received? Why did you continue to insist that concern about hacking was immaterial to the bid – particular given that it was the reason the bid collapsed?
9. Were you aware that News Corp had been given an early copy of your 3 March 2011 statement to parliament on the proposed undertakings in lieu? Was it appropriate for your special adviser to be texting Michel at 3am with advance details of your Commons statement? Were you also aware that Michel believed he was passed information “although absolutely illegal” by your department on 23 January 2011?
10. Why did you hide behind a tree to avoid being seen by Wall Street Journal journalist Iain Martin at an evening event on 20 May 2010 where James Murdoch had just given a speech? What did you discuss at the subsequent dinner; were you tipped off about the impending BSkyB bid? Is is fair to say that you “wanted to be close to News International, and to have dinner with Murdoch, but didn’t want to be seen as being close to News International”?
Good morning and welcome to the Leveson inquiry.
Embattled culture secretary Jeremy Hunt will face sustained questioning today as the inquiry turns its focus to his dealings with Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.
Hunt will be pressed on his controversial handling of News Corp’s £8bn BSkyB takeover bid as the minister fights to save his political future.
Hunt has faced mounting questions about his apparent bias in favour of the News Corp bid since the inquiry published 160 pages of emails between his key aide, Adam Smith, and the News Corp lobbyist Frédéric Michel in April.
Hunt will be questioned for almost seven hours on whether he repeatedly misled parliament about his position on the bid, repeatedly claiming that he had made no interventions on the bid before he took control and had no unofficial contact with Michel.
Documents revealed at the inquiry show that Hunt wrote a pointed memo to David Cameron in November 2010 in support of the bid on the same day he was given legal advice not to. He also exchanged a string of text messages with Michel while exercising quasi-judicial oversight of the media merger.
The inquiry begins at 10am.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/31/jeremy-hunt-leveson-inquiry-live
‘Politics is tough’
America’s first lady admits daughters need thick skin
Michelle Obama saysher daughters are learning that even the kids of politicians have to have a thick skin.
“Politics is tough,” the first lady said on Tuesday. “That’s just…the nature of the beast.”
But she said daughters Sasha and Malia, at ages 10 and 13, also know that no matter what happens in the November election, “their life is good either way.”
Mrs. Obama chatted about family life, this year’s re-election campaign and what’s not ahead for her — a career in politics — during a round of interviews promoting the release of her new book on the White House garden.
As for the personal attacks that swirl around her husband in a campaign year, the first lady said: “You just…have to have a thick skin in this thing. And your kids do too.”
Malia and Sasha “understand that their world is secure no matter what,” Mrs. Obama said on ABC’s The View.
“They’ve grown to understand that home is wherever we are. And Dad is always going to be Dad. So they’re good.”
The first lady left no doubt on the question of a political future of her own.
“Those are other people’s rumours,” she said. “I have no interest in politics. Never have. Never will.”
She added: “The one thing that is certain: I will serve. I will serve in some capacity.”
Mrs. Obama said her work to support military families “is a forever proposition. They will always need a voice out there.”
Later, with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, Mrs. Obama talked about the virtues of fresh veggies and wouldn’t bite at a Stewart suggestion that she use her higher poll ratings as a weapon in any argument with her husband.
“I don’t wield it over him,” she said. “One of the things I’ve seen over the last 3 ½ years, I’ve seen what it takes to be president. I kind of watch this thing pretty closely. You know, the president is getting all the hard decisions, where there is no easy answer.”
During her media tour the first lady offered other tidbits about the Obama family, and her efforts to promote healthy eating and exercise, such as:
The president isn’t much of a griller-in-chief. “He doesn’t mind grilling, but I was the griller in our household. I love to grill anything,” she said in an interview on Rachael Ray.
She doesn’t have to worry about deer or other animals nibbling on plants in the White House garden, thanks to “a big fence and men with guns,” she said on The View. There were some pesky birds to contend with, however.
Her effort to fight childhood obesity “isn’t about government telling people what to do,” she told ABC’s Good Morning America. It’s designed to give families information, support and resources to find their own solutions.
Federal politicians shocked over delivery of foot to Tory HQ
OTTAWA – Politicians on Parliament Hill reacted with dismay Wednesday to the bizarre news that a severed foot had been delivered in a bloodied box to nearby Conservative offices.
