13/07/2011 Newsnight

The phone hacking scandal has sunk Rupert Murdoch's plans to take

control of Britain's biggest pay TV broadcaster. What else has it done?

To how we think about politician, about the press, about the police.

This studio contains 27 people who voted for the three major parties

at the last election, but each of whom is unclear who they will vote

for next time. We are asking them to pass judgment tonight. I will be

asking a cabinet minister how they could even have contemplated

letting News Corp increase their role in the life of the nation. Our

audience will get a chance to tell panel of MPs what they think of

their leaders. And we have two keen political observers to assess the

damage done to politics and to journalism.

Good evening, it was another day of surprise, disbelief and anger, all

major parties agreed Rupert Murdoch's organisation should not

be able to take full control of Sky Television, and he backed off,

withdrawing the bid. The task of the judicial inquiry into media

practice was made public, and the ambition to have a thoughtful, non-

partisan debate in parliament didn't last long. First Michael

The horrors that parliament has endured in recent times, not least

the scandal over MPs' expenses, this was a day the House of Commons

asserted its authority. Uniting to defy one of the most powerful

institutions in the world. Questions to the Prime Minister.

Question Time showed how fast this story has moved. Having called Andy

Coulson a friend last Friday, David Cameron today had a marketedly -

markedly different tone. Of course I sought assurances and received

assurances from Andy Coulson, those were assurances, not just given at

the time to me, but also given subsequently to the select

committee and to a criminal case under oath. So these were

repeatedly given. Let me say again for the avoidance of any doubt, if

she is assurances turn out not to be true, then it is not just that

he shouldn't have worked in Government, it is that he should,

like others, face the full force of the law.

Next, Mr Cameron told MPs that Lord Justice Levison, no, not him, would

chair his new judicial inquiry into phone hacking, the press, the

police, politicians and much more besides. Clearly there are two

pieces of work that have to be done here, first, we need fall

investigation into wrongdoing in the press and the police, including

the failure of the first politics investigation. Second, we need a

review of regulation of the press. We would like to get on with both

these elements as quickly as possible, while being mindful of

the on going criminal investigations. After listening

carefully, we have decided the best way to proceed is with one inquiry,

but in two parts. The Prime Minister then returned to

Downing Street to meet the family of the murdered schoolgirl, Milly

Dowler. Perhaps the most shocking victims of the phone hacking

scandal. As the Dowlers were telling the PM that News Corp's bid

for BSkyB should be stopped, it suddenly was. News Corp has

withdrawn its bid for BSkyB, that in the last couple of moments.

news might have meant this afternoon's Commons debate on BSkyB

turned into a damp squib, but then came a dramatic speech by Gordon

Brown, only his second in the House since leaving Downing Street.

Delivered with all guns blazing. Those at News International who

took the freedom of the press as a license for abuse, who then

cynically manipulated our support of that vital freedom, as their

justification, and then callously used the defence of a free press as

the banner under which they marched in step, I say, with members of the

criminal underworld. It was this next su, this criminal media nexus,

claiming to be on the side of the law-abiding citizen, but standing

side-by-side with criminals against our citizens. As Tories taunted him

about his failure in office to contain the Murdoch empire, Mr

Brown said he too had tried to launch a judicial inquiry on phone

hacking by News International. In an astonishing attack on his

cabinet secretary, Sir Gus oh dol done national, still in office, he

listed the reasons O'Donnell had given in a memo to block it. That

while there were some facts, there was deliberate confusion by News

International, the select committee didn't believe the practices were

still continuing, and didn't meet the test of urgent public concern,

that time had elapsed and evidence may have been destroyed, that the

News of the World and individuals had already been punished in their

resignations and jail terms, that there was no evidence of systemic

failure in the police, and any way, all the decisions had been checked

with the Crown Prosecution Service. That targeting the News of the

World could be deemed to be politically motivated because it

was too close to the general election and would inevitably raise

questions over the motivation and urgency of an inquiry. Whereupon a

Tory backbencher accused Brown of failing toe tackle illegal press

activities against - failing to tackle illegal press activities

against them. In conjunction with members of the then Government

party in this House, conspired to smear Lord Ashcroft, and they...

And they illegally ...members opposite, members opposite think

there is one law for some, and one law for others. They illegally

bagged bank accounts to try to undermine Her Majesty's opposition,

he knew about it then, why was nothing done?

Mr Speaker, I have to say to the House, I'm surprised that this

debate, which started with our desire to protect the lives of

innocent children, should end up with the Conservative Party more

interested in defending Lord Ashcroft.

