Our household are of the opinion that Murdoch appointed Coulson to the post of Head of Communications at No 10. In such a position he could tell the Prime Minister and his Chancellor what policies Rupe’ preferred and keep an eye on them at the same time in case they strayed too far from Mr Murdoch’s global stategy
In which case, naturally he (Coulson) would still be in receipt of remuneration from NI and keep all the benefits he was still entitled to.
As he has done.

My problem is that I’m unclear about how the Dominatrix fits with all the stuff we keep hearing from the Conservatives about Familes Values even if there’s a clearer link with Cameron’s vision of Britain in moral decline.

@Idiot: “In amongst last week’s Hackgate revelations, a little snippet about George Osborne’s past has received little comment.”

On the basis of your tittle tattle, it deserves the non-recognition that you have observed.

Steve B,

Perhaps the fact that “a little snippet about George Osborne’s past has received little comment.” says a bit more about you than it says about anyone else.

Just saying, you voyeuristic freak.

If you have evidence, then present it, otherwise stop being a dick…

@1: I hope you’re aware of the fairly fundamental difference between remuneration and severance payments, yes?

Well said Douglas.

Another Seamus Milne in the making and this lot has a go at the tabloids – eh?

The Guest contributor gets accused of voyeurism.

But read the Indie piece, and this piece again.

The point, apart from the opportunity to have another snigger at Osborne [always fun] is that as Ms Rowe asks –

Just why was Osborne so keen to employ Coulson when he’d been responsible for publishing a very embarrassing story about him, and one that could have affected his political career, or marriage.

Attack the messenger, or in this case, the questioner, but the questions don’t go away for Osborne, Caneron or the Tories.

Nor will they go away. The pressure will keep being added, drip by drip.

@5 Presumably you have evidence that these payments were ‘severance’ not remuneration, what, seen the contract or happy to take Coulson’s or News International’s word for it?
Or shall we just call it a bung?
Presumably, normal practice for editors of News international to receive severance payments when resigning?
In 25 years in publishing I found the only time editors/senior executives got severance payments was when the ‘board’ wanted shot of them – they usually got ‘bungs’ to stay.
Andrew Neil and David Yelland got zero when they resigned from News International so not normal practice in their case

Can we just consider one minor point here – that Mr Osborne might not have liked what Mr Coulson’s paper did to him (who would?) but that he is not a six-year old (or, on the evidence of some commentators on the internet, a habitual knee-jerk commentator), and is therefore capable of thinking slightly further than ‘don’t like him any more so won’t play with him’.

It may be that Mr Coulson’s handling of the affair even impressed Mr Osborne – if you are recruiting to a post that has recently had to be very manipulative and hard-headed, you may well think of those who you personally know to be good at this sort of thing. Above all though, assuming that someone in politics would not appoint those who have upset them to a position seems to miss the meaning of politics and rather assumes that all politicians are in a school (posh public variety for Conservatives (oh, and much of Labour…) obviously) playground.

This sort of simple logic might well suffice as quasi-tabloid journalism (although I bet a real tabloid editor might have something to say about it), but it hardly qualifies as substantive analysis – to accuse someone of something, it is traditional to have more evidence than an assumption that they act like a small child when upset by something.

Barrie J,

You do realise employment laws changed in the 2000s, so it was much easier for people stepping down as a result of problems to make a deal to get severance pay?

Which is not to say it should not have been declared, but if it was severance pay (regardless of any quibbles about who got it or not) it would be payed regardless of Mr Murdoch’s whim, as it would have been agreed before.

That Mr Coulson was a News International plant may or may not be to some extent true (I am inclined to believe his employment reflected an unhealthy attitude towards News International in politics which he did nothing to dispell, despite perhaps being aware of its weaknesses). Severance pay however (he was not fired for misconduct, so could negotiate some…) is not evidence of this.

Watchman@

Your argument sounds like all those that were used a few years ago.

‘Where’s the evidence of phone hacking’, ‘malicious allegations’,
‘scandal mongering’ etc and of course Boris Johnson saying it was all a Labour lefty obsession.

Sometimes these things have to circulate be gosspied about, and then people come forward with little snippets, sometimes evidence, sometimes rumour and the case or story builds.

Whose accusing them of anything ? Just asking questions.

The truth is that Osborne and Cameron cannot get away from the damage that employing Coulson will cause them ultimately.

The Tory/Clegg line that Coulson behaved impeccably while working for the Tories and at taxpayers’ expense at No 10 would be blown out of the water if it’s proved Coulson’s Parlaimentary passes were obtained while not declaring income/severance/resignation/keep quiet payments from NI.