Also Wednesday, it was revealed that when the box was delivered to the Conservative office a day earlier, it had been brought to Jenni Byrne, a senior Tory official who was Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s campaign manager in last year’s election.
“The package was brought to Ms. Byrne because it looked suspicious,” said Conservative party spokesman Fred DeLorey. “It was opened, Ms. Byrne examined it, saw the blood and smelled the odour and made the decision to call police.”
As MPs from all parties circulated throughout the parliamentary halls – some emerging from their weekly caucus meeting and others holding unrelated news conferences – the question that many faced was common: How could this happen and were you concerned?
“It’s certainly an unusual development and it’s not even insofar as homicides go,” said Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.
“It’s quite an unusual circumstance.”
“I’m not prepared to discuss any security concerns. There are obviously always security plans in place and initiatives in place, but all I can reiterate is that this is an ongoing criminal investigation and it would be inappropriate for me to comment any farther.”
Labor Minister Lisa Raitt was more expressive.
“It’s just shocking for somebody to do that,” she said. “I’d hate to be the one opening that.”
Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino, who was a veteran policeman before entering politics, commented on the unusual aspects of the case.
“There are odd things that happen but this would probably be a unique one,” he said. “However, I’m not shocked by the things that go on these days.”
NDP leader Thomas Mulcair deferred when asked if he thinks the incident is merely a crime or is somehow connected to politics.
“I can’t comment on that,” he said.
“It’s horrible and I’m just thinking about the workers who are faced with that situation. I just hope the police get to the bottom of it.”
Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said there are tragic implications to the crime involving the severed foot that no one must forget. “We have to remember that behind this story there is clearly a tragedy so we all hope that the police could explain how this happened. But it’s a human tragedy of immense proportion and we have to respect the work of the police and it’s completely a situation that’s frankly tragic.”
Asked if he was concerned about security, given the fact that a box containing the foot was able to be delivered to the office of a political party, Rae said: “The reality is strange things happen.”
“This is a terrible crime has been committed and we have to all cooperate with the police to get to the bottom of it. It is something we all should take seriously as we go forward.”
At the Conservative offices, DeLorey said the staff are “very upset and disturbed by what happened yesterday.”
“When we began to open the package we saw what appeared to be blood, and an extremely foul odour came from the package once it was partially opened,” said DeLorey.
“It was such a horrible odor I’m sure many of us will not forget it.”
mkennedy(at)postmedia.com
Twitter.com/Mark_Kennedy_
http://www.canada.com/Federal+politicians+shocked+over+delivery+foot+Tory/6703026/story.html
The politics of self-interest in addressing elderly care means it can be hard …
By
Steve Doughty
20:36, 30 May 2012
|
21:43, 30 May 2012
The cost of looking after old people is almost going to double in the next 20 years, and the number of people who will have to bear the crushing burden of paying for their own care will more than double.
This is what we are told in a report backed by eminently able academic researchers and published by the Local Government Association, the umbrella body of local councils.
It is local councils, of course, which run the bureaucratic organisations currently known as adult social services which are responsible for dishing out the meals on wheels, the bathroom safety fittings, and the caring workers who help wash and dress the vulnerable elderly.
Prediction: The number of older people who will be forced to pay their own care bills will double over the next 20 years
They also pay the care home bills for people who have little money or property of their own.
So they should know.
The sums they come up with are forbidding. An 84 per cent increase in the bill to taxpayers to £26.7 billion by 2030. An extra £79 million for every council concerned. That’s £230 for everyone in the country.
The councils say that taxpayers cannot afford this. Their solution to the terrible and developing problem is therefore for the Government to pay more to help out.
Do you smell a rat here?
Let me take you through a little more of the local government-think which the leaders of our councils expect us to swallow.
‘This could mean discretionary public services such as public toilets, leisure centres and parks coming increasingly under threat as councils are forced to divert funding from other areas to plug the growing black hole in adult social care budgets.’
Support: The Daily Mail has been pushing to improve care for older people in its Dignity For The Elderly campaign
Public toilets? You try finding one in the average town. In most places, public conveniences disappeared in the 1980s, victims of the cuts, we were told. In my local town the most convenient convenience is now a nightclub.