Brown's speech was so partisan as to endanger the cross-party

consensus, though the vote was unanimous. One of the remaining

interesting questions tonight is whether Rupert Murdoch, James

Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, will respond to the invitation to come

and answer questions before the Commons Culture Committee next

Tuesday. Tonight the chairman of that committee, John Whittingdale,

told MPs, if they don't respond soon, he may come to the House and

take the unusual step of seeking powers to force them to do so. It

was surely Rupert Murdoch's worst day in Britain, since arriving as a

student 60 years ago, made worse by senators in Washington urging an

inquiry there too, into whether his papers hacked into phones of the

victims of the September 11th attacks. With us now, put up by the

Government, not because he's Transport Secretary, but because

there is nothing he likes more than batting on a sticky wicket, is

Philip Hammond. Has your view about whether Rupert Murdoch should play

a bigger role in the media life of this country changed in the last

mortgage fight? - fortnight? Anybody who is associated with

wrongdoing has no role to play. your view changed in the last

fortnight? We have a policy of innocent until proven guilty. We

have a police inquiry and now a judicial inquiry into what went

wrong in the Murdoch empire and elsewhere in the media. I think

when people can see all the facts they will form their own judgment.

I'm asking if you formed your judgment, you haven't formed a

judge that he is anything other than he was a fortnight ago?

Clearly we have all started to form judgment, but I think it is wrong

to publicly make statements before we have heard all the evidence, and

before the police inquiry is completed, and the judicial inquiry

is completed. Let's be frank about this, had the Guardian not

disclosed that Milly Dowler's phone was hacked, there would have been

none of this hoo-ha, would there? Quite right. And that hasn't

changed your view of him? Clearly the fact that we have only

uncovered what has been going on, if you like, by a happy accident,

shows that there is something wrong with the way the press is regulated,

the way the press is managed in this country, and that is one of

the things that the inquiry has to look at. But it wasn't a happy

accident that this was discovered? You could have found out at any

time, the police could have found out at any time, but they didn't?

Obviously there has been a police inquiry in the past that has failed

and one of the things the inquiry will be looking at is why that

police inquiry failed to get to the truth. As far as you are concerned

you haven't changed your view of the Murdoch organisation. Let me

ask you this, do you think broadly speaking Rupert Murdoch has been a

force for good in this country? the basis of what we can see now,

that looks rather doubtful. So you have changed your view? Jeremy, you

don't know what my view was last week or last month. Your view would

be that he should be given the benefit of the doubt? Everybody

should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. There are some very

serious accusations of wrongdoing around the Murdoch organisation,

but what the inquiry want to look at, what the police investigation

will want to look at is who knew what when. Did you make these

anxieties of your's known to the rest of the cabinet? At what point.

I was going to ask the next question, first of all did you, and

when did you? I haven't actually discussed these issues in cabinet

at all. We had a discussion yesterday about the situation that

we find ourselves in, that the state of play. The Prime Minister

outlined to the cabinet yesterday his proposals for an inquiry that

he has set out to parliament today. That now has to go forward. We need

to get to the bottom of what has happened, not just the specifics of

this cautious but the much wider issues. We are sitting here this

evening, talking about the ish uets this evening and people will want

to - issues this evening and people will want to know whether the rot

stops with the Murdoch organisation or has spread to the other parts of

the British media. We hope the inquiry will discover that, the

particular point about the News Corp element to all of this, is the

BSkyB question. Supposing Murdoch mur comes back to you in say a year

or - Rupert Murdoch comes back to you in a year or so's time and

makes another bid for BSkyB, with the anxieties you clearly entertain

about him, would he be a fit person or his organisation a fit

organisation to take it over? year or two time we will have the

benefit of a completed police investigation, and the inquiry that

the Prime Minister has announced today. So we will all, the public

and politicians, we will all know much more about the facts. We will

be in a position to make that judgment. I hate to be boring, but

the Government has to operate within the law, and under the

present law, there are two tests that apply around ownership of

media, one is the fit and proper test, which Ofcom is the guardian

of, and the other is the plurality in the media test, which the

Government is the guardian of, in the case of a proposal for a

takeover or merger. So we just have to wait and see? Will Murdoch has

withdrawn his bid. So the immediate problem has gone away. We will now

find out, through a process of a police investigation, and a

judicial inquiry, exactly what has happened. If at some point in the

future, this is entirely hypothetical, if at some point in

the future, Mr Murdoch were to return, and seek again to take over

BSkyB, we would then able to respond with the benefit of the

outcome of that inquiry in that police investigation, and possibly

it may be the case that in the course of that process we come to

the conclusion, we collectively come to the conclusion that we need

to change the law that governs media ownership, and issues around

concentration of power in the media. Several people this afternoon have

been talking about this, and I think quite likely that will be one

of the issues that comes out of this inquiry.