Whether we ever get to hear the truth of what went on, however mundane or the opposite it may be is another matter.

I suspect the reason the story has provoked less interest than you seam to think it merits is that its hard for people cursed with joined-up thinking to maintain outrage at press intrusion and a prurient interest in the private life of public figures.

Surely the way to clear up all this mess is for Osborne, Rowe and Coulson to come out and tell the truth?

Has Osborne ever been on the nose candy?
Has he and Rowe ever (i) had sex?
(ii) for money?
(iii) Whilst Osborne was married?
What dirt does Coulson have on Osborne?

Tell the truth and everything goes away…

…of course the fact that the Tories on the blogg are scrambling about and attempting to deflect attention away from Osborne means that some of them at least believe that there is more to this than we are being told.

Imagine a poltical Party who made political capital from every piece of gossip from the State of Gordon Brown’s mental health to the relationship between him and Cherie Blair and a whole lot in between are now throwing up terms like ‘voyeuristic freak’?

The easiest thing you guys could have done to let this die a death was to ignore it, but of course, you now think that there something in this?

So, in the interests of holding the powerful to account, what is the truth? Has Osborne been puting his nose into powders and other parts of his body into places he shouldn’t? What have you guys heard?

This bunch of snobs from the Bullingdon Club appear to be Educated Yobs.

As time passes more and more is surfacing about these nasty, deceitful Politicians that are making a mess of running this country.

Jim,

Interesting bunch of questions:

Has Osborne ever been on the nose candy?
Has he and Rowe ever (i) had sex?
(ii) for money?
(iii) Whilst Osborne was married?
What dirt does Coulson have on Osborne?

Any of them any of our business anyway? I think all of those come under the heading of personal life. Basically, what someone who is not in public office (at the time) does with their life is their own (and maybe their wife and the police’s) business, but not yours or mine – so we have no right to ask. Once in public office, whilst I believe the same applies, others might have a better argument for that information.

Even if Mr Osborne has done Cocaine or used a prostitute, he can still have an opinion on those things (including they are wrong) and use arguments without having to resort to admiting personal experience. Otherwise we might as well give up any pretext of logical and thought-out politics and resort to basing everything on experience.

Wierdly, you’ll probably find most of the country agrees with me on this – they (or to be exact, an irritating large number of the rest of the country, but by no means all) may love celebrity gossip, but they don’t seem to be overly concerned about what people have done in the past – it is the now that interests them. Probably because everyone was younger once and may look back and think that things that were done then might be better left in the past?

@10 Watcman

Do you class the paying of Coulsons legal fees by news Int and a company car as severance? No matter what form it was paid it it should have been declared under commons rules. The fact it was’nt is further proof that Coulson is a self serving liar who was at the heart of No10 and was strongly recommended by Osborne surely the question must be why?

This speculation about someone’s private is quite frankly a shameful thing for an allegedly liberal site to publish.

@17 – If they moralise on family issues in public, while doing differently in private? Then that is certainly an issue which is worth public scrutiny.

It cannot be just if a politician pushes for laws for others, which he himself does not obey. There is a massive difference, too, between admitting past mistakes which are behind him and sweeping the episodes under the rug.

I’m, except sarcastically, not really interested in – for example – holding the bullingdon club against the Tory leadership. But this? No, fair game.

Watchman @ 15

Probably because everyone was younger once and may look back and think that things that were done then might be better left in the past?

However, Osborne is now a member of the cabinet that wants to see the rest of an eighteen year old man’s life ruined for stealing three and a half quid’s worth of water in a moment of madness. This is a party that seek to do little more than pontificate about the morals of ‘feral’ youth and talk about ‘broken Britain’, drug taking and casual sex. This is a party that wants to see people take responsibility for their actions and pay for the consequences of said actions.

George Osborne is a millionaire and gets to buy his way out of his grubby little lifestyle choices. The same choices he would batter the Country’s young people with if they made.

I don’t mind politicians having a private life, or even being hypercritical over some actions. However, if you join a Party that specifically targets ‘immoral behaviour’ as indicative of some kind of general malaise in society, then as far as I am concerned you better have lived a crystal clear life yourself.

If they moralise on family issues in public, while doing differently in private?

I’d be surprised if you can show me any examples of George Osborne moralising on family issues in public. He’s about the most liberal member of the Tory Party on social issues. Disagrees with Cameron on married tax credit for example. Bust a three line whip to vote against Howard on gay adoption.