The case of Sir Paul Stevenson made me think along these lines too. While I’m sure it was very nice to be offered a freebie at an expensive spa to recuperate from what was undoubtedly a very difficult time for him, the consequences of accepting the offer ought to have occurred to him. The reports I have read suggest the freebie was equivalent to £12 000. Even though he declared it, shouldn’t he have realised it was excessive? Even if he needed special treatment to recover, did his wife too?

The implication is that people like him are special and deserve (even need) these perks. There is a lack of humility and a sense of separation from normal people in this that is very unhealthy.

But I believe that there are common themes running through all three…

They all happened under a Labour Government?

“We need to look at new cross-media ownership rules to stop concentration of power in the hands of one proprietor.”

Be careful what you wish for.

For you need to define “media” and “cross-ownership”. If someone may not own a TV station and a newspaper, then why should someone be allowed to own a radio station and a newspaper? Or even a TV station and a radio station? Or given new technology, a news website and a TV station?

If you get that definition of “media” wrong (wrong from whichever way around your political prejudices define it) then banning cross-ownership could/should mean the break up of the BBC. Radio, TV and the largest news website in the country?

GMG having to sell it’s interest in radio (if it hasn’t already done so, not sure).

No, this isn’t just me being weird. I can’t see any logical reason why TV/newspaper ownership should be banned or controlled but TV/radio or TV/web or newspaper/radio not.

I can see very good political reasons, of course. Looking only at newspaper/TV would attak Murdoch and Desmond. Looking at cross-ownership of all media would spell the end of the BBC.

But everyone is in this to do what is right, yes, not just to do down their political enemies?

“The banker who paid himself millions of pounds taking the most risky investments which would land his company and the country in the mire.”

Encouraged by Labour

“The MP who fiddled the expenses system, landing himself, his party and politics in disgrace.”

Perpetrated worst by Labour MPs

“The editor who oversaw a newspaper with a culture of illegality not for the public interest but simply in the search for a story, landing their paper and the whole industry in the dock.”

Allowed to go on by Labour

And then there’s the stuff he doesn’t mention, such as the Digital Economy act, written by execs in the industry, passed without any scrutiny, by a Labour government in collusion with Tories. This situation of governments and politicians letting power at the top get it’s own way goes deeper still than this little hacking controversy.

The heart of the matter here is that Labour cannot with any seriousness come out and say that they know what needs to be done without looking absolutely opportunist, hypocritical even, especially since the Lib Dems have already said all of this before.

I know its seen as quite the clever thing to do to say this started under Labour – but at least Ed M has admitted that was a mistake and vowed to change it.

What about the current administration?

Yes, Nick Clegg made a speech last week saying just this sort of thing. So the current administration is very much making a vow on this, and did so first.

The banker who paid himself millions of pounds taking the most risky investments which would land his company and the country in the mire.

this is a small point, of minor interest to those interested in details. Actually the crisis mostly involved banks making the least risky investments: those with AAA ratings (that link shows AAA security issuance levels over the crisis). But those investments turned out to be risky ex-post in two ways: 1. the “safe” rating was wrong and 2. because they were rated as safe, banks did not hold capital cushions to protect themselvs against a collapse in their value.

this point isn’t terribly important in the grand scheme of things (it all added up to de facto risky behaviour) but this sort of detail does matter to those, for example, who might want to try to fix the system by, say, requiring banks to hold more AAA assets.

this sort of detail does matter to those, for example, who might want to try to fix the system by, say, requiring banks to hold more AAA assets.

One of the cornerstones of Basel III, that is. With the added joy that OECD sovereign debt is automatically considered AAA equivalent for the purposes of capital ratios. Not looking quite such a good idea just now.

(n.b. I’m not suggesting Ed M should try to make such fine distinctions in his speeches – I mostly posted that comment becuase I only recently came across that ftalphaville post about AAA issuance and thought it was interesting).

I know its seen as quite the clever thing to do to say this started under Labour.

It’s just a statement of chronological fact, isn’t it? Phone hacking actually happened 2000-2004-ish, with an abortive investigation in 2009. The banking crisis was 2007-2009 (with continuing fallout) and the parliamentary expenses crisis was 2008-2009.