Let's get some sense of how live an issue this is, it last electrified

clearly the politicians of this country, and parliament believes

that it was acting on behalf of worried citizens, when today, more

or less, everybody in the House was on the same side on this issue. Are

you, as a group of committed voters but undecided how you are going to

vote next time. Are you electrified by it, are you worried by it?

Anyone want to kick the ball off, yes, you sir? I think the general

consensus from the general public is hacking has been going on a long,

long time. Not just recently, and probably not just by the News of

the World. In terms of being mortified by it, not really, it is

something I expected,s - it is something I probably had my own

conspiracy theories about it myself. I'm mortified by the fact they have

been hacking soldiers' phones and Milly Dowler. You question whether

those two cases hadn't come up whether we would be in the

situation there now. Celebrities' phones have been hacked and nothing

was done about it, is it only the recent hackings. Who sells worried

about it? I'm concerned that - else is worried about it?

concerned it appears to have resolved itself in a matter of

minutes from being a universal of view of doing something about it,

to becoming part of political squabble. David Cameron seemed to

be in no doubt when he first spoke that there was a case to answer for

Murdoch, before the inquiry, when he said it was incone receivable

that he was a fit and proper person - inconceivable that he was a fit

and proper person to take over BSkyB. Who else is worried about

this relationship between the press, or certain elements of the press,

and the way politics works in this country? The way that the

politicians seem to have been completely craven. The closeness of

the relationship, the paliness of it at times, the media Barons and

their influence, all to be inquire into by the judge? It is a deeply

unhealthy situation, it means the politicians don't seem to stand on

principle, they stand, they never wanted to upset Murdoch and because

he might be influential in telling the voters who they should vote for.

Were you shock bid what you learned? We have known for a long

time that there has been this very deep connection between the Murdoch

empire, in particular, and politicians. And other empires too,

probably? Yes, but he seems to be the stand out person, everybody

talks about Murdoch and News Corp. And he is also, you know, News of

the World is a very big paper. I think it is very unhealthy. I hope

that it means that politicians...Does Anybody here

read News of the World? headlines. You are prepared to

admit for it, congratulations for your Hon estity? If I'm reading the

papers on the Sunday, I get a nuets news and an ap observer, and then I

read the news use - News of the World, and I read the News of the

World and flick through the Observer. Where do you imagine

where all the stories come from? never put that much thought into it.

It seems like a load of nonsense. When I read papers like that it is

with friends over Sunday lunch, it is more like reading out bits of

nonsense, it is kind of like a comic. Aren't you partly culpable

in this? Now, I suppose. Actually no, because I had no idea of that.

I was very shocked by it. You are part of the appetite? But I didn't

have any idea that type of thing was going on, do you know what I

mean. I do realise that there is shoddy journalism, but I suppose I

never really put that much thought into T I'm not sorry, I enjoyed

reading the News of the World. Would you confess? I wouldn't

confess to reading that newspaper, I wouldn't even mention the name.

What I was going to say is that, in a way, we as the readership, have

created that monster. It is we, not me myself, but other people, I

never bought that newspaper, they went and bought the Sun, they went

and bought the News of the World, and they created this monster, and

all these politicians felt that they had to cosy up to him. So it

is our fault as well as the politicians.

You are not here as a spokesman for News of the World, you have a close

relationship with the Times, I wonder if this public perception

about the closeness of the relationship is actually, how does

it seem from the other side of the fence where you are? I certainly

think a bit like with MPs' expenses, there is a goch cha moment. People

understand - gotcha moment, people understood something they didn't

like was going on, they were leery about the tabloid press even when

they enjoyed it. Now there are unsavoury things, which is a bit

beyond people really understood was happening. I was completely

astonished and appalled by the Milly Dowler example. But they did

realise that something they didn't like was happening. I think that

the element of surprise, there is an element of surprise about the

individual acts, but not, I think, about the overall relationship or

the way that tabloids operated. What's it like inside Wapping these

days? I think everyone who works for the Times is very dismayed. We

are dismayed as human beings, but we are also dismayed to be employed

by people who were also employing people who did these things. You

can't but be moved as a human being and also very angry about it. And

worried about the consequences for the company as well. As far as your

job is public opinion, are the public really exercised about this?

I think it is important to keep it in perspective, yes it matters, of

course it matters, but actually, a lot of other things matter a lot

more to people. I was doing focus groups last week, this wasn't even

mentioned. When I prompted them, they talked about it a little bit

and then they moved on to the things that really did matter, like

their jobs. I'm shower everybody in this studio is more concerned about

their own family finances than they are about Murdoch's family finances,

really. That's how people make their political decisions in the

end, is on the things that affect them, it is not so surprising.

you looked into people's attitudes to the relationship between what

they read as we have very frankly confessed to over there in a

tabloid newspaper, and what's gone on to get that story and what it

does generally to the relationship between the citizen and the

powerful. I think as this lady suggested, actually, people don't

scrutinise that carefully, they don't think that hard about where

the story came from. But I agree with Danny, I'm not sure there

would be that many surprised. Also people would be not that surprised

about what has been revealed about the proximity about the

relationship of some politicians and the media as well. I think

people would say, yep, that's just what we thought. Is that healthy?

don't think it is, no. What do you think? They would think it wasn't.