But never mind. Let’s go on. Councillor David Rogers, chair of the LGA’s Community Wellbeing Board, said: ‘Without urgent reform we are going to see the cost of providing care for the elderly soaking up every last penny of council budgets. In just a generation we are going to get to the point where councils are unable to provide any services at all that are not statutory, and offer little more than care services for the vulnerable.’
Now, as part of the day job, I’ve been talking for years to people who work for local councils and deal with adult social services. What they have been saying, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, is that councils have been ruthlessly stripping care at home from old and frail people since well before the onset of recession brought them to their present period of mild restraint.
You will recollect that helping vulnerable old people in their own homes is recommended by all authorities as superior to residential care homes, and for nearly 20 years government policies have been framed around encouraging it.
This hasn’t stopped councils employing inflexible means tests to ensure that anyone with enough assets to buy an average family car not only gets no help at home, but is denied even advice to tell them how to get it for themselves.
The sickness and disability thresholds which you must reach to get help at home are now in many areas so demanding that if you meet them you are going to be in hospital or a care home already.
This has been done because councils want the money for other things, and because generally councillors and officials reckon if you cut back on helping the old, nobody is going to make much trouble about it.
Unjust: The Coalition must address the callous means test system that makes old people surrender their own homes for a place in a care home
Those other things are of course important services as mentioned by Councillor Rogers, but not quite the ones the LGA describes. The money has to go into vital areas like the carbon reduction policy, communications directors to produce leaflets saying what an improvement it is that the council won’t collect your rubbish any more, and councillors’ allowances.
The claim that the cost of caring for old people will mean no more parks or toilets or swimming pools is what you would expect from an organisation that says taxpayers can’t afford the cost of councils paying for it all, but somehow can if it’s the Government doing the paying.
It is time to start being very, very careful about what we believe when we hear scary warnings about the cost of care for the elderly.
My own view is that the Coalition should do something to ease the unfair and callous means test system that makes old people surrender their own homes for a place in a care home and cuts provident people out of help in their own homes.
But there is an awful lot of self-interest at play here. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between the attitude of conman offering to fix granny’s guttering for £5,000 and the policies of a local council.
It’s the council that uses its bulk-buying power to drive down the cost of the care home places it buys for its poorer elderly, as a result forcing the care home owner to charge your private payer granny extra ‘top-up’ payments that will come to much more than £5,000.
There is an awful lot of money washing about in the state care system and in the bank accounts and the wills of the old. Not everybody who takes an interest in it is disinterested.
-
Parents Mick and Mairead Philpott charged with murdering six…
-
Viewers’ outrage over harrowing scenes of day-old calves…
-
Revealed: Victim of ‘Miami Cannibal’ was star student at…
-
Mystery naked couple caught on camera having sex in office…
-
My Twitter ordeal: I’m taunted on the internet over my…
-
Ten ads that made us mad: Nude Sophie Dahl to Pope in a hard…
-
The King and Queen of Bali: Villagers say Britons in cocaine…
-
Don’t drink more than 3 glasses of wine a week: Oxford study…
-
You can tell there’s a Bank Holiday round the corner!…
-
A ‘wicked lie to save her skin’: QC accuses sister of making…
-
Illiterate school-leavers and workless households are…
-
Skin and bone: 18lb dog starved for TWO MONTHS and found…
Share this article:
Prospect of Thaksin return heats up Thai politics
BANGKOK (AP) — Thailand’s politics heated up Wednesday over a bill that could herald the return of divisive ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, while his former top lieutenants prepared to re-enter the political arena after a five-year ban.
The party of current Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin’s sister, was hoping to introduce legislation in Parliament Thursday that is widely seen as a possible first step toward providing amnesty for her fugitive brother’s convictions and allowing him to return unencumbered to Thailand.
Thaksin had been ousted by a 2006 military coup after being accused of abuse of power and disrespect to Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej. His party was dissolved by a legal decision the year after, and he was among the 111 executives of his Thai Rak Thai Party banned from politics for five years. He also was convicted in absentia of corruption while in self-imposed exile.