It’s hardly being clever-clever to observe that none of this sprang from blue skies in May 2010.

Tim J,

yup, I can’t find the right link right now, but that’s why lots of economists have been arguing that capital ratios need to be applied to broad-based measures of assets, without mucking about trying to apply lower ratios to “safer” assets.

Glad to see that someone is looking at press regulation.

As I’ve pointed out here:

http://zelo.tv/rjXD9Y

it needs to change. I doubt it can be done by self regulation, but all things are possible. The present situation, though, where papers can smear anyone and only the well off can force them to retract and apologise, cannot continue.

11 – further evidence that strict rules-based methods of regulation are likely to be less effective for banks than flexible ‘Governor’s eyebrows’ methods? Or is that a stupid Tory calling for ‘less regulation’ on banksters?

I know its seen as quite the clever thing to do to say this started under Labour…

Certainly the current scandal dates from at least then.

– but at least Ed M has admitted that was a mistake and vowed to change it.

What about the current administration?

Um, they have admitted mistakes and vowed to change.

PS. pointing out that other newspapers and politicians were involved too is not whataboutery, it’s a statement of fact about the rot.

“Certainly the current scandal dates from at least then”

Can I request that you provide some proof that no hacking took place prior to 1996?

Similarly, please provide your proof that no payments from journalists to police were made before the Labour government came into power.

And of course, did expense fiddling really only occur from 2008 onwards? Were there really zero false claims made prior to the point in 2004 when the Telegraph asked for information under FOI? I look forward to your proof of that assertion.

Cheers

Nick

Can I request that you provide some proof that no hacking took place prior to 1996?

Hardly anyone had a mobile phone back then. The real explosion in mobile ownership was from about 98 onwards.

Similarly, please provide your proof that no payments from journalists to police were made before the Labour government came into power.

If you’re trying to find a Government to blame for this, you might have to go back a bit. Hacks have been paying off coppers (in one form or another) for as long as there has been an organised police force.

Nick @15, I didn’t make the claim(s) you appear to think I made. In retrospect perhaps I wasn’t entirely clear but I thought the person my comment was aimed at would understand it.

What I meant was, “the rot was present in at least the Labour governments 1997-2010 if not earlier governments….”

It is all very well attacking the Tories and News International but Labour was at it too along with newspapers other than those owned by News International. Even the Observer was involved in the ‘illegal trade in confidential personal information’. So, being partisan or tribal about it looks silly if not harmful – I would like all people who do wrong to be held to account, not just Tories and ‘right-wing’ media companies. Dismissing such complaint as whataboutery or “quite the clever thing to do” seems stupid.

Lee Griffin @6:

Er, nonsense. If Clegg is the one selected to say it, that is administrative code for ‘We have to be seen to say this but have no intention of doing it, good lord no’. That’s what they have him for; he’s there to say things so that Cameron can ignore them without being seen to have lied.

If Cameron said on the floor of the House that something was going to be done, and gave precise details as to what, I would still be inclined to believe it only when I saw it happen. If Clegg says it to journalists, what on earth makes you think the government will actually care?

(ok, someday I’ll figure out how to do quotes properly on this site…)

“Hardly anyone had a mobile phone back then. The real explosion in mobile ownership was from about 98 onwards.”

Firstly, Consumer uptake of mobile phones came about in the mid 90s (something I know a lot about as I was working then for a company who devised the key invention that allowed that explosion to happen.) However, ownership of phones, particularly among “interesting people” (the sort of people who would be targets for hacking) dates back to the late 80s.

Secondly, Hacking of voice mails is not limited to mobile phones. Voice mail has long been available to both mobile and fixed line devices.

“If you’re trying to find a Government to blame for this…”

I’m not, that was my point. There seemed to be a number of posts in this topic that sought to make cheap points as to this issue being a government-specific responsibility – childish posts along the lines of “whoever smelt it dealt it”.

All these issues – snooping on conversations, fiddling finances, bribing authority – go back into the mists of time. I’m glad that they have a magnifying glass over them right now; and I hope that something happens to lessen or negate their occurance in the future.

Cheers

Nick