Do you think it is healthy? relationship, actually I think that

a huge amount is put into the idea that because some people have

cocktail parties together it influences what the newspapers say.

In the end I think the newspapers are trying to please their readers,

and they are trying to respond to their readers' instincts. For

example, I think if there wasn't a Murdoch-owned press in this country,

it doesn't mean there wouldn't be lots of newspapers that took a

tough line on crime and were Euro- sceptic, because they are chasing

readers and that is what readers think. I think actually the

relationship between politicians and the press isn't as important an

issue as stated. What I'm most concerned about, any journalists

would be, is press methods, making sure the press methods are not

allowed to exist and as much light is cast on them, and as much done

about possible. I know you have to go, do you want parting shot on the

relationship, the closeness between media Barons, it has always gone on,

between media barons and the political people in this country?

It has always gone on, and possibly I think the perception is that it

is intensified over the last couple of decades and clearly now this

inquiry is going to lay bear what has been going on, and the

closeness of that relationship, and I think people will feel a lot more

comfortable if we lance that boil, and the public are able to feel

confident that there is just that bit more distance between the media

organisations, and the politicians. Let's be honest, the culture that

was established over the last 15 or so years, was one, and certainly

this is the way people in Westminster have thought about it,

that the question is, is it possible to get elected without the

support of the Murdoch press? And certainly it has been common wisdom

in Westminster that you need the support of the Murdoch press to be

successful in politics, that is pretty dangerous. Is that true or

is it a myth? I think it is a complete myth. I think that Neil

Kinnock, for example, lost in 1992, because people didn't want him to

be Prime Minister. The reason that Tony Blair moved towards the murd

mur press is because he could - the Murdoch press, is because he could

see the Sun was saying things he wanted Labour to be connected with.

Tony Blair wrote a personal letter to Stuart Higgins praising him for

the Sun's magnificent contribution? If anyone thinks at the end of this

people won't want to have good personal relationships with the

people writing about them, then I think they are being naive. I don't

expect anyone thinks that will happen. If anyone thinks Tony Blair

will stop sending thank you letters to people they are not

understanding it. Politicians of all parties have

seen this scandal as an opportunity for parliament to reassert itself,

by giving voice to widespread revulsion felt by the public. The

other institution being tarnished is the police, who not only failed

to mount proper investigations of alleged wrongdoing, but made two,

including in their ranks, officer who took money from News

International. While a police officer, did you

ever receive payment from any news organisation? Gooden, absolutely

not. I can't believe you suggested that. Had I known in July 2009,

what I now know, I would have made different decision, and I expressed

clearly and publicly, my regrets. Your evidence today is unconvincing,

and there are more questions to be asked about what happened when you

conducted this review. Right now who has been surprised,

shocked, appalled, maybe not surprised, by what we have learned

in the last few days about how the police failed to investigate these

allegations, and the accusations of policemen taking money.

Has anyone got a view on that. I have to say, I was very shocked,

yeah, and surprised as well, by the police and the collusion, and about

the alleged bribe taking as well, I was very shocked. You just didn't

imagine it? I didn't think it was possible. I just didn't think it

was possible for the police to allegedly take bribes from the

press, I was very shocked. Anyone else share that view? I was

shocked but I was more shocked by the failure of the first

investigation. Because the amount of evidence they had at their

disposal, and the way that seemed to be dropped. Again these are

allegations and this may be proved in the future what has really

happened. It is incontravertable that they had the evidence and they

failed to act upon it. We have never had an answer to that. These

were very senior policemen indeed testifying yesterday, upon whose

shoulders rest our security, from perhaps terrorist attacks, did that

surprise you? Yeah, it did surprise me, it is easy to be cynical about

it, the police I suppose is a microcosim of all sorts of people,

and sooner or later there is going to be a few bent ones, and I'm more

interested in weedling the ones out so we can look at the police force

and try not to lose faith with it entirely, and have a blinkered view

of them as all corrupt. Because they are obviously not. Anyone else

got a view on that? I think the inquiry that was uncovering all the

evidence was blunted to begin with. I think that was the big shame of

it, because it was only sort of set to do a certain job, and it wasn't

set to protect the public from phone hacking and all the things

that we have had come out since then. I think that when an inquiry

is set up it should have a more broader scope so that it can do

what it is supposed to do, which is protect us. Let's move on to the

party leaders now, the party leaders who were happy enough, only

a couple of weeks or so ago to take Rupert Murdoch's hospitality, are

now competing with each other about the most robust of defying them. We

thought about getting a focus group before the scandal blew up, by

common consent it has changed what people think of the party leaders.