The prospect of Thaksin’s return has galvanized his opponents inside and outside Parliament, threatening to reopen political wounds from a six-year struggle between Thaksin’s opponents and supporters.
His Yellow Shirt opponents in the People’s Alliance for Democracy were back on the streets Wednesday in one of their largest demonstrations in recent months. They oppose a government-backed reconciliation bill to grant amnesty to all parties involved in political violence and wrongdoing from the end of 2005 through mid-2010, a period when Thailand was wracked by turmoil and street protests.
Yellow Shirts’ protests in 2006 set the stage for the coup, and in 2008 they occupied the prime minister’s offices for three months and Bangkok’s two airports for a week to pressure two pro-Thaksin prime ministers out of office.
The street protests Wednesday were peaceful, but the scene was different in Parliament, where police had to keep order as the opposition Democrat Party sought to derail efforts to schedule debate on the bill. At one point, a female Democrat lawmaker dragged the House speaker’s empty chair off the podium, sparking a scuffle with government members of Parliament. A phalanx of policemen retrieved the chair.
Meanwhile, the five-year ban on Thaksin and his party associates was set to expire at midnight Wednesday. The Constitutional Court in 2007 had ordered the Thai Rak Thai Party dissolved and its top members suspended from politics for five years. The court had found two senior members guilty of electoral law violations in 2006.
Thaksin’s opponents sought to purge his influence after the coup, launching investigations of his finances and using other measures to try to cripple his political machine, which he built using a fortune made in telecommunications.
The re-entry into politics of Thaksin’s party leaders was widely expected to lead to a reshuffle in the Yingluck’s Cabinet, although many of the current members may be reluctant to give up their positions.
Karn Yuenyong, executive director of the independent, Bangkok-based research institute Siam Intelligence Unit, said the returnees could bring some valuable experience into the administration.
“This, in a way, will help the Yingluck government sail through its four-year term,” Karn said, adding that some of the current ministers “have not been performing really well in the past few months.”
Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Odd politics, but tradition: Bush at White House for portrait unveiling with …
Obama is still bad-mouthing Bush’s time in office, and it’s not just because of the debt and the unfinished wars Obama inherited. Obama sees Bush’s economic ideas as the same as his current rival, Mitt Romney, so he lumps them together.
Which makes it a little awkward that Obama is about to preside as Bush’s image and legacy are enshrined forever.
Never mind all that, say the Obama and Bush camps. This is a timeout for tradition.
The political reunion is expected to put aside any campaign rhetoric, as other gatherings among past and current presidents have, to honor nostalgia and the service of the former president and his wife, Laura.
In the heart of a re-election year, Obama will to get to rise above the fray for a day and play statesman.
He and his wife, Michelle, will host generations of Bushes for a private lunch, including former President George H.W. Bush and former first lady Barbara Bush. Family members will join them.
Then, in the ornate East Room, Obama and George W. Bush will speak as the portraits of the former president and Laura Bush are unveiled. The audience will be filled with friends and officials from Bush’s two terms in office.
No one close to the current or former president expects the least sign of animus Thursday, particularly given that their transition in 2009 was handled with grace and that they have since shared moments of help and healing.
“President Bush has been around politics a long time. He’s been around how presidents deal with each other for a long time,” said Tony Fratto, one of his former spokesmen at the White House. “He has an understanding for separating the necessities of political rhetoric from the job itself.”
Still, Bush has been holding his tongue for a long time. Obama has never run against Bush, although it was easy to forget that during the 2008 race between Obama and Sen. John McCain, when Bush’s tenure was so often Obama’s target.
In his inaugural address in 2009, Obama declared that “we are ready to lead once more,” seen by some as a dig at Bush, who was seated over his shoulder. Even now, hardly a day goes by when Obama’s team does not blame Bush for a mess.
It was just one week ago that Obama, revving up campaign donors, turned Bush into a punch line. Obama depicted presumptive Republican presidential nominee Romney as a peddler of bad economic ideas, helping the rich at the expense of the middle class. He then added: “That was tried, remember? The last guy did all this.”
Now the last guy is coming back.
Only 44 men in history, and five men alive, have held the job.
It will be a rare limelight moment for Bush, who has not been back in more than two years.
Obama and Bush have a cordial and respectful relationship, but they are not close.