Rupert Murdoch is now in town in London seeking to sort things out.

I would simply say to him, look how people feel about this. Look how

the country has reacted with revulsion to the revelations. So do

the decent and sensible thing, and reconsider. As Prime Minister,

people want to know, are you going to sort this issue out, inquiries

to get to the truth, a proper police investigation, no cover-up

of what might have happened in previous police investigations, and

yes, some frankness about what the politicians got wrong themselves.

He hasn't shown the leadership necessary on BSkyB, and he hasn't

shown the leadership necessary on News International, isn't it the

case if the public is to have confidence in him he has to calm

the thing most difficult, he has to accept he made a catastrophic error

of judgment by bringing Andy Coulson into the heart of his

Downing Street machine. Who thinks a particular party

leader had his finger on the pulse this week? No-one was impressed by

anybody. Who was unimpressed by somebody? They all had their

fingers on the pulse in identifying something that was universally felt,

and reacted to it in different ways. I thought the only leader who has

actually come out of it with an advantage has been Ed Miliband,

because he has been able to take the initiative for the first time

in about a year. It is striking, Danny when you look at three weeks

ago, and when you look at what people are saying about Ed Miliband,

and you compare what they are saying now. This has been something

on which he has made a lot of progress in leadership terms?

very interesting, I'm genuinely interested as if that is a view

outside the Westminster village. know t the polling tells us it is.

Who thinks Ed Miliband has had, made progress in the last week or

so? Who cares about who the leader is, they change them very frequent,

and it makes no difference who the leader is. The leader is sitting on

the back of a tiger, he has no control.

Was anyone impressed by the way David Cameron dealt with this?

I come back on the Miliband point. You might as well, nobody else

wants to speak. You are having to push the boulder heavily to get any

response at all on that. That's because I just don't think that how

the leaders reacted on this will be a determining factor, even next

week. It is very, very important for journalists and everyone is

shocked by the revelation, but whether they think this is really

about the press or particular politician, I do doubt that. I know

that people inside politics have taken this very strong view that it

has been transformative for Ed Miliband. I wonder if that is true.

You are quite right the Westminster village is agog and the rest of the

world isn't, the audience are barring that out. It is fact that

Ed Miliband's ratings have improved. Some have. He has been impressive

on it, it isn't a judgment about him, it is jaument about how

important people think that is. This isn't an issue that matters

much in people's lives, they want to see Ed Miliband making progress

on things that do matter to them, I guess.

We can talk now to our panel of MPs, Louis Minch from the Conservatives,

Tessa Jowell from Labour, and Simon Hughes from the Liberal Democrats.

We heard Gordon Brown say today he was desperate to mount the sort of

investigation David Cameron is now going to mount into how the press

act, did you obstruct him, how can Cameron do it and Brown couldn't?

think the way Gordon delivered his extremely powerful speech was also

very heavily affected by the personal hurt that he felt about

the revelation about his own children. That has nothing to do

with why he couldn't mount an investigation? He was very close to

the election. When you are close to an election, it is right that this

is the case, what even prime ministers can do is very limited by

the proximity of the election and not getting unfair political

advantage simply because you are in Government. So I listened quite

carefully, I hadn't seen the advice that Gus O'Donnell gave him, but I

listened very carefully to what Gordon Brown gave, and it was

cautious advice, informed much more about the proximity of the election.

But I think, I just wanted to say this, I'm very struck by just how

somber everybody feels about this. It very much reflects with a

discussion that I have had with people that I represent in my own

constituency, that it is a whole lot of things coming together, a

collapse of confidence in the media. People feeling pretty shocked about

what appears to have been the behaviour of the police, the

banking crisis and so forth. But increasingly what people feel is

they just have to look after themselves, and their families so,

the people they rely on, rather than these institutions, that are

intended to protect. I think that Ed Miliband has actually understood

how people feel, and I think that what is really powerful about what

he has done is to lead...Is to lead the argument. This is very much

going on. You haven't interrupted me yet. I was wondering where you

were going next! To lead the argument which is above party

politics. That is a fair point to let someone else have a shout. It

raises the question why your leader has been so off the pace on this?

He is the person announcing the judicial inquiry. If we look at the

relationship. All the running has been made by Miliband bapd - Ed

Miliband and Nick Clegg? It was the Prime Minister, I don't agree, we

have a judicial inquiry, one that Labour couldn't do. It was close to

the election, so why wasn't it announced before the election. Why

wait until before the last minute when News International withdrew

their support to say they would like an inquiry. David Cameron has

announced a package of measures that will begin to restore some

confidence and it will be a long time before it is fully restored.

One of the most important is that from now on, whenever a politician,

a senior Government official and minister has a meeting with a

member of the press, they will have to log that, so no more secret

meetings, cosy chats, everything open and above board, that is a

reform that is long overdue, when people know when their politicians

are meeting the press they will feel more confident. Simon Hughes,

your leader in all of this, he hasn't been very visible, has he?

He is the deputy Prime Minister, not the Prime Minister, he has been

clear, I will be very partisan about this. We have said for 17

years as a party that Murdoch had too much power and influence, we

have sought tole change Labour to get them to change the Competition

Act which, they refused to do, to deal with newspaper pricing, two

years before the election we called for a judicial inquiry. Ever since

the Culture Committee in 2003 said this was widespread, they asked for

action, when the information commissioner said there were 305

journalists, a whole list of titles, 35 different paper, 300-odd

journalists involved and recommended action, Labour did

nothing. We asked them to, nothing happened. There was no judicial

inquiry. Before the election, Nick, with colleagues called for a

judicial inquiry, and said Murdoch was too powerful, and risked being

attacked by Murdoch and given a hard time by the Murdoch press as a

result. We have always had that position, we have never cosied up

to them and Nick was clear from last weekend that the Murdochs

should take the bid away and said so. They didn't cosy up to them and

they didn't bother to cosy up to you because you were so irrelevant,

that is the truth of the Liberal Democrats? The reality is, of

course they were seeking to be close to the people in power, but

Blair did not have to fly in to Australia in 1995, he didn't have

to phone Murdoch three times before the Iraq war happened. That was far

more than normal behaviour. mentioned the fear of the Murdoch

press, have you ever been personally threatened, any of you

by the Murdoch press, they will write something about you? You know

that I have, that is the answer, my private life was on the front page

of the newspapers. I gave evidence to the police in 2006, which led to

the conviction of the two guys who were imprisoned. I decided there

was no reason in hiding and come out. As a result of that, other

people who did the same, very few people gave evidence, still nothing

happened, it was widely known, I think the gentleman over there said,

it was widely known there was widespread abuse and nothing under

Labour happened, because they were too close. You are on the culture,

media and sport select committee, you have said you want to hear from

Rupert Murdoch and his Lieutenants next week, will they appear before

you? Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks have been summoned

to ask questions that the previous committee was misled on, it is a

huge opportunity they should take. They have said they will co-operate,

and they have told us they will let us know if they will come. If they

don't we have powers over British sit certain, over Mrs Brooks.

Rupert and James Murdoch are American citizens and we have no

power over them. It would surprise everyone if they had the guts to

show up t would show a little bit of leadership, and with be the

first step in lancing this giant boil, and I would encourage them to

come and show up and answer questions. There is no way you can

make them? No, we can make Mrs Brooks. We can say to Rupert

Murdoch he's running a global organisation, if he wants to lance

the boil he can show up and surprise everyone in front of the

select committee on Tuesday and win back a bit of respect, I would urge

him to do it. Other newspaper proprietyors should be summoned -

proprietors should be summoned before the committee too? They

should, the inquiry has to establish the extent of wrongdoing

beyond allegation, in News International, but also look at

practices in other papers. Simon is absolutely right, start by going

back to the Information Commissioner's report, which I

don't think as a Government we took seriously enough. If I may say, you

asked if we had been threatened by News International, I have been

personally threatened by the Mail, I think it is important the British

public out there realised, while News International has a lot of

questions to answer, they are by no means the only media organisation

that is involved in hacking, I want to hear from Trinity Mirror, I want

to hear from Associated Newspaper, and everybody out there should

understand it is a tabloid problem for the press, the whole of the

press, and not merely the Murdoch papers. You were threatened with

something to do with your private life? I was threatened with

something to do with my private life, I do not care, I was

threatened by a journalist on the Mail, when I spiked her exclusive

on my divorce which she obtained by deception. I can say this goes on

throughout the press and by no means limited to the News of the

World and the News International stable. Can I say one thing, my

concern was always, when I was affected, it wasn't people like us,

who can stand up for ourselves, it was the families, friends and

constituents and other people, I know that actually it was friends

and family of mine who were far more affected adversary than I was

by the interference on my phone, that is why the revelations of the

last two weeks it is about people like these, not people like us.

fortnight is a very long time in politics. What has happened this

week and last came out of the blue, and no-one knows where it will end.

Let's remind ourselves of how the main party leaders had been faring

before the whole affair began. What happened on Bloody Sunday was

both unjustified and unjustifyable. It was wrong.

I think I have been saying throughout this contest you

shouldn't trust the bookies. declare Ed Miliband the winner and

the leader of the Labour Party. not going to apologise for creating

a system, which I think, over the years, will be shown to be a much

fairer one than the one we have inherited.

There is not a right to go on the streets of London want to go pursue

It is a chance to have a better politics in Britain. It is a chance

to choose hope over fear. It is a chance to choose change over the

status quo. Why is it that we're all told to walk around like

this...Squeeze Wages, squeezed aspirations and squeezed prospects.

Danny Finkelstein, how much has this last fortnight changed the

position of the party leaders? ultimately think that events like

this, they fade quite quickly, and so, I don't think we should look at

the events, we should try to look at the trend over a long period of

time. The thing that is really going to be a big problem for David

Cameron is going to be the economy, is going to be whether he seems to

be leading strongly on the economy, and for Ed Miliband, despite having

a good week in Westminster terms, I don't think that is going to change

fundamentally his problem, which is trying to move the Labour Party so

that it can be seen as a governing force again when so many people

have got guess - questions about him, we have to avoid thinking the

last couple of weeks that have been undoubt thely challenging and in

political terms exciting, should fundamentally change the outlook.

Do you think they will make a difference? It is a bit early to

change. For Ed Miliband I feel he has found a voice this week and

made a connection with the public that he hadn't made before,

although around facing a common enemy. I think potentially the

bigger worry actually is for David Cameron, I think that what people

may fear with him, which is that he's a Tory reverting to form, and

standing up for his well-to-do friend. He has looked uncomfortable

this week, he has looked on the back foot. He doesn't seem, I think,

to have shown the same leadership. I think he would be lucky if this

is his big problem. The big problem is inflation, large amount of

unemployment, people facing an income squeeze, tuition fees, those

are the problems. It is about whether people trust him to sort

those problems out in their interest. What they might have seen

this week is a Prime Minister, they might be worrying is this a Prime

Minister more concerned about rich people than people like me. That is

the problem that is one of the reasons. Seeing him going riding

with Rebekah Brooks. That is one of the reasons why the Tories didn't

win a majority people fear that about the Tory Party. That is his

weakness. The importance he has to the Tory Party is that he seems to

be a little bit different, if he loses that it is serious for the

Tories. I just don't think this week, this issue will be the issue.

This is an issue about the press, it is not really about him. There

will be an issue of judgment about Andy Coulson, that might feed

through. Again, how many people are really that knowledgeable but who

his press officer was. Brooks friendship is more of an issue.

a year's time if people can remember the name I would be

surprised. Has anyone in the audience had their view of a leader

changed by what has happened this week? David Cameron has taken on

the mess that has left behind, David Cameron, in the last 14

months he has had to pick up. It was have these funds with all this

money, now we have all this huge debt and instead of thinking about

us, us citizens that have to pay our taxes and everything,

everything is being cut for us. I think someone needs to look out and

start doing it so that we benefit from it. The tuition fees,

everything obviously what this guy has said himself, basically it need

to be all addressed. I feel sorry for Cameron, he has come along to a

big mess and pick it up. This what has come out now, this next week

will be chip paper, this won't be anything positive, we need it start

thinking about us. It is insignificant really? To be honest

I couldn't careless. I slightly disagree. I think the general

consensus is that politicians, unfortunately, we assume they lie,

or don't tell us the whole truth. I think David Cameron, and all of

them probably have known about this hackings scandal for ages, and have

chosen not to tell us, or tell us in the right way. They are only, in

a sense, they have been reactive rather than pro-active, they are

dealing now they know about it, rather than dealing with while they

could before we knew about it. All of them are being very reactive,

knowing about something for so many years and hideing it under the

carpet, and now all trying to take points off each other or score

points off each other and revealing it now, it is very bad for him.

there anyone here who like Nick Clegg, when he was leader first of

the Liberal Democrats, have you changed your view anyone? I find a

lot of people take this attitude to Nick Clegg, that when he came into

the coalition that he couldn't get what he wanted with all his

policies, but being a junior partner in a coalition, all you can

really do is to temper the worst aspects of the larger party, and

then perhaps get a few of your own headline policies through. The only

one that they really seemed to go for was very ill-advisedly on the

alternative vote, which is not even part of the liberal idea of

proportional representation. My Tikritism would lie with the fact

that - my Tikritism would be that proportionally they have more

Liberal Democrat ministers in the Government, taking a lot more of

the flack. They should have been more inclined to get more of their

policies carried forward rather than the bums on seats on the

ministers' seats. Instead of engaging particularly with that

question, the three of you, how has politics changed in the year and a

bit since the election? I guess everyone knew they would be taking

on one heck of a problem economically, whoever won, but

politics have changed, haven't they, in the last year? The fundamental

thing that has changed in the last year is we are in a coalition

Government. Which I think a year ago nobody could have predicted,

Tories and Liberal Democrats working together in the national

interest. It is like the young lady said in the front, we picked up a

hell of a mess and it is taking two parties to lean it up. At the end

of the day you can look at all the things, I had a 35-page briefing

notes from my party to come in on newspaper and sell the Government's

policies, we can talk about academies and military allowance t

will end up on the economy, the way it always does. What is happening

right now in Europe, that nobody is noticing because of hackgate is

there is a gigantic crisis in the eurozone, we have managed to reduce

the cost of borrowing. Hackgate? Yes, we are managing to reduce the

cost of borrowing by difficult decisions we have taken, they are

tough, nobody is expecting an American particularer tape for it,

it has to be done. If you look at the polling on who is more trusts

on the economy, Nick Clegg, and David Cameron and George Osborne,

and Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats showing huge political

courage, come out on top every time. What page of the briefing notes?

2, 3, 4, right through to 35! is ignoring the briefing notes and

going to the heart of the matter, that is fixing the deficit and

fixing the financial problems has to be the number one task in

Government together, whatever our differences, that is the key.

You could say that Cameron lost his gloss a bit this week, is that how

it seems to you? No, I think that, I am being very honest, the Tories

and the Labour Party are slow to get to this issue we have been

dealing with this week. You would agree oneing was made by Ed

Miliband and the Labour Party? had an opposition day debate, he

then worked with us, the Labour Party worked with us to make sure

the wording of the motion was inclusive, I respect that, I was

grateful for that. He was in a difficult position as leader of the

opposition a couple of weeks ago, people wondering if if he would

survive to the party conference, he has done better in the last few

weeks, that is good. But last December the Labour Party were

having a go at Vince Cable because of his views saying the Murdoch

empire was too powerful. Last December, it is pretty late

conversion. Just to link your question to the gentleman's

question, coalition is entirely different. If the figures had been

different we would have been working with Labour, probably. We

were working in the national interest with the Tories, because

that is the way you the electorate left the figures after the

electionment we are trying to get all our policies agreed as much as

possible, two-thirds have been implemented. Our job is to temper

the Tories, I have to say it would have been a very different economic

prescription if it was a Tory-only Government. We are delighted to be

there making it not a Tory-only Government, and we are making it a

fairer Britain, despite of the difficulties inherited. When you

saw Gordon Brown's speech you saw suddenly this flashback of how

politics used to be, really tribal, it doesn't feel right now? I think

the country has changed. You are absolutely right. I agree with much

that has been said. I think that what people increasingly want is a

sense that their politicians, their Members of Parliament, are people

who understand their lives, and just want to create solutions. But

you see there is a great difference between, I think, where we are in

Labour, and the coalition. Particularly the Conservative part

of the coalition. It seems absolutely clear toe me, from the

every day - clear to me, from the every day lives from the people I

know and I represent, if you haven't got active Government,

supporting people in realising things on their own behalf, it is

much, much harder. That's not knocking up against an ideolgical

position, with particularly the Conservative part of the coalition,

which basically says people manage on their own, and without the

Government. You don't get apprenticeships, you don't get

growth, you don't get the kind of stimulation of the economy that's

going to get young people, across London, where we are now, or across

the country, back into work. You don't get ...You Are beginning to

sound like a briefing document now? A briefing book! I want to bring in

this couple over here. Go on. fascinating thing about a focus

group it reveals the gap between Westminster and what people think.

You are having to push it really hard to get anyone to say anything

about hackgate or get any echo of the Westminster consensus, this is

a transformative moment in politics, it is fantastic for Ed Miliband.

This is not where people are. Obviously the thing that will

transform people's prospects what happens over the next year to

living standard. That is what people really care about. It is not

where people really are in the top nine things in the list, it there

is in the back of their mind. I have had people coming up to me

saying you have to get Murdoch now. It is Not The Nine O'Clock News an

issue it is not just - it is not not an issue it is not just up at

the top. I'm not saying it is important, I work as a journalist,

I'm saying what the electoral reaction will be. I have had more

calls and e-mails to my office about this than anything else in

the last five years. They are not just all organised campaign e-mail,

it is people feeling very strongly about and it letting me know about

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 46 seconds

Thank you all very much. That's all for tonight. Last night

we left you with pictures which are producer claimed were of the planet

Neptune, not a single viewer pointed out they weren't, they were

of your Anneous, or his at least - Uraneous. Here is the real thing,

we think. # Neptune is a planet

# In our solar system # It has its own winds

# In a solar system # It orbited round the sun